Resources for the Commission

1

Resources for the CAEP Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting [Note: currently available resources in black font; forthcoming resources in red] May 16, 2012

FULL COMMISSION STANDARDS, EVIDENCE AND ACCREDITATION Ewell, P. (2012). Recent Trends and Practices in Accreditation: Implications for the Development of Standards for CAEP. Washington, DC: CAEP CLINICAL PREPARATION AND PARTNERSHIPS Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning (2010). Transforming Teacher Education Through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers. Washington, DC. NCATE NRC ON TEACHER PREPARATION Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States. (2010). Preparing Teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Washington, DC: National Research Council URL http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12882#toc INITIAL CAEP STANDARDS Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (2011).

CAEP Standards for Educator Preparation. Washington, DC: CAEP InTASC

Ewell describes trends in regional accreditation and how they might be adapted for CAEP purposes through the entire cycle from differing types of written accreditation standards, to relationship of choices about standards, to types of evidence indicating that standards are met, to review procedures, to meeting increasing need for “expert” judgments for certain types of evidence, to levels of accreditation recognition.

This report calls for turning teacher preparation “upside down,” deemphasizing academic preparation and course work and centering on clinical practice that interweaves academic content and professional courses. Joint partnerships with schools and districts are a critical feature.

The National Research Council’s 2010 teacher preparation report includes findings from research about teacher preparation. It identifies “three aspects of teacher preparation that are likely to have the strongest effects (on outcomes for students): content knowledge, field experience, and the quality of teacher candidates.” The report concludes with recommendations for research and data collection, pp. 173-187.

The initial CAEP standards have been constructed by melding NCATE standards and TEAC quality principles into a single document. They are comprised of three broad topics: (1) Candidates demonstrate knowledge, skills, and professional dispositions for effective work in schools; (2) Data drive decisions about candidates and programs; and (3) Resources and practices support candidate learning.

The Introductory comments in the 2011 InTASC standards describe a “vision

2 Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC). (2011). InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards: A Resource for State Dialogue. Washington, DC: CCSSO. URL http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Mod el_Core_Teaching_Standards_A_Resource_for_State_Dialog ue_(April_2011)-x1025.html COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association. (2010). Common Core State Standards Initiative. Washington, DC. URL http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards

STATE TEACHER POLICIES AND ACCREDITATION [Pending: a briefing paper on state teacher policy and its relationships with accreditation.]

ACCREDITATION OF ALL PROVIDERS [Pending: a briefing paper presenting the perspective that CAEP’s standards and evidence should be equally applicable to both “traditional” (college and university) and “alternative” providers] INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON TEACHING QUALITY Schleicher, A. (2011). Building a High-Quality Teaching

of teaching for improved student achievement” that has evolved and influenced the roles of teachers and leaders, and the purpose of InTASC standards. A brief and unelaborated statement of the four category groupings (the learner and learning, content, instructional practice, and professional responsibility) and ten standards, pp. 1-9 concludes this introduction.

This is an introductory online briefing about the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and in mathematics completed in 2010.

The slides describe the effort and its goals, provide key points about each of the content subjects, describe the process of construction and vetting of the standards, contain links to statements of support and lists endorsers, describes “myths vs. facts” about the standards, provides access to several video clips, and, finally, shows a U. S. map indicating the endorsing states.

Additional links open the actual grade by grade standards for each field.

Notice that the English standards emphasize literacy across the curriculum.

The formal title is: English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.

NOTE: If the chairs and members of the Commission think it would be useful, a paper could be made available that describes the contextual setting for state teacher preparation policies and practices and their bearing on accreditation. The pending paper, if completed, would build on Ed Crowe’s 2010 report for the Center for American Progress, Measuring What Matters: A Stronger Accountability Model for Teacher Education. States and accreditors conduct complementary and reinforcing functions that, together, can ensure a stronger pool of newly prepared teachers.

Deb Eldridge is taking responsibility for assembling this paper.

This is a data rich accumulation of OECD comparative studies on teaching and reform. Chapter 1 (pp. 7-15) addresses recruitment and initial preparation.

