As states move to teacher evaluation that is intended to capture teacher contributions to students’ learning outcomes, some states have adopted value-added measures to examine teachers’ and teacher preparation programs’ effectiveness. In Louisiana, the value-added assessment of teacher preparation programs includes students with disabilities and has provided part of the impetus for the increasing national interest in assessing teacher preparation through value-added indicators and developing action plans in response to value-added results. These results can signal concerns across content areas, program delivery, and student characteristics, but are not prescriptive regarding follow-up actions. This article provides (a) an introduction to value-added assessment, (b) how Louisiana has used value-added metrics for the assessment of teacher preparation programs, (c) the use of special education status within the models, and (d) limitations and benefits of value-added assessment results for evaluating teacher preparation programs. Finally, the particular challenges associated with value-added assessment of special educator preparation are discussed.
AndermanE. M.AndermanL. H.YoughM. S.GimbertB. G. (2010). Value-added models of assessment: Implications for motivation and accountability. Educational Psychologist, 45, 123–137. doi:10.1080/00461521003703045
2.
BakerE. L.BartonP. E.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.LaddH. F.LinnR. L.. . . ShepardL. A. (2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://epi.3cdn.net/b9667271ee6c154195_t9m6iij8k.pdf
3.
BallouD.SandersW.WrightP. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 37–65. doi:10.3102/10769986029001037
4.
BernhardtV. L. (1998). Data analysis for comprehensive schoolwide improvement. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
BhuiyanN.BaghelA. (2005). An overview of continuous improvement: From the past to the present. Management Decision, 43, 761–771. doi:10.1108/00251740510597761
7.
BrabeckM. M.DwyerC. A.GeisingerK. F.MarxR. W.NoellG. H.PiantaR. C.WorrellF. C. (2014). Assessing and evaluating teacher preparation programs. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
BrooksS. (2000). How states can hold schools accountable: The strong schools model of standards-based reform. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs.
9.
BuzickH. M.LaitusisC. (2010). Using growth for accountability: Measurement challenges for students with disabilities and recommendations for research. Educational Researcher, 9, 537–544.
10.
FengL.SassT. R. (2010). What makes special-education teacher special? Teacher training and achievement of students with disabilities (CALDER Working Paper No. 49). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
11.
FlodenR. E. (2012). Teacher value added as a measure of program quality: Interpret with caution. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 356–360.
12.
GansleK. A.NoellG. H.BurnsJ. M. (2012). Do student achievement outcomes differ across teacher preparation programs? An analysis of teacher education in Louisiana. Journal of Teacher Education, 63, 304–317. doi:10.1177/0022487112439894
13.
GilhamS. A.LucasW. L.SivewrightD. (1997). The impact of drug education and prevention programs: Disparity between impressionistic and empirical assessments. Evaluation Review, 21, 589–613. doi:10.1177/0193841X9702100504
14.
GlazermanS.LoebS.GoldhaberD.RaudenbushS.StaigerD.WhitehurstG. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings.
15.
GoldhaberD. (2010). When the stakes are high, can we rely on value added?Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
16.
HarrisD. (2012). How do value-added indicators compare to other measures of teacher effectiveness?Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
17.
HershbergT.SimonV.Lea-KrugerB. (2004). The revelations of value-added: An assessment model that measures student growth in ways that NCLB fails to do. School Administrator, 61(11), 10–13.
18.
HockH.IsenbergE. (2012). Methods for accounting for co-teaching in value-added models (Rep. No. 7482). Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.
19.
KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation (Working Paper No. 14607). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
20.
McCaffreyD. F.LockwoodJ. R.KortezD. M.HamiltonL. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
21.
NoellG. H.BrownellM. T.BuzickH. M.JonesN. D. (2014). Using educator effectiveness measures to improve educator preparation programs and student outcomes (Document No. LS-1). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/literature-syntheses/
22.
NoellG. H.BurnsJ. L. (2006). Value-added assessment of teacher preparation: An illustration of emerging technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 37–50. doi:10.1177/0022487105284466
23.
NoellG. H.GansleK. A.PattR. M.SchaferM. J. (2009). Value added assessment of teacher preparation in Louisiana: 2005–2006 to 2007–2008. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Department of Psychology. Retrieved from Louisiana Board of Regents website: http://www.laregentsarchive.com/Academic/TE/2009/2008-09VATechnical(8.24.09).pdf
24.
PapayJ. P. (2010). Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 163–193. doi:10.3102/0002831210362589
25.
ReusserJ.ButlerL.SymondsM.VetterR.WallT. J. (2007). An assessment system for teacher education program quality improvement. International Journal of Educational Management, 21, 105–113. doi:10.1108/09513540710729908
26.
RothsteinJ. (2009). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement (Working Paper No. 14442). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
27.
RoyseD.ThyerB. A. (1996). Program evaluation: An introduction (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
28.
SchroederD. M.RobinsonA. G. (1991). America’s most successful export to Japan: Continuous improvement programs. Sloan Management Review, 32(3), 67–81.
29.
StataR. (1989). Organizational learning: The key to management innovation. Sloan Management Review, 30(3), 63–74.
