quality 2008 09 Results ValueAdded Teacher Preparation Assessment

quality 2008 -09 Results Value-Added Teacher Preparation Assessment Model George Noell, Ph. D. Louisiana State University and A&M College/Louisiana Department of Education Kristin Gansle Louisiana State University and A&M College Jeanne M. Burns, Ph. D. Louisiana Board of Regents August 27, 2009

quality Four Levels of Effectiveness for Teacher Preparation Programs in Louisiana Level 4: Effectiveness of Growth in Student Learning (Value Added Teacher Preparation Program Assessment) Level 3: Effectiveness of Impact (Teacher Preparation Accountability System) Level 2: Effectiveness of Implementation (NCATE – Comprehensive Assessment System) Level 1: Effectiveness of Planning (Redesign of Teacher Preparation Programs)

quality Development of Model • Blue Ribbon Commission – Growth Variable (2000 -2001) • University Struggle to Create Authentic Assessment during Redesign (2002 -2003) • Bo. R Support to Develop and Pilot Value Added Teacher Preparation Assessment Model (2003 -04, 2004 -05, & 2005 -06) • Bo. R Support to Expand Implement Value Added Teacher Preparation Assessment Model (2006 -07, 2007 -08, & 2008 -09) • Bo. R Support to Conduct Qualitative Research Study (2007 -08 & 2008 -09)

quality Louisiana State University Quantitative Research Team Grant funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York & Louisiana Board of Regents • Co-Principal Investigators: Dr. George Noell & Dr. Kristin Gansle (Louisiana State University and A&M College) • LSU Research Team Members: Bethany Porter, Maria Patt, Amanda Dahir, Michael Schaffer

quality Value-Added Teacher Preparation Assessment Model Process • Predict student achievement based on prior achievement, demographics, and attendance. • Assess actual student achievement. • Calculate degree to which students taught by new teachers met achievement of similar students taught by experienced teachers. • Act on results.

2008 -09 Study Breakdown of Data quality • Years 2005 -2006, 2006 -07, and 2007 -08 • Student Grade Levels: Grades 4 -9 • Content Areas: Mathematics; Science; Social Studies; Language Arts; and Reading • Tests: i-LEAP and LEAP-21 • Pathways for New Teachers: Undergraduate and Alternate Certification Programs (Master of Arts in Teaching, Practitioner Teacher Program, and Non-Master’s/Certification-Only)

quality New and Experienced Teachers • New Teachers: – 1 st and 2 nd year teachers with regular certificates – Completed Teacher Preparation Program within 5 years – Teaching within area of certification • Experienced Teachers – 3 rd or subsequent year teachers with regular certificates – Teaching within area of certification

quality The Assessment Model

quality Criteria for Inclusion of New Teachers in Study • Post-Redesign Programs: Programs that were redesigned for grades PK-3, 1 -5, 4 -8, and 6 -12 and began admitting pre-service teachers on July 1, 2003. (Universities stopped admitting candidates to the pre-redesign programs on July 1, 2003. A phase out period is occurring for preredesign programs. ) • Each Content Area: – 25 or more new teachers in grades 4 -9 – At least 10 new teachers per year – Teaching within certification – Remained with student full academic year

quality Key Findings Post-Redesign

Effect Estimates for Post-Redesign Alternate Certification Program Science quality Performance Bands Effect Estimates Level 1: Programs more effective than experienced teachers. Northwestern State University (+3. 7) University of Louisiana at Monroe (+2. 2) Level 2: Programs comparable in effectiveness to experienced teachers. The New Teacher Project (+0. 9) Level 3: Programs comparable in effectiveness to new teachers. Louisiana College (-1. 4) Louisiana Resource Center (-1. 8) University of Louisiana at Lafayette (-3. 1) (Note: Mean for new teachers = -1. 4) Level 4: Programs less effective than new teachers. Level 5: Programs significantly less effective.

Effect Estimates for Post-Redesign Alternate Certification Program Social Studies quality Performance Bands Effect Estimates Level 1: Programs more effective than experienced teachers. University of Louisiana at Monroe (+1. 4) Level 2: Programs comparable in effectiveness to experienced teachers. Northwestern State University (-0. 4) Level 3: Programs comparable in effectiveness to new teachers. Louisiana College (-2. 8) University of Louisiana at Lafayette (-2. 8) Louisiana Resource Center (-3. 0) The New Teacher Project (-3. 1) (Note: Mean for new teachers = -2. 1) Level 4: Programs less effective than new teachers. Level 5: Programs significantly less effective.

quality Effect Estimates for Post-Redesign Alternate Certification Program Mathematics Performance Bands Effect Estimates Level 1: Programs more effective than experienced teachers. The New Teacher Project (+5. 7) Level 2: Programs comparable in effectiveness to experienced teachers. Level 3: Programs comparable in effectiveness to new teachers. University of Louisiana at Monroe (-0. 2) Northwestern State University (-1. 0) Louisiana College (-2. 2) University of Louisiana at Lafayette (-2. 9) Louisiana Resource Center (-3. 4) (Note: Mean for new teachers = -2. 7) Level 4: Programs less effective than new teachers. Level 5: Programs significantly less effective.

