Using Growth for Accountability

Buzick, Heather M.; Laitusis, Cara Cahalan

doi:10.3102/0013189x10383560

Cited by 37 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many researchers have noted concerns with value-added models for evaluating special education teachers in general (Buzick & Laitusis, 2010;Goe, Bell, & Little, 2008;Steinbrecher, Selig, Cosbey, & Thorstensen, 2014). This is particularly problematic for teachers of students with severe disabilities because their students most often take an alternate assessment (as opposed to the large group assessment), and the results from alternative assessments are not included in value-added models (Buzick & Laitusis, 2010;Sledge & Pazey, 2013). This puts increased importance on the principal walk-through and classroom observation in the evaluation process.…”

Section: Implications For Research and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions About Expert Teaching for Students With Severe Disabilities Among Teachers Identified as Experts

Ruppar

Roberts

Olson

2017

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teaching students with severe disabilities is a complex endeavor, and the skills and qualities of expert teachers for students with severe disabilities are not well understood. A lack of understanding about the unique roles and expertise of teachers of students with severe disabilities can influence the quality of education students with severe disabilities receive and can also affect teacher preparation, development, and evaluation. In this qualitative study, the authors interviewed 11 teachers of students with severe disabilities identified as expert teachers about their perceptions of expertise in relationship to teaching students with severe disabilities. The findings suggest that expert teachers of students with severe disabilities were perceived to demonstrate four core skills and four core qualities that are evident in their actions inside and outside of their classrooms. The four skills identified are (a) advocacy, (b) systematic instruction and academics, (c) individualization and adaptation, and (d) collegial relationships. The four qualities identified are (a) high expectations, (b) positivity, (c) flexibility and creativity, and (d) continual improvement. Implications for research, practice, and teacher evaluation are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Research and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions About Expert Teaching for Students With Severe Disabilities Among Teachers Identified as Experts

Ruppar

Roberts

Olson

2017

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, still unanswered is how growth will be defined. Specific issues related to the measurement of special education growth are as follows: (a) What is a reasonable rate of growth for students, (b) the impact of testing accommodations on student performance, (c) the impact of test difficulty, and (d) the longitudinal characteristics of the population of SWD (Buzick & Laitusis, 2010). Similarly, a third type of measure based on student outcomes is the Student Learning Objective (SLO).…”

Section: Student Outcomes Based Teacher Evaluation Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a result of current reform efforts, measures of student growth and teacher observations are the primary approaches to teacher evaluation in current use (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Goe & Croft, 2009; Goe & Holdheide, 2011; Jones, Buzick, & Turkan, 2013). Despite these changes in teacher evaluation requirements, there remains a significant gap of empirical evidence for many of the newer approaches for evaluating teacher effectiveness in relation to non-tested subject areas such as special education (Buzick & Laitusis, 2010; Rockoff & Speroni, 2010; Rothstein, 2010), as some of the larger studies (e.g., MET) have intentionally excluded diverse student groups such as special education due to the measurement challenges they represent (Ho & Kane, 2013; Kane & Cantrell, 2013; Kane & Staiger, 2012). States that do use teacher observation systems often base them on protocols such as Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FFT).…”

Section: Using Observation Tools For Special Education Teacher Evaluamentioning

confidence: 99%

Special Education Teacher Evaluation

Johnson

Semmelroth

2013

Assessment for Effective Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is currently little consensus on how special education teachers should be evaluated. The lack of consensus may be due to several reasons. Special education teachers work under a variety of complex conditions, with a very heterogeneous population, and support student progress toward a very individualized set of goals. In addition, special education is marked by historical rates of attrition, with a lack of highly qualified teachers entering the field, and a number of special education teachers completing alternate certification programs, leading to a combined effect that impacts overall professional quality. In this article, we first review the challenges associated with evaluating special education teachers, describe and analyze current approaches, and present a conceptual framework for an approach to special education teacher evaluation. We then provide an overview of the Recognizing Effective Special Education Teachers (RESET) tool as a possible alternative to measure special education teacher effectiveness. Given the current zeitgeist of teacher evaluation systems that fail to address the unique circumstances related to special education teachers, it is hoped that the information in this article will contribute to the small but growing body of research on special education teacher evaluation and effectiveness.

show abstract

“…Strategies that allow valid assessments of students in the margins to be made need to be developed (Russell & Kavanaugh, 2011), and careful and complex adaptations of achievement standards may be necessary in order to measure the academic achievement of some students with disabilities (Quenemoen et al, 2010). Researchers are testing various, more accurate models to assess school performance with particular regard to students with disabilities (see, for example, Martineau, 2006;Zvoch & Stevens, 2008;Dunn & Allen, 2009;Buzick & Laitusis, 2010;Drame, 2010). Heck (2006, p. 692) tested different models and concluded that contextual factors had a large impact on school performance estimates, and that the modelling of growth trajectories was the best approach to appreciate school performance, otherwise the comparison between schools would be unfair and blurred by confounding factors.…”

Section: Accountability Presumes Homogeneity But the Student Body Ismentioning

confidence: 99%

Simple-Minded Accountability Measures Create Failing Schools in Disadvantaged Contexts: A Case Study of a Swedish Junior High School

Westling

2013

Policy Futures in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The principles of new public management-market mechanisms, accountability and standards-have been applied in the education system. These methods are supposed to increase efficiency, but there is also a risk of negative consequences from the services provided if the measures of performance target a reduced range of goals, ignore relevant variables or are not valid measures. Indicators used to compare schools' performance are aggregate measures, such as the percentage of students who have access to secondary education and the average qualification value. This study reports how accountability policy and procedures may affect the functioning of the education system through the case study of a school serving a diverse student population. The school organisation was influenced by measures of performance, external events and contextual and selection variables. The average qualification value measure seems to be a limited measure of performance at the school level, since it largely reflects school composition and school segregation. Even the available performance measures adjusted for background variables do not take account of relevant variables that may influence the school's need of resources and its results, such as students' language proficiency and special educational needs. Other performances that are not easily measured-such as the prevention of dropout, improvement of school attendance and provision of an equitable education for all studentsare disregarded. Schools serving those students with the most needs risk being penalised by an approximate and restricted range of accountability systems because there is a risk that the schools will appear to be failing when they are working with more complex and advanced tasks than average schools. Based on these inaccurate performance measurements, the school may be targeted with wideranging, severe and basically unjust interventions.

show abstract

Using Growth for Accountability

Cited by 37 publications

References 15 publications

Perceptions About Expert Teaching for Students With Severe Disabilities Among Teachers Identified as Experts

Perceptions About Expert Teaching for Students With Severe Disabilities Among Teachers Identified as Experts

Special Education Teacher Evaluation

Simple-Minded Accountability Measures Create Failing Schools in Disadvantaged Contexts: A Case Study of a Swedish Junior High School

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About