3 Profession: Lessons from around the world. OECD, prepared for the International Summit on the Teaching Profession, U. S. Department of Education URL http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/internationaled/backgr ound.pdf

There are country vignettes throughout the paper and additional chapters on teacher development and careers, teacher evaluation and compensation, lead to a concluding chapter that underscores the idea that teachers must be integrally engaged in education reform—they must “contribute as the architects of change, not just its implementers.”

CONTENT AND PEDAGOGICAL KNOWLEDGE

CHILD AND ADOLESCENT GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT National Expert Panel on Increasing the Application of Knowledge about Child and Adolescent Development and Learning in Educator Preparation Programs (2010). The Road Less Traveled: How the Developmental Sciences Can Prepare Educators to Improve Student Achievement: Policy Recommendations. Washington, DC: NCATE

ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING Stiggins, R. (paper commissioned) Developing and Certifying the Assessment Literacy of Teachers ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING Hoffman, P. and Kahl, S (contributed paper from Measured Progress) guidelines for judging assessments for accreditation purposes and assessment literacy for classroom and district summative measures and valueadded evaluation of teachers INTASC TEACHER STANDRDS InTASC, op. cit.

NOTE: If the chairs and members of the Working Group think it would be useful, some members of the InTASC committee that prepared the 2011 revisions of the CCSSO standards for teachers could be invited as guests to share their experiences.

This report grew out of joint efforts between NCATE and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and co-chairs James P. Comer and Robert Pianta, to tap deep and broad research from child and adolescent development and learning for educator preparation. It recommends that educator preparation programs “ensure that candidates possess contemporary knowledge of child and adolescent development and understand its effective application in the PreK-12 classroom.” In addition, “accrediting bodies should adopt standards . . . that incorporate specific evidence of candidates’ mastery of the core competencies associated with knowledge of child and adolescent development.”

In second draft as of May 15 Draft in preparation as of May 15

pp. 10-19 contain the standards together with “performances,” “essential knowledge,” and “critical dispositions” associated with each one.

4 URL http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Mod el_Core_Teaching_Standards_A_Resource_for_State_Dialog ue_(April_2011)-x1025.html InTASC TEACHER STANDARDS RESEARCH REFERENCES Young, P. for InTASC. (2011). Research Synthesis.

Washington, DC: CCSSO. URL http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Rese arch_Synthesis.html

This is a synthesis of research related to updated 2011 InTASC teaching standards. It is organized around instruction, assessment, teacher knowledge, learning environment, applications of content, planning and reflection, and teacher collaboration. The synthesis draws from 40 journals and includes 97 cited references.

TEACHER STANDARDS FOR ONLINE TEACHERS International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2011).

National Standards for Quality Online Teaching.

URL http://www.inacol.org/research/nationalstandards/iNACOL_ TeachingStandardsv2.pdf

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON TEACHER PREPARATION Schleicher, A., editor. (2012) Preparing Teachers and Developing School Leaders for the 21st Century: Lessons from Around the World. OECD, Background Report for the International Summit on the Teaching Profession.

URL http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/4/35/49850576.pdf

The report describes eleven standards for online teachers, with further details under columns for “teacher knowledge and understanding” and “teacher abilities.” Much of the language is evocative of InTASC, e.g.: • The online teacher knows the primary concepts and structures of effective online instruction and is able to create learning experiences to enable student success; • The online teacher understands and is able to use a range of technologies, both existing and emerging, that effectively support student learning and engagement in the online environment; • The online teacher plans, designs, and incorporates strategies to encourage active learning, application, interaction, participation, and collaboration in the online environment.

This is an OECD background paper for the second U. S. Department of Education international “Summit” on the teaching workforce. Like the first OECD summit report, referenced above, this one is laden with data and country vignettes. Pages 13-30 are addressed to education leaders, and pp.

33-53 to teacher development and careers. Both describe the new and changing conditions under which educators will work, with the result that different knowledge and skills are required.

