1. CONSTRUCTING AUTHENTIC AND MEANINGFUL ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS FOR MEASURING TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS AND STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Brenda Burrell, Ph.D., Paul M. Bole, Ed.D. Janice Janz, Ph.D, & Richelle Voelker, M.Ed. University of New Orleans (UNO) Kristin A. Gansle, Ph.D. Louisiana State University (LSU)

2. CONTRIBUTE TO THE NATIONAL DISCUSSION OF THE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR STUDENT LEARNING THROUGH EFFECTIVE TEACHER PREPARATIONS Purpose

3. Assessment Demand for accountability Opportunity to examine the relationship between teaching and learning Evidence of strengths, needs for improvement, and impact “The processes of teaching and learning stimulate one another.” ( Confucius )

4. Agenda Louisiana Department of Education  LA Teacher Preparation Program (TPP) Assessment  Value-Added Teacher Evaluation Model  Data and Results UNO Collaborative Redesign Project  Collaborative Processes  Results: In-Progress  Subsequent Plans Conversations with Colleagues  Discussion Questions  Open Discussion

5. LOUISIANA METRICS OF TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS INCORPORATING STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Kristin A. Gansle, Ph.D. Louisiana State University (LSU)

6. LA Teacher Preparation Program (TPP) Assessment 2000-2001 & Following How to measure our program completers’ success in terms of the achievement of their students? Especially important given statewide redesign of academic programs including SpEd by TPPs BoR (Jeanne Burns), Blue Ribbon Commission, LSU (George Noell, Kristin Gansle) Have been using Value-Added metrics to evaluate TPPs since 2003

7. What Do We Do? Predict achievement of individual students based on prior achievement, demographics, and attendance (using State achievement tests: HLM, mean approx 300, sd approx 50) Assess actual student achievement Link the difference between predicted achievement and actual student achievement to their new teachers and the TPPs that taught them Act on results

8. Predictors for LDOE Value-Added Teacher Evaluation Model (Current Model) Prior Student Achievement Attendance Gifted Classification Free/Reduced Lunch Status Section 504 Status Disability Status Discipline Records Retained students are included in the analysis

9. Value-Added Model State Achievement Tests (Math, Science, Social Studies, Reading, & Language Arts - Grades 4-9) New Teachers: 1st and 2nd year teachers with regular certificates Teaching within area of certification Full academic year with their students Experienced Teachers: 3rd or subsequent year teachers with regular certificates Teaching within area of certification Each year: all districts, 250,000 students, 7000+ teachers, 1300+ schools

10. Data We Provide to TPPs (October, 2006) By content areas (Reading, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, English/Language Arts) (March, 2011) By certification/grade spans within content areas (Grades 1-5, Grades 4-8, Grades 6-12, & Special Education) (Fall, 2011) By student performance subsets within content areas (Low, Middle, and High) By special education status (yes/no) for student groups By free lunch status (free lunch/pay own lunch) By LEP status

11. Data We Provide to TPPs (continued) (Fall 2011) Deidentified individual teacher data for programs Value-Added Score for each teacher Mean content standards scores from standardized testing program (LEAP, iLEAP) for ELA, Math, Reading, Science, Social Studies What does that look like?

12. Overall Results overall contentN mean effect sem ELA 751.00.7 Mathematics 1035.10.9 Reading 48-2.20.9 Science 882.71.0 Social Studies 660.71.7

13. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Kristin A. Gansle kgansle@lsu.edu Jeanne M. Burns jeanne.burns@la.gov George H. Noell gnoell@lsu.edu http://regents.la.gov/value-added-teacher-preparation-program- assessment-model/

14. Certification Endorsements Elementary GradesMiddle SchoolSecondary GradesSpecial Education contentn mean effect semn mean effect semn mean effect semn mean effect sem ELA 42-0.81.1303.11.6411.1121.22.8 Mathematics 471.41.3694.21.2283.81.3121.01.8 Reading 40-0.60.983.22.993.02.683.72.9 Science 38-1.61.1402.51.620-0.41.35-2.91.9 Social Studies 35-2.71.7102.04.2194.13.25-5.14.2

15. Achievement Bands Lowest 25%Middle 50%Highest 25% content n mean effect semn mean effect semn mean effect sem ELA 25-4.71.7341.0 21-2.21.2 Mathematics 24-5.21.9312.11.221-0.61.5 Reading 17-1.81.6240.30.917-0.20.9 Science 27-2.41.0290.01.119-0.91.2 Social Studies 30-0.91.5370.01.425-0.12.1

