educator preparation, retention, and effectiveness ed fuller university council for educational...
TRANSCRIPT
Educator Preparation, Retention, and Effectiveness
Ed FullerUniversity Council for Educational Administration
and
The University of Texas at Austin
February 16, 2007
The University of Texas at El PasoCollege of Education
2
The Battle over Educator Preparation
Professionalization
versus
Deregulation
3
Professionalization
“The evidence suggests that teacher education ‘matters
most’ in educational reform”
4
Deregulation
“Teacher ability appears to be much more a function of
innate ability rather than the quality of education courses.”
5
Both sides agree that there are very few valid and reliable studies on the effect of
educator preparation programs.
Further, both sides agree that teacher preparation programs rarely even collect any data that could be used as evidence about their effectiveness in developing
high-quality educators.
6
What is the impact of educator preparation
programs on K-12 schools?
What is the impact of K-12 schools on higher
education institutions?
7
UTEP
K-12 Educato
rQuality
K-12 Public School
Achievement
EL PASO AREA EDUCATION SYSTEM
8
UTEP
Teacher
Quality
K-12 SchoolAchievement
PrincipalQuality
CounselorQuality
9
Teacher Quality
Teacher preparation programs impact:
•Subject matter knowledge
•Instructional skills knowledge
•Classroom management
•Teacher leadership
•Teacher Retention
•Knowledge of special populations
10
Principal QualityLeadership Preparation Programs Impact:
•The hiring quality teachers
•Teacher retention
•Communication with parents/community
•Teacher quality through supervision and professional development
•School working conditions
•Expectations for the community, teachers, and students
•Understanding of special populations
•Principal stability
11
Counselor Quality
Counselor preparation programs impact:
•Student placement in challenging and rigorous classes
•Access to post-secondary opportunities
•Student support
•Communication with parents/community
•Understanding of special populations
12
UTEP
Teacher
Quality
K-12 SchoolAchievement
PrincipalQuality
CounselorQuality
13
Teacher Working Conditions
Five Domains:
1)Use of time
1)Facilities & Resources
1)Teacher Empowerment
1)Leadership
1)Professional Development
14
Secondary School Teacher Retention and Leadership Behavior
% of Teachers Agreeing/Strongly AgreeingLeadership High -
Behavior Low High LowThere is an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect within the school.
46.2% 72.2% 26.0
The school leadership communicates clear expectations to students and parents.
49.4% 76.0% 26.7
Teachers feel comfortable raising issues and concerns that are important to them.
43.3% 72.4% 29.1
The school leadership consistently enforces rules for student conduct.
35.9% 63.6% 27.8
Opportunities are available for members of the community to contribute actively to this school’s success.
46.1% 73.0% 26.8
The school improvement team provides effective leadership at this school.
29.1% 51.9% 22.9
The school administration and teachers have a shared vision.
42.3% 65.3% 23.0
The leadership effectively communicates policies.
48.9% 73.3% 24.3
Teacher performance evaluations are fair in my school.
50.8% 68.6% 17.8
Teachers receive feedback that can help them improve teaching.
46.2% 69.1% 22.8
Staff members are recognized for accomplishments.
58.4% 73.1% 14.7
Teacher Retention
From Center for Teaching Quality working conditions study
15
Factors Influencing Future Plansof Teachers
% of Teachers Agreeing/Strongly Agreeing
Stayer Mover LeaverFacilities and/ or resources 51.7% 37.9% 27.1%Support from school administration 82.8% 75.2% 54.3%Collegial atmosphere amongst the staff 71.1% 61.5% 40.7%Tching assignment (class size, subject, stds) 76.3% 68.8% 63.7%Time to do my job during the work day 73.3% 72.3% 72.2%Empowerment to influence decisions that affect my school/ class66.9% 66.3% 60.1%Effectiveness with the students I teach 80.7% 68.1% 56.6%Comfort with the students I teach 73.8% 55.5% 42.4%Other teachers with whom I work 63.8% 48.7% 33.5%Salary 71.0% 69.1% 77.6%Cost of living 70.8% 72.7% 75.8%Student disciplinary problems 65.9% 58.8% 56.2%Focus on testing and accountability 37.9% 36.0% 47.1%Quality of life in this community 61.2% 59.9% 51.5%Eligible for retirement 59.8% 47.3% 43.0%Personal reasons (health, family, etc.) 65.4% 53.3% 42.6%
From Working Conditions Study, Center for Teaching Quality
16
Working Conditions for Poor, Predominantly Latino Elementary
Schools in Las Vegas
% of Teachers Agreeing/Strongly Agreeing
Variable Low Median High Diff
All Students Can Learn 56% 86% 94% 38
Atmosphere: Trust & Respect 21% 44% 96% 75
Shared Vision 21% 57% 96% 75
Leadership is Effective 0% 64% 86% 86
Collaboration 38% 53% 82% 44
Available Materials/Supplies 44% 67% 96% 52
School is Safe 21% 47% 82% 61
Decisionmaking 15% 28% 73% 58
% Staying 26% 54% 86% 60
% Moving 0% 7% 14% 14
% Leaving 14% 33% 67% 53
% Passing Math 18% 38% 47% 29
17
Effect of Working Conditions on Growth in Student Achievement in North
Carolina
Logistic Regression Results for Elementary Schools:
Schools with high facilities & resources domain averages were 34% more likely to meet or exceed expected student growth than other schools.