TEACHER PREPARATION

Linda Darling Hammond describes the context for teacher education and her

5 Darling-Hammond, D. (2010) Teacher Education and the American Future. From the AACTE Charles W. Hunt Lecture, 2009, and the Journal of Teacher Education 61(1-2) 35-47, AACTE, Sage publications

perspective on the power of teacher preparation for transforming teaching and learning, together with many challenges. Among sections of special pertinence to the Commission’s work are a listing of features of exemplary preparation programs (p. 40) (e.g., careful oversight of the quality of student teaching experiences, matching the context of student teaching assignments with the candidates’ later teaching assignments, helping candidates learn to use specific practices and tools). One challenge is the relationships between universities and schools (pp. 42, 43), and another is development of “a highquality, nationally available teacher performance assessment for beginning teachers” (p. 44). She sees the unification of NCATE and TEAC as providing new opportunity for evaluating programs—focusing on features that are associated with more effective programs, and declining to approve institutions that cut corners, such as exempting candidates from carefully selected and supervised student teaching (p. 43).

CLINICAL PRACTICE AND PARTNERSHIPS Blue ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning, op. cit.

STUDENT TEACHING Hollins, E. R. (2012). Clinical Experiences in the Preparation of Candidates for Teaching Underserved Students.

Washington, DC: CAEP

STUDENT TEACHING Grossman, P. (2010) Learning to Practice: The Design of Clinical Experience in Teacher Preparation. Washington, DC: AACTE and NEA policy brief

A chart on page 12 contrasts key features of the “current model” and “the model we need” to “conceptualize, deliver, monitor, evaluate, oversee and staff teacher preparation.” Ten “design principles” are described on pages 5 and 6.

This paper makes a case that “well-planned clinical experiences are based on a vision for competent teaching, a theoretical perspective on learning teaching, and a clinical process that integrates coursework and practice in authentic contexts.” Hollins views a clinical process “comprised of carefully mediated and purposefully guided experiences for learning the work of teaching where faculty and accomplished classroom teachers enact particular epistemic practices and signature pedagogies to facilitate learning for candidates.” Pp. 17-23 describe conceptions of clinical experiences and partnerships, and pp. 23-25 encourage accreditation processes that recognize levels of research to address persistent and systemic problems in preparation.

This eight page brief on clinical experiences in teacher preparation includes its own executive summary and summary of research. The paper takes up “duration and settings for field experiences,” and “feedback, mentoring, and supervision” in clinical experiences. It makes recommendations for

6 URL http://aacte.org/pdf/Publications/Reports_Studies/Clinical %20Experience%20-%20Pam%20Grossman.pdf

appropriate placements, for stronger systems of supervision that cross preparation-to-induction boundaries, and for stronger “tools” in preparation (e.g., common formative assessments, mechanisms to counsel out).

InTASC, op. cit.

URL http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/InTASC_Rese arch_Synthesis.html

pp. 10-19 contain the standards together with “performances,” “essential knowledge,” and “critical dispositions” associated with each one.

COST EFFECTIVE MODELS FOR CLINICAL EXPERIENCE Monk, D and Picus, L. (2012) Measuring the Cost Effectiveness of Rich Clinical Practice in Teacher Preparation: A Two Part Investigation

The initial phase is underway on a conceptual framework to document costs and benefits of clinical practice in teacher education. This will include some contextual looks at other fields such as medicine. After completion in summer 2012, a decision will be made about a second stage that would fully construct cost effectiveness analyses.

QUALITY/SELECTIVITY OF CANDIDATES RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION OF CANDIDATES Elliott, E. (2012). Recruitment and Selection in educator preparation: A paper for consideration by the CAEP Commission on Standards and Performance Reporting.

Washington, DC: CAEP

ATTRACTING HIGH QUALITY CANDIDATES Auguste, B., Kihn, P., and Miller, M. (2010). Closing the talent gap: Attracting and retaining top-third graduates to careers in teaching; An international and market researchbased perspective. McKinsey & Company.

URL http://mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Educatio n/Closing_the_talent_gap.pdf

The paper argues that recruitment and selection of candidates for teaching should be explicit elements of new CAEP standards. It describes “converging perspectives” from research, public opinion, international experience, views of policymakers and critics, and both traditional and alternative providers that, together, make a compelling case. It cautions, however, that the effects of more selectivity of candidates into preparation, by itself, will be disappointing. Recruitment and selections practices must be accompanied by purposeful actions on teacher licensure, pay, working conditions, evaluation, collaboration, pensions and other elements of comprehensive teacher policies.

