| DESE Home >> Top 10 by 20 Home |
Research Partners - Goal 3
Goal 3: Missouri will prepare, develop, and support effective educators.
Background
Two objectives fall under Goal 3. Objective 1 involves ensuring that educator preparation program completers will be highly effective as defined by a uniform set of performance data. Objective 2 is to ensure that all educators will be highly effective.
To meet Objective 1, the expressed strategy is the development and implementation of a process for approving preparation programs that is based on current research and student achievement. Two strategies have been defined for Objective 2: reviewing and revising licensure policies and procedures, and providing districts access to educator evaluation resources aligned to the Missouri Educator Standards. Moreover, each strategy dictates a number of action items, as defined in the 10 by 20 visioning document.
Research Needs
The research needs to support the action items for Goal 3 are identified below, grouped by topic. Because many of these needs cut across the specific objectives and strategies, the list is not linked explicitly to the Objective, Strategy and Action numbers provided in the visioning plan.
* Important Note: The term “educator” is defined to mean not only teachers but administrators and other certificated staff at both the school and district levels who contribute to student learning. In the research needs defined below, it is important to keep this definition in mind so that non-teaching personnel are considered alongside teaching personnel in inquiry and analysis.
RESEARCH TOPIC |
ASSIGNED TO |
ANTICIPATED
COMPLETION |
Topic 1: Educator Licensure |
||
a) [BP] What are the educator licensure practices of the highest-performing states? What standards and indicators are used to make licensure decisions? How does Missouri compare to these best-practice states (gap analysis)? |
University of Missouri |
|
b) [LIT] What does research suggest should be important components of the licensure process for teachers, administrators, and other educators? |
University of Missouri |
Dec 2011 |
Topic 2: Educator Evaluation |
||
a) [BP] What are the best practices in educator evaluation? What are the leading states doing in this area? What are the latest innovations? What do evaluation instruments look like in these states? To what degree are states using student assessment, both end-of-year and within-year, to measure educator performance? To what degree are they using other indicators, including subjective assessments? |
Available |
|
b) [LIT] What does the education literature tell us about the important components of educator evaluation systems? What are the strengths and limitations of using student achievement data to assess the performance of teachers, administrators, and other educators? How do test score-based measures correlate with subjective evaluations conducted by principals or peers? What are the measurement issues? How can you evaluate the effectiveness of an educator evaluation system? |
Available |
|
c) [QUAL/MO DATA] Which MO districts are incorporating student growth and achievement into the educator evaluation systems (e.g., Springfield)? What are these districts finding to be the strengths and challenges of using these data for evaluation? What can other districts learn? |
University of Missouri |
Jan 2012 |
d) [MO DATA] In districts that are already using student test score performance for educator evaluation, what are the correlations between districts’ subjective evaluations of teachers, administrators, and other educators and measures based on student test score performance? How do these correlations vary with evaluators’ fidelity to the evaluation instrument? What can we learn about evaluation reliability from this analysis?
|
Available |
|
e) [QUAL/MO DATA] Which MO districts using alternative assessments to supplement MAP testing? Which are using “short-cycle” assessments (e.g., Renaissance’s STAR program)? How do scores on those “within-year” tests correlate with MAP scores? What is the potential for such assessments to measure teacher growth within school years? |
Available |
|
Topic 3: Educator Opportunities for Professional Advancement |
||
a) [BP] What kinds of opportunities for advancement within the profession are other states implementing? What does a “professional continuum” look like in other states? How do they tackle the question of how the continuum gets translated into labels? What data do they collect to inform the continuum? How do they use the continuum for educator recognition? |
Available |
|
b) [MO DATA] How do the 9 standards and 35 indicators used to define Missouri’s professional continuum (Pre-service, New/Emerging, Developing, Proficient, Distinguished) predict educator performance using student test score performance and other indicators? |
Available |
|
Topic 4: Assessment of Educator Preparation Programs |
||
a) [LIT] What does the education literature tell us are the characteristics of effective preparation programs for teachers, administrators, and other educators? What components should programs contain or emphasize? What components are less necessary? |
University of Missouri |
|
b) [QUAL] What do Missouri’s educator preparations look like in terms of offerings and programmatic components, particularly when compared to the characteristics of effective programs the literature identifies? |
Available |
|
c) [BP] What are other states doing with respect to evaluation of educator preparation programs? In particular, how are high-performing states establishing benchmarks and indicators for what educator aspirants should know, both by the end of the program and even at different points within the program? What are states doing in terms of common assessments (e.g., exit exams) across a state’s preparation programs to measure these indicators using a common metric? |
Available |
|
d) [QUAL/MO DATA] What are common areas of data collection across educator preparation programs in Missouri? |
Available |
|
e) [LIT/MO DATA] What do licensure examinations tell us about future educator effectiveness? Can these examinations be used to tell us about educator preparation program performance? |
Available
|