Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

multiple disabilities

As detailed in a recent National Academy of Education report, evaluations of TPP typically serve a primary purpose—either accountability, providing information to consumers, or program improvement—and the evaluation data required for one purpose may not be well-aligned with the evaluation data required for another purpose (Feuer, Floden, Chudowsky, & Ahn, 2013). Many current TPP evaluations, such as estimating the average value-added of a TPP’s graduates (Gansle, Noell, & Burns, 2012; Goldhaber, Liddle, & Theobald, 2013; Henry, Patterson, Campbell, & Pan, 2013) or rating the quality of a TPP’s inputs (National Council on Teacher Quality, 2014), fall into the accountability and/or consumer information categories. When performed well, these evaluation efforts benchmark the performance of a TPP against a reference category or a set of standards and may direct TPP to look towards high-performing or highlyrated TPP for program improvement ideas.1 However, even with these types of aggregate evaluation data, TPP are often driving blind, operating without the level of data necessary to guide evidence-based program improvement (Peck, Singer-Gabella, Sloan, & Lin, 2014). Instead, to initiate systems of continuous improvement, TPP and researchers or state-level education agencies need to establish partnerships so that TPP receive individual-level data on the characteristics, work environments, and performance of their graduates. Such data could include teachers’ credentials (e.g. National Board Certification status and licensure exam scores), measures of their employment/teaching context (e.g. school free and reduced-price lunch percentage, students’ average prior scores, and the percentage of English language learners taught), and their outcomes (e.g. value-added estimates, evaluation ratings, and retention). With 1 For example, TPP performing at average or below average levels, based on the value-added of their graduates, can look to TPP with highly effective graduates to try to identify and replicate promising preparation practices. 2 such individual-level data TPP can better achieve evidence-based program improvement by examining whether their preparation practices are aligned with the types of school and classroom environments in which their graduates teach and by exploring how variation in graduates’ preparation experiences explain variation in the characteristics and performance of those graduates when they become teachers. Given the research showing significant within-program heterogeneity in graduates’ value-added effectiveness, these types of analyses represent a promising way to better understand that variability (Koedel, Parsons, Podgursky, & Ehlert, 2012). Furthermore, such data sharing partnerships can help TPP develop the internal capacity for rigorous data analysis, determine what additional data measures they should collect to advance program improvement, and create a coordinated and systemic view of teacher education reform