This report is illustrative of several recent studies that tap international experience in high performance nations in search for lessons that might be adapted to U. S. needs. McKinsey & Company casts theirs as both “international” and “market research-based.” Beginning with an assertion that “the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers,” the report describes nations that “recruit 100% of their teacher corps from the top third of the academic cohort, and then screen for other important qualities as well.” The U. S. recruits, they say, just 23% of its new

7 teachers from the top third, and only 14% in high poverty schools. The report recommends selective admissions, but also consideration of other conditions —e.g., covering tuition and fees for teacher training, raising teacher pay, more “effective principals,” improving “shabby and sometimes unsafe working conditions,” performance bonuses of 20%, and perhaps offsetting costs “by accepting higher student/teacher ratios.”

CAPACITY, QUALITY & CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT GOOD EVIDENCE AND ITS USE Western Association of Schools and Colleges, Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities. (2002).

Evidence Guide: A Guide to Using Evidence in the Accreditation Process: A resource to support institutions and evaluation teams; A working Draft. Alameda, CA WASC, Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities URL http://www.wascsenior.org/findit/files/forms/Evidence_Gui de__Jan_02_.pdf

Originally prepared as technical assistance for both institutions and WASC accreditation teams, the guidelines remain useful for those purposes. The idea of a “culture of evidence” in preparation and accreditation is described (p. 6), there is more general information about what constitutes evidence (p.

7), about assessment evidence in particular (p. 8), and then five principles of good evidence (pp. 9-12) are presented.

HIGH PERFORMING EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONS Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. (2011-2012).

National Institute for Standards and Technology, U. S. Department of Commerce. Education Criteria for Performance Excellence.

URL http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/publications/upload/2011_20 12_Education_Criteria.pdf

The Baldrige awards program criteria represent the standard for performance excellence in education organizations. Three of the criteria, in particular, are aligned with accreditation and capacity building. These are “Measurement, Analysis, and Knowledge Management” (pp. 16, 17 and 39-42); “Workforce Focus” (pp. 18-20 and 42-44); and “Results” (pp. 23-26 and 46-48).

NETWORKED LEARNING COMMUNITIES Mehta, J., Gomez, L., and Bryk, A. (2012) schooling as a Knowledge Profession. March 20, 2011 Education Week NETWORKED LEARNING COMMUNITIES

This article is an Education Week version of the Carnegie/Bryk notion of networked learning communities and improvement communities using R & D processes.

This is a full report compiling ideas that are emerging from the Carnegie

8 Bryk, A., Gomez, L., and Grunow, A. (2011) Getting Ideas into Action: Building Networked Improvement Communities in education. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Stanford, California

Foundation and Tony Bryk’s work on employing R & D for education reform in new ways. It argues for a problem-centered approach joining academic research, clinical practice and commercial expertise in “Design-Educational Engineering and Development” (DEED). “Networked Improvement communities” are a way to organize diverse expertise to solve complex educational problems. These approaches put the practitioner, rather than the university-based researcher, at the center and the goal is “localized learning for improvement” (p. 21). Through multiple cycles, there is emphasis on continuous improvement (p. 22 ff) through a cycle of plan-do-study-act (PDSA). These ideas could be adapted to the “capacity building” role of CAEP.

ACCREDITATION, PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY Ewell, op cit.

Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States, op. cit.

URL http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12882#toc MET PROJECT ON TEACHER EVALUATION Measures of Effective Teaching Project. (2010). Learning about Teaching: Initial findings from the Measures of effective Teaching Project, Policy brief. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

URL http://www.metproject.org/downloads/Preliminary_Finding -Policy_Brief.pdf MET PROJECT ON TEACHER EVALUATION Measures of Effective Teaching Project. (2012). Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains, Policy and practice brief. Seattle, WA: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

pp. 10 and 11 on “Results of Accreditation” describe graded accreditation of differing levels of accreditation, and also “tailored public reporting” of accreditation actions in the interests of transparency. pp. 153-171 are a descriptive chapter on “Accountability and Quality Control in Education.” The chapter addresses certification, licensure and testing; program approval; standards; accreditation (pp. 159-165); and comparisons with other fields. There are conclusions and recommendations (pp. 168-172).