Schools with high leadership domain averages were 29% more likely to meet or exceed expected student growth than other schools.
Logistic Regression Results for Middle Schools:
Schools in which more than 80% of teachers agreed that there was an atmosphere of trust and respect were 2.2 times more likely to meet or exceed expected student growth than other schools.
Schools in which less than 30% of teachers agreed that the principal shielded teachers from disruptions were 61% less likely to meet or exceed expected student growth than other schools.
18
DIFF:Less than Expected More than More -Expected Expected Less
Teachers participate in improvement planning
41.9% 48.5% 52.1% 10.2
Access to equipment and supplies 67.4% 72.7% 77.5% 10.1
Atmosphere of trust and respect 60.7% 67.5% 70.7% 10.1
Teachers shielded from disruptions 60.2% 66.0% 70.0% 9.8
Rules for student conduct are enforced
58.7% 64.1% 68.3% 9.6
Teachers assist in selecting materials
46.8% 51.4% 55.9% 9.1
School is clean and well-maintained 66.9% 76.4% 86.1% 19.2
Teachers shielded from disruptions 45.6% 54.0% 62.5% 16.8
Adequate access to instructional materials
65.8% 73.1% 81.8% 16.0
School environment is safe 73.1% 82.1% 88.6% 15.5Teachers supported in efforts to maintain discipline
55.5% 62.9% 70.3% 14.8
Leadership is effective 55.0% 60.9% 69.0% 14.0
MIDDLE SCHOOL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Growth
19
What type of data would be useful to
collect?
20
Data Collection Effort to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
Type of DataYr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4 Yr 5
1. Student Background X2. Enrollment/Participation X X X X3. Grades / Transcripts X X X X4. Surveys
Entrants X X X X Leavers X X X
Program Evaluation X X X X Program Effectiveness X X X X X X
Exit Surveys X X X X X5. Graduation/Certification X X6. Employment / retention X X X X X7. School characteristics X X X X X8. Student achievement X X
Undergraduate Public School Teaching
21
UTEP Teacher Attrition by School Level: Class of 2000
84.0%
78.1%
64.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Spring of Academic Year
Ret
enti
on R
ate
Elementary Middle School High School
22
UTEP Teacher Retention by ExCET Scores: Class of 2000
77.4%
45.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Spring of Academic Year
Rete
nti
on R
ate
< 70 71-79 80+
23
Relationship Between Teacher Preparation and Beginning Teacher Attrition in the U.S.