16. Free Lunch/Not SpEd/no SpEd Free LunchPaid Lunch Special Education No Special Education Services n mean effect semn mean effect semn mean effect semn mean effect sem ELA 50-0.50.8471.30.7400.31.444-1.30.9 Mathematics 40-1.41.0312.01.120-1.21.145-1.91.1 Reading 34-1.90.7431.50.817-0.91.538-2.10.9 Science 38-0.21.0380.8 231.0 320.31.0 Social Studies 45-1.41.1400.71.029-0.81.540-1.51.1

17. Deidentified Data in Excel File TPPs Can Use as They Wish

18. UNO: PROGRAM DATA Brenda Burrell, Ph.D. Paul Bole, Ed.D. Janice Janz, Ph.D. & Richelle Voelker, M.Ed. University of New Orleans (UNO)

19. Collaborative Processes Analyzing and synthesizing professional standards and literature Interviews, surveys, and discussions with multiple and diverse stakeholders Individual and committee design and development work sessions

20. Results: Work In-Progress Response to Louisiana TPP Assessment Constructive Principles Concordance of Professional Standards Revised Conceptual Framework Answers to Key Questions: Perspectives

21. Response to LA TPP Assessment Concerns/Opportunities School administrators may not know what to look for when observing special education instruction Potential Strategies Provide professional development opportunities for school leadership personnel Develop guidelines aligned with research based special education practices

22. Response to LA TPP Assessment Concerns/Opportunities It may be difficult to determine how to assign effectiveness scores to special education teachers working in inclusive settings Teachers in high-need schools may not be rated similarly as those in more advantaged schools Potential Strategies Research Disseminate findings Make recommendations Facilitate systemic changes

23. Response to LA TPP Assessment Concerns/Opportunities It may be difficult for special education teachers to score “highly effective” on some elements of the Danielson framework Some teachers may develop Student Learning Targets (SLTs) that are problematic Potential Strategies Advocate for revised descriptions in rubric to align with special education practices and provide corresponding examples to assist principals when observing effective instructional practices Review samples of SLTs developed by special education teachers to determine specific issues and develop corresponding training materials

24. Constructive Principles Collaboratively Designed Informed by Multiple and Diverse Resources Linked to Professional Standards Useful for Multiple Assessment Points Yields Data to Inform/Improve Teacher Education

25. Concordance of Professional Standards Danielson Framework for Teaching Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) International Reading Association (IRA) National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS) National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Louisiana Components of Effective Teaching UNO Roles and Responsibilities of Teachers

26. Revised Conceptual Framework Roles & Responsibilities of Effective Teachers Manage Classroom Contexts/Environments Design Curriculum and Instruction Deliver Instruction and Assess Learning Participate in Professional Responsibilities (e.g., Advocacy, Collaboration, Using Data to Improve Practice)

27. Answers to Key Questions: Perspectives Questions How should IHE faculty assess teachers’ use of evidence-based practices and teacher effectiveness How should IHE faculty assess program completers’ impact on student learning and student behavioral progress? Sample Responses Video Sample of Teaching Surveys/Interviews Informal Observations Progress Monitoring Student Work Samples Student/Teacher Portfolios

28. Subsequent Plans Develop our own teacher evaluation rubric Use same teacher evaluation rubric across concluding semesters of preparation and during initial years of teaching after program completion (induction); using evaluation to provide support Conduct field testing and research Make recommendations to the Louisiana DOE regarding rubric currently used for State teacher assessment and/or training provided to evaluators

29. Conversations with Colleagues Question: Set 1 What data related to teacher effectiveness and student achievement should and can be collected by faculty in teacher education programs? What data will represent authentic and meaningful measures of academic and behavioral performance and growth of students with high incidence disabilities and is also available to university faculty?

30. Conversations with Colleagues Question: Set 2 Are administrators and other teacher evaluators sufficiently informed to assess teachers with students with special needs in an inclusive setting or other settings? What professional development opportunities would be most helpful and how could or should they be delivered?

31. Conversations with Colleagues Question: Set 3 How can IHEs assess positive teacher impact on students who do not demonstrate academic or behavior progress? Should teacher performance be aligned exclusively with teacher effectiveness, as indicated by student performance?

32. Conversations with Colleagues Open Discussion

33. Contact Information University of New Orleans (UNO) Department of Special Education and Habilitative Services Brenda Burrell Janice Janz bburrell@uno.edubburrell@uno.edu jgjanz@uno.edujgjanz@uno.edu Paul Bole Richelle Voelker pbole@uno.edupbole@uno.edu rvoelker@uno.edurvoelker@uno.edu