This first report of findings from the Gates Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) research concluded that (1) a teacher’s past success in raising student achievement “is one of the strongest predictors of his or her ability to do so again;” (2) students who have teachers with the highest value-added scores are more likely to have better understanding of math concepts and reading comprehension through writing; (3) the average student knows when they have effective teaching; and (4) combining teacher feedback from different sources can provide diagnostic and targeted information for teacher improvement.

The findings from the second large MET report focused especially on classroom observation instruments for evaluation of teachers. Results from these instruments, such as the Pianta “Classroom Assessment Scoring System” (CLASS), and the Danielson “Framework for Teaching” (FFT), are positively correlated with student achievement gains. The brief recommends that such classroom observation scores be combined with evidence of student

9 URL http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Fe edback_Practioner_Brief.pdf

achievement gains and student feedback so that teacher evaluation is a result of multiple measures conducted multiple times over multiple years.

WASC, op cit.

URL http://www.wascsenior.org/findit/files/forms/Evidence_Gui de__Jan_02_.pdf

Section III, pp. 18-24 addresses “assembling and presenting evidence.” It is as relevant for CAEP as for WASC.

EVIDENCE USED IN ACCREDITATION [Pending copyright use approval. Weinberg, M. (2006).

Evidence in teacher preparation: establishing a framework for accountability. In Journal of Teacher Education, v57i1 p.

51]

The article reports on a survey of 400 AASCU institutions that enroll 55% of all public 4-year higher education students and confer half of the undergraduate degrees in education. Topics surveyed were: how institutions assess the content knowledge, classroom performance, and P-12 student learning of their graduates; how programs track the retention of graduates; what data collection and analysis procedures are used; what mandates institutions are under to collect and report information; and what issues exist in relation to accessing data. 65% of institutions responded. The study found that “institutions are using similar measures and instruments to collect effectiveness data, such as work samples and surveys.” Most institutions “are struggling to respond to outside mandates for evidence of program effectiveness. . . they do not appear to be able to organize and interpret the data in ways that would provide an effective response to outside mandates.”

It was also not clear that there are structures in place to use the data to inform ongoing change. The study found “that great amounts of data are collected, but not how “the different types of evidence are aggregated or how they are used to demonstrate effectiveness” (p. 5). Many institutions address validity and reliability issues superficially or not at all (p. 6 and p. 8). Only 50% track graduates after program completion (p. 9). “Institutions are not able to access the P-12 scores of their graduates’ students because of privacy regulations” (p. 10). Conclusions: data collection is idiosyncratic to individual institutions; most student achievement data focus on only narrowly defined outcomes, usually on math and language arts skills. “A transparent framework” is needed, with “student learning (as) the centerpiece” to guide evidence that institutions use to promote a culture of evidence on campuses.

10

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKING National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve, Inc. (2008). Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U. S. Students Receive a World-Class Education. Washington, DC. URL http://www.achieve.org/files/BenchmarkingforSuccess.pdf

This is the vanguard study in recent efforts to view top student performances, education practices and policies internationally as “benchmarks” of what is possible, then frame actions that the U. S. could take to improve its own performance. There is an executive summary on pp. 5-7.

PROJECTIONS OF U.S. TEACHER WORKFORCE National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Projections of Education Statistics to 2020. U. S. Department of Education, Washington, DC URL http://nces.ed.gov/programs/projections/projections2020/

The URL, and an excerpt from it, come from the annual NCES education projections report. The projections show national enrollment trends from 1995-2020 by grade groupings, public and private schools, and race/ethnicity and also state and regional trends. A concluding chart from an NSF report is appended that shows race/ethnic enrollment trends over a 50 year span to 2050.

TEACHER SUPPLY AND DEMAND Elliott, E. Teacher Supply and Demand

This planned paper will provide supplementary information for the Commission on sources of teacher supply and of teacher “demand” from teacher retirement, teacher leaving, and teacher movement, based on several official NCES sources.

