Educator Preparation, Retention, and Effectiveness Ed Fuller University Council for Educational Administration and The University of Texas at Austin February.

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

37

Contact Information:

Ed Fulleredfuller@mail.utexas.edu

(512) 420-0868