(2000 to 2001)
12.6
12.0
12.8
13.0
11.6
20.7
28.1
27.3
25.7
25.0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Student-Teaching
Feedback on teaching
Observation of other classes
Child psychology and learningtheory
Selection and use of instructionalmaterials
Attrition Rate
Training No Training
Richard Ingersoll, 2003
24
UTEP^ EP Area Comp Other
Pedagogy EC-4 Median 248.0 250.0 243.0 258.0Mean 247.5 251.0 244.1 256.5% in Top 10% 5.5% 6.4% 6.1% 13.5%
Pedagogy 4-8 Median 263.0 268.0 257.0 270.5Mean 258.9 264.8 254.4 266.6% in Top 10% 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% 4.0%
Pedagogy 8-12 Median 248.0 253.0 248.0 261.0Mean 247.6 251.4 247.8 257.2% in Top 10% 5.5% 6.4% 6.1% 13.5%
Pedagogy EC-12 Median 250.0 255.0 245.0 263.0Mean 247.5 255.3 246.0 259.3% in Top 10% 3.2% 3.5% 3.6% 8.0%
Generalist EC-4 Median 254.5 258.5 260.0 263.0Mean 254.0 256.9 257.6 260.6% in Top 10% 4.6% 5.4% 5.2% 11.6%
Generalist 4-8 Median 254.5 258.5 260.0 263.0Mean 254.0 256.9 257.6 260.6% in Top 10% 4.2% 4.8% 4.8% 10.8%
Bilingual Median 228.0 226.0 228.0 238.5Generalist EC-4 Mean 225.7 229.1 224.7 236.0
% in Top 10% 14.0% 17.4% 14.6% 29.1%
TExES Scores: Median, Mean, and % of Takers in Top 10%*
* Top 10% of all scores; ^ All UTEP routes to certification
25
TExES Scores: Median, Mean, and % of Takers in Top 10%*
UTEP^ EP Area Comp OtherEnglish 4-8 Median 266.0 264.0 257.0 267.0
Mean 265.2 265.4 256.4 264.4% in Top 10% 2.2% 2.4% 2.5% 5.5%
English 8-12 Median 248.0 253.0 246.0 258.0Mean 247.1 251.2 245.0 254.6% in Top 10% 7.3% 8.9% 7.9% 16.9%
Mathematics 4-8 Median 243.0 240.0 245.0 248.0Mean 241.1 240.0 243.6 246.0% in Top 10% 8.8% 10.3% 9.5% 19.8%
Mathematics 8-12 Median 228.0 235.0 235.0 238.0Mean 225.6 234.0 232.3 236.9% in Top 10% 6.4% 7.8% 7.0% 15.1%
History 8-12 Median 221.0 232.0 238.5 237.0Mean 222.8 226.7 236.7 236.2% in Top 10% 16.9% 21.2% 17.2% 33.1%
Principal Median 246.0 242.0 240.0 251.0Mean 244.9 242.0 241.5 248.9% in Top 10% 11.7% 14.5% 12.3% 25.0%
School Counselor Median 264.0 259.0 261.0 271.0Mean 262.6 256.7 258.6 265.6% in Top 10% 1.8% 2.1% 2.1% 4.7%
* Top 10% of all scores; ^ All UTEP routes to certification
26
Are Certification Scores Important?
• Goldhaber (2006) found that teachers with very high certification test scores elicit greater gains in student achievement, while teachers with very low certification scores elicit lower gains in student achievement.
• In Texas, schools with large proportions of teachers who failed certification exams have lower levels of student achievement.
• In Texas, schools that serve predominantly minority and economically disadvantaged students have far greater percentages of teachers who have failed certification exams more than 3 times.
• Certification scores are correlated to teacher verbal ability.
• Teachers with low certification scores have low attrition rates while teachers with high certification scores have high attrition rates.
27
Strategies to Increase TExES Scores
• Focus efforts on increasing the literacy skills of students, especially their reading comprehension skills.
• Ensure test domains are included in the preparation curriculum in all areas.
• Incorporate assessments into each class that mirror the certification assessments.
• Assist students in coping with test anxiety.