A brief update about enrollments in state and district online education and offerings, AP and IB programs, university roles as sponsors, and current state policies.

ONLINE LEARNING International Association for K-12 Online Learning. (2012).

Fast Facts About Online Learning.

URL http://www.inacol.org/press/docs/nacol_fast_facts.pdf SCHOOLS OF THE FUTURE AND HOW TECHNOLOGY CAN BE USED KnowledgeWorks Foundation and Institute for the Future.

(2008). 2020 Forecast: Creating the Future of Learning.

Cincinnati, OH and Palo Alto, CA URL http://futureofed.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/07/2020-Forecast.pdf

The 2020 Forecast suggests “opportunities for creating the future of learning” in which schools serve as community sites to promote “health, environmental vitality, academic growth, student wellbeing, and connections across their communities.” It describes technology’s attributes for “networking power,” “distributed innovation” (extending beyond geography), “embracing” cooperation, prototyping new models, and “cultivating open and collaborative approaches.” Learning will be more “personalized,” with visualization tools and “learner-centered experiences.” The paper perceives a potential for

11

WAYS THAT TECHNOLOGY CAN ENHANCE SCHOOLING Bailey, Henry, McBride and Puckett, The Boston Consulting Group. (2011). Unleashing the Potential of Technology in Education. Boston, MA URL http://www.bcg.com/documents/file82603.pdf

BUSH/WISE DIGITAL LEARNING PROJECT Foundation for Excellence in Education. (2010). Digital Learning Now! URL http://digitallearningnow.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/11/Digital-Learning-Now-ReportFINAL.pdf TEXAS/NCTAF CONFERENCE ON DIGITAL LEARNING Resta, P., and Carroll, T. editors (2010) Redefining Teacher Education for digital-Age Learners: A Call to Action. Report from an Invitational Summit URL http://redefineteachered.org/sites/default/files/SummitRep ort.pdf?q=summitreport FUNCTIONS OF TEACHERS IN A DIGITAL ERA Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Daniela R. Fairchild, editors. (2012). Education Reform for the Digital Era. Chapter one: Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction, Bryan C. Hassel and Emily Ayscue Hassel, Public

conflict over hierarchical structures, an overload of data requiring that decisions be made about what is really important, and “new learning agents and traditionally certified teachers” that must will cooperate or compete.

This is a narrative report that describes ways that technology can foster constructive changes in education. Beginning with data on the limited role that technology has played in education previously, it describes key forces now driving change and asserts that our “antiquated system of education . . . is severely limited by physical constraints.” Access to teachers, courses, and content have depended largely on where students live, and most schools have been structured in ways that limit teachers’ capacity to address differing abilities, interests, and learning styles. Technology offers new possibilities: education anytime, anywhere, for anyone; a customized, adaptive learning experience; and timely, relevant and compelling content. Steps are described for educators to use technology effectively (pp. 13-19) and for actions by leaders and policymakers (pp. 20-24).

Stating a “Vision for education in America” through use of technology, this report is from the Jeb Bush/Bob Wise digital learning project. It describes ten elements of high quality digital learning and lists “things state leaders can do” to advance a shift to digital learning.

This is a brief report from an invitational conference convened by a dozen organizations led by the Learning Technology Center, the University of Texas at Austin, and the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future in 2009 (also including, for example, AFT, ATE, CCSSO, NCATE, and others). The report lists characteristics of 21st Century teachers (pp. 3, 4) then develops a redefined teacher education “framework” to fit (pp. 4-6), along with accompanying institutional policies to transform teacher education (pp. 6-8).

This book chapter focuses on the functions that teachers in “the digital revolution” must perform and characteristics of teaching as well as implications for training, certification, class size, evaluation and supervision, compensation, employment, and union roles.

12 Impact. Washington, DC. URL http://www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/2012 0425-education-reform-for-the-digital-era/20120425Education-Reform-for-the-Digital-Era-FINAL-Chapter-1.pdf VALUE-ADDED TEACHER EVALUATION, NAE and AERA Darling-Hammond, L, Amrein-Beardsley, A, Haertel, E, and Rothstein, J. (2011) Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: A Background Paper for Policy Makers, American Educational Research Association and National Academy of Education research briefing, September 14, 2011, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. URL http://www.naeducation.org/Background_Paper_Getting_T eacher_Evaluation_Right.pdf

A succinct version of the psychometric argument that uses of value-added measures in high-stakes, individual-level decisions, as well as in comparisons across highly dissimilar schools or student populations, should be avoided.

