George Noell, Ph.D. Louisiana State University and A&M College/Louisiana Department of Education

1. 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 Board of Regents August 27, 2009

2. Four Levels of Effectiveness forTeacher 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)

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

4. Louisiana State University Quantitative Research Team • 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 Grant funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York & Louisiana Board of Regents

5. Value-Added Teacher PreparationAssessment ModelProcess • 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.

6. 2008-09 StudyBreakdown of Data • 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)

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

8. The Assessment Model

9. 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 pre-redesign 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

10. Key FindingsPost-Redesign

11. Effect Estimates for Post-RedesignAlternate Certification ProgramScience

12. Effect Estimates for Post-RedesignAlternate Certification ProgramSocial Studies

13. Effect Estimates for Post-RedesignAlternate Certification ProgramMathematics

14. Effect Estimates for Post-RedesignAlternate Certification ProgramLanguage Arts

15. Effect Estimates for Post-RedesignAlternate Certification ProgramReading

16. Effect Estimates for Post-RedesignUNDERGRADUATE Certification Program SCIENCE SOCIAL STUDIES READING

17. Effect Estimates for Post-RedesignUNDERGRADUATE Certification Program MATHEMATICS ENGLISH/LANGUAGE ARTS

18. Impact of Teachers Who Are Not Content Certified Teachers who are not content certified are less effective than content area certified teachers.

19. 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

20. State Qualitative ResearchStudy 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

21. 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%20Added.htm