1. 1 S TATE C ONTEXT FOR I SSUES OF T EACHER P REPARATION A CCOUNTABILITY L OUISIANA J EANNE M. B URNS, P H.D. L OUISIANA B OARD OF R EGENTS A PRIL 7, 2015

2. L OUISIANA IS U NIQUE U NIVERSITIES W ANT THE P UBLIC TO H AVE A CCESS TO R ELEVANT D ATA A BOUT T HEIR P ROGRAMS 2 http://www.regents.la.gov/teacherprepdashboard Teacher Preparation Data Dashboard Basic Program Information Candidate Selection Profile Knowledge and Skills for Teaching of Completers Program Productivity and Alignment to State Needs Performance as Classroom Teachers (2020 Key Effectiveness Indicators developed by Teacher Preparation Analytics)

3. C URRENT S TATUS OF T EACHER P REPARATION P ROGRAMS 3 100% of Louisiana’s public and private universities are nationally accredited by NCATE/TEAC/CAEP 100% passage rate on state licensure exams with exception of one university that has 99% Only approx. 3.5% of undergraduates and 3.5% of alternate completers scored in the Ineffective range on the State Teacher Evaluation System for all teachers in Louisiana Universities have access to value-added data and drill- down data for completers who are first and second year teachers

4. T EACHER P REPARATION T RANSFORMATION 1.0 (1999-2011)& T EACHER P REPARATION T RANSFORMATION 2.0 (2011-P RESENT ) 4 http://regents.louisiana.gov/academic-affairs/teacher-education-initiatives/teacher- preparation-transformation-10-and-20/ Transformation 1.0 Blue Ribbon Commission New Certification & Approval Policies Redesign & Review by National Experts Transformation 2.0 BoR Advisory Council College- and Career-Ready Standards Clinical Experiences

5. N ATIONAL A CADEMY OF E DUCATION D ECISION F RAMEWORK FOR CONSTRUCTING OR R EVISING A TPP E VALUATION S YSTEM F RAMEWORK 5 http://naeducation.org/NAED_080456.htm Louisiana’s Answers to the Seven Framework Questions (Pages 79-97)

6. Question 1: What is the primary purpose of TPP evaluation system? Transformation 1.0 Hold universities accountable for aggressive recruitment, preparation, support, & retention of quality teachers who produce higher achieving K-12 students Transformation 2.0 (Currently being discussed) Prepare new teachers whose student demonstrate growth in learning for success in college and careers (Meeting district workforce needs is also being discussed) 6

7. Question 2: What aspects of teacher preparation matter the most? Transformation 1.0 Completers pass licensure exams Universities produce more certified teachers Universities produce more teachers in State teacher shortage areas K-12 students demonstrate growth in learning Public perception Transformation 2.0 (Currently being discussed) Programs & districts have in- depth collaboration to provide relevant clinical experiences Programs connect content, theory, pedagogy, & practice and address college and career-ready standards Programs produce teachers to meet district teacher needs 7

8. Question 3: What sources of evidence will provide the most accurate and useful information about the aspects of teacher preparation that are of primary interest? Transformation 1.0 Passage rates on licensure exams Certified teachers completing programs Completers in State teacher shortage areas Ratings of completers on surveys Growth in student learning Transformation 2.0 (Currently being discussed) Performance of new teachers and their students - Student Outcomes and Teacher Professional Practice Completers that meet district workforce needs Program and district partnerships (measure not yet determined) 8

9. Question 4: How will the measures be analyzed and combined to make a judgment about program quality? Transformation 1.0 (2002-2005) System suspended after Hurricane Katrina due to need to create new baselines. Teacher Preparation Performance Score = [Institutional Index (Praxis & Survey) + Quantity Index]/2 9 http://regents.louisiana.gov/teacher-preparation-accountability-system/

10. Question 4 (Cont’d.): Transformation 1.0 (2006-2011) Value-Added Teacher Preparation Assessment Model (Developed by Dr. George Noell – Louisiana State University) Levels of Effectiveness based upon value-added scores for university program completers during the first and second years of teaching New teachers more effective than experienced teachers New teachers similar to experienced teachers New teachers comparable to other new teachers New teachers less effective than other new teachers New teachers significantly less effective than other new teachers 10 http://regents.louisiana.gov/academic-affairs/teacher-education-initiatives/value- added-teacher-preparation-program-assessment-model

11. Question 4 (Cont’d.): Transformation 2.0 (2011-Future) Universities adopted the value-added model developed by Dr. George Noell for the State Teacher Evaluation System for all teachers in Louisiana and suspended the use of the value-added model developed for higher education Value-added scores based upon the state system were reported to the public for teacher preparation programs The State is currently identifying how multiple measures can be used to evaluate teacher preparation programs in the future. 11 http://regents.louisiana.gov/academic-affairs/teacher-education-initiatives/value- added-teacher-preparation-program-assessment-modelhttp://regents.louisiana.gov/academic-affairs/teacher-education-initiatives/value- added-teacher-preparation-program-assessment-model (See Year Eight Report)

12. Question 5: What are the intended and potentially unintended consequences of the evaluation system for TPPs and education more broadly? Transformation 1.0 Intended Consequences: 2002-2005 Universities received labels (i.e., Exemplary, High Performing, Satisfactory, At-Risk, and Low Performing) (Note: Exemplary & High Performing received monetary rewards; At-Risk & Low Performing entered corrective action and required to improve in specific time period or lose approval) 2006-2010 Universities entered into Programmatic Intervention if value-added scores fell at the lowest 2 levels and required to improve in specific time periods Programs improved and student learning improved 12

13. Question 5: What are the intended and potentially unintended consequences of the evaluation system for TPPs and education more broadly? Transformation 1.0 (Cont’d.) Unintended Consequences: Budget cuts resulted in loss of State funds for rewards and support The need for evaluation of private providers for teacher preparation has surfaced Changes in value-added models, new K-12 teacher evaluation system, changing K-12 assessments, etc. have delayed the final development and implementation of a revised system Transformation 2.0: To be determined 13

14. Question 6: How will transparency be achieved? What steps will be taken to help users understand how to interpret the results and use them appropriately? Transformation 1.0 Teacher preparation results were first shared with individual campus heads, deans, and public relations personnel to ensure that campuses understood the meaning of the results Results were officially made available to the public on the Board of Regents web site after being formally presented to members of the board Results were presented to members of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Blue Ribbon Commission for Educational Excellence, and other groups Transformation 2.0: To be determined 14

15. Question 7: How will the evaluation system be monitored? Transformation 1.0 With input from the campuses, public, and schools/districts, Louisiana’s Blue Ribbon Commission monitored the implementation of the accountability systems for teacher preparation, developed recommendations, and presented the recommendations to the Board of Regents and Boards of Elementary and Secondary Education at joint meetings with both boards present. The two boards acted on the recommendations when appropriate. Transformation 2.0: To be determined 15

16. W HY T EACHER P REPARATION M ATTERS IN L OUISIANA 16 Jeanne.burns@la.gov http://regents.louisiana.gov/academic-affairs/teacher-education-initiatives/