Price, Cost, and Value: How schools, states, and the educator - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Price, Cost, and Value: 
 How schools, states, and the educator preparation accreditor can share data to support student achievement Jessica Cunningham, Ph.D. Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Statistics (KCEWS) Jennifer Carinci, Ed.D., Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) Kim Walters-Parker, Ph.D., J.D. Woodford County (KY) High School and CAEP Accreditation Council

Session Objectives ➢ Broaden participants’ appreciation and understanding of data sharing opportunities across schools, districts, states, and educator preparation providers (EPPs) ➢ Demonstrate how Kentucky’s data system informs many stakeholders by analyzing the same data in different ways for different purposes. ➢ Inform participants of how to leverage CAEP’s standards for educator preparation providers to drive growth in P-12 student achievement.

What is CAEP? ➢ Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation ➢ Formed by consolidation of NCATE & TEAC ➢ CHEA-recognized accreditor of ed prep ➢ CAEP’s mission and vision ➢ CAEP is governed by a Board of Directors, whose members represent stakeholder groups ➢ Accreditation decisions are made by the Accreditation Council, whose members represent stakeholder groups ➢ #HelpUsHelpYou

Flip or Flop? ➢ Buy a house in need of repairs. ➢ Fix it up and stage it for potential buyers. ➢ Sell the fixed-up house for a profit. ➢ Genius! What could possibly go wrong?

Why are price, cost, and value distinctions important?* ➢ The price of an assessment: $100 ➢ The cost of an assessment: $100 plus everything you are giving up in order to use the assessment. ➢ The value of an assessment: What am I going to get from this assessment that I would not have had I not spent the $100? ➢ IOW, we want to flip, not flop. ➢ *We are using informal definitions, not strict economic definitions.

Why avoid an assessment data flop? ➢ Leverage data for improved student achievement ➢ Especially when spending public funds, we need a fiduciary perspective. ➢ PLUS, kids deserve the most effective and efficient education experience we can offer them.

Kentucky had some budget issues…. ➢ State Senator Morgan McGarvey ➢ What did Senator McGarvey mean by that?

A little data ➢ Widely cited estimate of spending for state P-12 assessments: $1.7 billion per year. ➢ $550 per teacher? ➢ That’s just price: What is the cost? ➢ What about the value? ➢ Does it provide a good ROI? ➢ Who is asking about ROI for assessment dollars? ➢ If we are using assessments others chose for us, what can we do to improve the ROI at our own level— state, district, or school?

Preview of an Example ➢ In Kentucky, public school juniors take a state- funded ACT. ➢ Price: ________ ➢ Cost: _________ ➢ Value: Who gets an ROI on Kentucky’s $$ spent on ACT testing? ➢ Students and families ➢ Schools ➢ State ➢ Postsecondary education, employers, etc.

EPPs use, collect, and report data ➢ EPP-level data ➢ Program-level data ➢ Candidate-level date when possible ➢ States, EPPs & CAEP: How can we leverage ACT data? ➢ Candidate data ➢ EPP effectiveness/ value-add

CAEP Standards

Cost of Ineffective Teacher ➢ "Errors made in the selection process have direct and far reaching consequences for students, administrators, other teachers, and the functioning of the school as a whole.“ (Ebmeier & Ng, 2005, p. 202) 
 ➢ ➢ Students assigned to different teachers experience substantial/ 
 persistent variation in achievement growth has further underscored the importance of recruiting high quality teachers. (e. g., Aaronson, Barrow, & Sander, 2007; Kane, McCaffrey, Miller, & Staiger, ➢ 2013; Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2008; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005) 
 ➢ Opportunity: state data to link teacher quality with factors observable at the time of hire. (Rockoff, Jacob, Kane, & Staiger, 2011) ➢

Cost of Teacher Turnover ➢ Explicit costs: large estimates 
 (e.g., advertising, interviewing, and onboarding) associated with replacing a teacher who leaves costs generally over $3,000 per teacher hired ➢ (Barnes, Crowe, & Schaefer, 2007; Milanowski & Odden, 2007) 
 ➢ ➢ Implicit costs: negative impact on student achievement, ➢ independent of relative effectiveness of outgoing/incoming staff (Atteberry, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2017; Ronfeldt, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2014) ➢ ➢ Opportunity: state data to explore connection between teacher education/induction and teacher retention