28
Principals in Region XIX from UTEP
School Number % of Principals % of PrincipalsLevel of Schools from UTEP* from UTEP-Admin
Elementary 131 39.7% 28.2%Middle 41 31.7% 24.4%High 39 33.3% 28.2%Both Elem/Sec 5 20.0% 0.0%Total 216 36.6% 26.9%
* Obtained either teacher certification or principal certification from UTEP
29
Teacher Retention in Region XIX by Principal Educator Preparation
Program
School PrincipalLevel Certification Staying Moving Quitting
Elementary Not UTEP 84.9 7.9 7.2UTEP 85.0 7.1 7.9Total 84.9 7.6 7.4
Middle Not UTEP 82.1 8.6 9.3UTEP 85.6 8.2 6.2Total 82.9 8.5 8.6
High Not UTEP 82.5 7.6 10.0UTEP 77.7 10.5 11.8Total 81.1 8.4 10.5
% of Teachers
30
Percentage of Teachers in Region XIX from UTEP (2006)School Percentage Number Percentage
Level of Tchr FTEs of of from UTEP Schools Schools
Elementary 00.0-25.0% 1 0.7%School 25.1-50.0% 62 46.3%
50.1-75.0% 64 47.8%75.1-100% 7 5.2%All Schools 134 100%
Middle 00.0-25.0% 1 2.6% School 25.1-50.0% 24 61.5%
50.1-75.0% 14 35.9%All Schools 39 100%
High 00.0-25.0% 12 31.6%School 25.1-50.0% 26 68.4%
All Schools 38.0 100%
31
Percentage of Teachers from UTEPand TAKS Passing Rates
School Percentage Number Avg TAKS GainLevel of Tchr FTEs of % Passing:
from UTEP Schools 2005 2006 05 to 06
Elementary 00.0-25.0% 1 86.0 76.0 -10.0School 25.1-50.0% 62 62.8 66.3 3.5
50.1-75.0% 64 62.6 65.8 3.875.1-100% 7 57.4 63.2 5.8
Middle 00.0-25.0% 1 49.0 50 1 School 25.1-50.0% 24 47.2 53.6 6.4
50.1-75.0% 14 47.6 54.5 6.9
High 00.0-25.0% 12 24.0 31.0 7.0School 25.1-50.0% 26 35.7 41.7 7.2
TAKS Pass Rates
32
Top 15 Region XIX High Schools for Sending Students to UTEP (2005)
School HS Grads % Grads % UTEP UTEPName to UTEP to UTEP Teachers Principal
SILVA HEALTH MAGNET 49 2.9% 29.4% NOFRANKLIN H S 138 8.3% 24.7% YESCORONADO H S 123 7.4% 27.9% NOCHAPIN HS 68 4.1% 29.0% NOEASTWOOD H S 125 7.5% 27.5% NOCLINT HIGH SCHOOL 31 1.9% 28.5% NOBURGES H S 79 4.8% 35.9% NODEL VALLE H S 77 4.6% 31.8% YESRIVERSIDE H S 60 3.6% 38.0% NOMONTWOOD H S 130 7.8% 26.9% NOJ M HANKS H S 117 7.0% 29.7% YESAMERICAS H S 124 7.5% 39.1% NOEL PASO H S 41 2.5% 16.1% YESYSLETA H S 62 3.7% 37.9% NOBEL AIR H S 89 5.4% 37.9% NOIRVIN H S 42 2.5% 25.0% NOSOCORRO H S 76 4.6% 37.2% YESANDRESS H S 36 2.2% 24.3% NOJEFFERSON H S 37 2.2% 34.5% NO
HS grads to UTEP=# of 2005 HS graduates entering UTEP in 2006
% Grads to UTEP: % of HS grads who entered UTEP
33
Relationship between the Percentage of UTEP Teachers and the Percentage of Students Who Are
College Ready
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
% of Tchrs from UTEP
% S
tudents
College R
eady
TAKS math & English scale score of 2200 with a written composition score of 3 or higher. Approx 50% met math and 70% met reading.
34
What Can UTEP do to improveEl Paso area education?
Create and implement a comprehensive data collection system on all aspects of educator preparation from the freshman year through the 5th year of employment.
Initiate, rekindle, and/or strengthen partnerships between the College of Education and the other Colleges.
Initiate, rekindle, and/or strengthen partnerships with local school districts.
Review the content of all courses and ensure all TExES items are covered in the curriculum.
Prepare students for the TExES examinations.
Use the Emerging Scholars Program to increase the performance of undergraduate students.
35
What Can UTEP do to improveEl Paso area education?
Focus on producing more high school teachers who are better qualified and remain in the teaching profession.
University and College of Education leadership should create incentives for faculty to collaborate and focus on improving the outcomes of educator preparation.
Initiate and/strengthen teacher recruitment efforts that target the most academically gifted freshmen.
Initiate a Jumpstart program that targets academically gifted high school students and encourages them to enter the teacher preparation program.
Collaborate with the business community and area school districts to systematically collect, analyze, and use more data.
Focus on preparing a greater number of principals who are well-qualified.
36
References
Goldhaber, Dan. (2006, April). Everyone is doing it, but what does teacher testing tell us about teacher effectiveness? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
Ingersoll, Richard. (2003) Teacher preparation reduces first year attrition, http://www.ncate.org/documents/research/NCTAF_Chart.pdf
