SLIDE 1
Price, Cost, and Value: How schools, states, and the educator - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
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,
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
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
SLIDE 4
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?
SLIDE 5
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.
SLIDE 6
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.
SLIDE 7
Kentucky had some budget issues….
➢ State Senator Morgan McGarvey ➢ What did Senator McGarvey mean by that?
SLIDE 8
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?
SLIDE 9
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
- n ACT testing?
➢ Students and families ➢ Schools ➢ State ➢ Postsecondary education, employers, etc.
SLIDE 10
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
SLIDE 11
CAEP Standards
SLIDE 12
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
- bservable at the time of hire.
➢
(Rockoff, Jacob, Kane, & Staiger, 2011)
SLIDE 13
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
SLIDE 14
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.
SLIDE 15
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
SLIDE 16
Strength in Partnership
Opportunity: Mutual Benefit State / Teacher Preparation Programs / CAEP
Continuum Area Addressed by Data Relevant to CAEP Standards Recruitment to Prep Components 3.1 and 3.2, if at entry
Standard 2 Standard 5
Preparation Standards 1 and 3, Component 2.3 Licensure Standard 1 Recruitment to School Standards 1-3 (per candidate), Standard 4 (past results) Induction Standard 4 (results from Standard 1 and 3, Component 2.3) Retention Components 4.3 and 3.1 Renewal/Recognition Components 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3
SLIDE 17
Opportunity: data sharing for stakeholder transparency
SLIDE 18
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 (for both teacher and administrators)
➢
Potential candidates (transparency in choosing programs)
➢
Teachers (professional development, retention, effectiveness)
➢
Public (more informed policies, transparency, understanding of investment, etc.)
SHARED GOALS:
Increased P-12 student achievement & stewardship
SLIDE 19
Resources
➢
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 & DC (Council of Chief State School Officers & Teacher Preparation Analytics)
➢
Getting To Better Prep: A State Guide for Teacher Preparation Data Systems (TNTP)
➢
Approaches to Evaluating Teacher Preparation Programs in Seven States (Regional Education Laboratory Central)
➢
Using Data to Improve Teacher Effectiveness: A Primer for State Policymakers (The Data Quality Campaign) ➢
A c c r e d i t a t i
- n
R e s
- u
r c e s p a g e
- n
C A E P w e b s i t e
➢
C A E P S t a n d a r d 4 e v i d e n c e : A r e s
- u
r c e f
- r
E P P s
➢
C A E P E v a l u a t i
- n
F r a m e w
- r
k f
- r
E P P
- C
r e a t e d A s s e s s m e n t s
➢
F a m i l y E n g a g e m e n t M i n i C
- u
r s e f
- r
c a n d i d a t e s a n d a c c
- m
p a n y i n g r e s
- u
r c e s f
- r
f a c u l t y
SLIDE 20
20
SLIDE 21