Teacher Preparation Research Gaps ➢ Unclear the ways in which programs affect the quality of teacher candidates. “If the primary mechanism is teacher development, then improvement ➢ in the actual training of prospective teachers depends on knowing something about the efficacy of that training.” “If the primary mechanism is through selection processes then we ➢ could probably find ways to select effective teacher candidates faster and at a lower cost than we do currently.” 
 ➢ Opportunity: need appropriate state data to disentangle program versus selection effects 
 Goldhaber, D., & Ronfeldt, M. (in press). Toward Causal Evidence on Effective Teacher Preparation. In Carinci, J., Meyer, S., & Jackson, C. (Eds.) (in press). Linking Teacher Preparation Program Design and Implementation to Outcomes for Teachers and Students. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Strength in Numbers 
 State Collaboration ➢ Even with the seemingly large 1.7 billion dollar annual price tag, State assessment spending = only 0.25% of K-12 education spending. 
 ➢ ➢ Suggests quality/utility of assessments more pressing than cost itself ➢ Opportunity: collaboration within and across states to form assessment consortia Advantage of costs savings (e.g., estimated 25% for state of 500,000 students) ➢ Greater resources to invest in improving assessment effectiveness ➢ Parallel experimentation to advance high –quality design/implementation 
 ➢

Strength in Partnership 
 Opportunity: Mutual Benefit State / Teacher Preparation Programs / CAEP Continuum Area Addressed by Data Relevant to CAEP Standards Components 3.1 and 3.2, if at entry Recruitment to Prep Standards 1 and 3, Component 2.3 Preparation Standard 1 Licensure Standards 1-3 (per candidate), Standard 4 (past results) Recruitment to School Standard 2 Standard 4 (results from Standard 1 and 3, Component Induction Standard 5 2.3) Components 4.3 and 3.1 Retention Components 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 Renewal/Recognition

Opportunity: data sharing for stakeholder transparency

Return on Investment Increased when the following stakeholders/partners may be engaged in ➢ designing, implementing, analyzing data from, and sharing: 
 Various departments in your state 
 ➢ (workforce, P-12, educator preparation, CIO, etc.) Across states 
 ➢ (e.g, where educators come from or go to; 
 assessment consortia) CAEP Accreditation 
 ➢ (better data = better decisions) Educator Preparation Programs 
 ➢ SHARED GOALS: (for both teacher and administrators) Potential candidates 
 ➢ (transparency in choosing programs) Increased Teacher s 
 ➢ (professional development, retention, effectiveness) P-12 student Public 
 ➢ (more informed policies, transparency, 
 achievement understanding of investment, etc.) & stewardship

Multistate Educator Lookup System (MELS) ➢ – consider joining this NASDTEC initiative where benefits include tracking completers across states 
 Accountability in Teacher Preparation: ➢ Policies and Data in the 50 States & Resources DC (Council of Chief State School Officers & Teacher Preparation Analytics) p a g e s o u r c e s a t i o n R e A c c r e d i t ➢ s i t e A E P w e b o n C Getting To Better Prep: A State Guide ➢ for Teacher Preparation Data Systems (TNTP) A v i d e n c e : d a r d 4 e E P S t a n C A ➢ s f o r E P P r e s o u r c e Approaches to Evaluating Teacher ➢ Preparation Programs in Seven States m e w o r k i o n F r a E v a l u a t C A E P ➢ (Regional Education Laboratory m e n t s A s s e s s C r e a t e d o r E P P - f Central) M i n i g e m e n t m i l y E n g a F a ➢ Using Data to Improve Teacher ➢ a n d d i d a t e s f o r c a n C o u r s e Effectiveness: A Primer for State f o r Policymakers (The Data Quality e s o u r c e s a n y i n g r a c c o m p Campaign) f a c u l t y

20

Contact Us ➢ Kim Walters-Parker ➢ kwaltersparker@gmail.com ➢ @KimW_P ➢ Jessica Cunningham ➢ jessica.cunningham@ky.gov Education Professional Standards Board ➢ Jennifer Carinci ➢ jennifer_carinci@yahoo.com