Effect Estimates for Post-Redesign Alternate Certification Program Language Arts quality Performance Bands Effect Estimates Level 1: Programs more effective than experienced teachers. Level 2: Programs comparable in effectiveness to experienced teachers. University of Louisiana at Monroe (+2. 6) Louisiana State University at Shreveport (+2. 4) The New Teacher Project (+2. 0) Southeastern Louisiana University (+1. 9) Louisiana College (+1. 6) Northwestern State University (+0. 4) Level 3: Programs comparable in effectiveness to new teachers. Louisiana Resource Center (-2. 7) (Note: Mean for new teachers = -2. 9) Level 4: Programs less effective than new teachers. Level 5: Programs significantly less effective. University of Louisiana at Lafayette (-4. 9)

quality Effect Estimates for Post-Redesign Alternate Certification Program Reading Performance Bands Effect Estimates Level 1: Programs more effective than experienced teachers. The New Teacher Project (+4. 1) Level 2: Programs comparable in effectiveness to experienced teachers. Louisiana College (+1. 2) Northwestern State University (+0. 4) University of Louisiana at Monroe (+0. 2) Level 3: Programs comparable in effectiveness to new teachers. University of Louisiana at Lafayette (-2. 9) Level 4: Programs less effective than new teachers. Louisiana Resource Center (-6. 3) Level 5: Programs significantly less effective. (Note: Mean for new teachers = -2. 8)

Effect Estimates for Post-Redesign UNDERGRADUATE Certification Program quality SCIENCE Performance Bands Level 3: Programs comparable in effectiveness to new teachers. Effect Estimates University of Louisiana at Lafayette (-0. 8) (Note: Mean for new teachers = -1. 4) SOCIAL STUDIES Performance Bands Level 3: Programs comparable in effectiveness to new teachers. Effect Estimates University of Louisiana at Lafayette (-3. 1) (Note: Mean for new teachers = -2. 1) READING Performance Bands Level 3: Programs comparable in effectiveness to new teachers. Effect Estimates University of Louisiana at Lafayette (-2. 8) (Note: Mean for new teachers = -2. 8)

Effect Estimates for Post-Redesign UNDERGRADUATE Certification Program quality MATHEMATICS Performance Bands Level 3: Programs comparable in effectiveness to new teachers. Effect Estimates Louisiana State University (-2. 5) University of Louisiana at Lafayette (-4. 3) (Note: Mean for new teachers = -2. 7) ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS Performance Bands Level 3: Programs comparable in effectiveness to new teachers. Effect Estimates Louisiana State University (-3. 7) (Note: Mean for new teachers = -2. 9) Level 4: Programs less effective than new teachers. University of Louisiana at Lafayette (-4. 7)

quality Impact of Teachers Who Are Not Content Certified Teachers who are not content certified are less effective than content area certified teachers. Content Coefficient (CI) Mathematics -2. 8 (-3. 4, -2. 3) Reading -2. 2 (-2. 5, -1. 8) Language Arts -3. 6 (-4. 2, -3. 1) Science -1. 6 (-2. 0, -1. 3) Social Studies -2. 5 (-3. 0, -1. 9)

quality Principal Implications of Quantitative Research Study • Teacher preparation programs can prepare new teachers whose students demonstrate achievement that is comparable to the achievement of students taught by experienced certified professionals. • Varying levels of effectiveness exist within teacher preparation programs and across teacher preparation programs. • Teachers who are not content certified are less effective than content area certified teachers. • 2007 -08 and 2008 -09 results are generally consistent within the performance bands. • The mixed linear models developed for the content areas shared a great deal in common. Teacher Preparation Matters

quality State Qualitative Research Study Grant funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York & Louisiana Board of Regents Why do students taught by new teachers from some teacher preparation programs demonstrate greater growth in learning than students taught by new teachers from other teacher preparation programs? RESULTS WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE SEPTEMBER 2009 BOARD OF REGENTS MEETING

quality FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION George Noell gnoell@lsu. edu Kristin Gansle kgansle@lsu. edu Jeanne M. Burns jeanne. burns@la. gov http: //www. regents. state. la. us/Academic/TE/Value%20 Added. htm