These measures “are highly unstable,” “are significantly affected by differences in the students who are assigned to them,” and “cannot disentangle the many influences on student progress” from home, school, and other influences. Value-added methods “can help to validate measures that are productive for teacher evaluation.” Valid evaluations “ensure that background factors, including overall classroom composition, are as similar as possible across groups being compared.”

VALUE-ADDED TEACHER EVALUATION, BROOKINGS Glazerman, S., Loeb, S., Goldhaber, D., Staiger, D., Raudenbush, S., and Whitehurst, G. (2010). Evaluating Teachers: The Important Role of Value-Added. The Brown Center on Education Policy, the Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. URL http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/1117_evaluatin g_teachers.pdf

This report argues that the controversies over value-added need clarification around critical areas. One is that value-added information can be included as part of an evaluation system without endorsing release of data to the public on individual teachers. Another is that value-added measures on teacher performance are “about as reliable as performance assessments used elsewhere for high stakes decisions,” so they should have about as much utility in education as in other fields. And still another is that the reliability of personnel decisions about teachers is higher if value-added scores are part of the mix.

LACK OF TEACHER EVALUATION IN U. S. Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J. and Keeling, D., (2009).

The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher effectiveness. The New Teacher Project, Brooklyn, New York URL http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TheWidgetEffect_2nd_ed .pdf

Influential national report that made an early and effective observation that teacher evaluation systems do not provide accurate or credible information.

District evaluations do not “distinguish great teaching from good, good from fair, and fair from poor. A teacher’s effectiveness—the most important factor for schools in improving student achievement—is not measured, recorded, or used to inform decision-making in any meaningful way.”

13 USING EXTANT ASSESSMENTS FOR TEACHER EVALUATION Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How Teacher Performance Assessments Can Measure and Improve Teaching. Center for American Progress, Washington, DC. URL http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/10/pdf/teac her_effectiveness.pdf

USING GROWTH MEASURES AS DESCRIPTORS, COLORADO Betebenner, D., Wenning, R., and Briggs, D. (2011) Student Growth Percentiles and Shoe Leather.

EFFECTS OF EXPERIENCE AND ATTRITION Henry, G., Fortner, K., and Bastian, K. (2012). The Effects of experience and Attrition for Novice High-School Science and Mathematics Teachers. Science Magazine, 2 March 2012

This paper is a treatment of teacher evaluation based on measuring what teachers actually do in the classroom. The report is built around existing assessment instruments that could comprise a national system of teacher performance assessments: the National Board Certification exams (NBC), the California Performance Assessments for California Teachers (PACT), and the new evolution of PACT, the joint Stanford-AACTE assessment known as Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA). A description of tasks for PACT is included (p. 15). The paper concludes with policy recommendations that states use the TPA for beginning teachers and as an “anchor (for) a continuum of performance assessments throughout the teaching career” that culminates with National Board Certification (pp. 23, 24).

This brief paper was prepared by three authors with strong Colorado Department of Education relationships, all involved with creating the “Colorado Growth Model” but none now employed by the Department. It argues for separation of data measures from their use. In Colorado, the description of student progress is separated from “the attribution of responsibility for that progress.” The focus is on indicators “that facilitate the investigation of what programs, districts, schools, teachers, and contexts promote (and fail to promote) the greatest growth amongst students in the state.” “Large-scale assessment results are an important piece of evidence but are not sufficient to make causal claims about school or teacher quality.”

This article, suggested by co-chair Camilla Benbow, reports on a research study using value-added models to analyze high-school teachers’ effectiveness in raising test scores. The study found that the effectiveness of high-school science and math teachers increased substantially with experience, but with diminishing rates of return by the fourth year. Teachers who continued to teach for at least 5 years were more effective as novice teachers than those who left the profession earlier. (extracted from the article abstract).

14