Examining the Complexity of Assessment and Accountability in Teacher Education

The theme of accountability currently permeates conversations about education at every level, including teacher education and professional development. In our Call for Manuscripts for this theme issue, we invited empirical or conceptual manuscripts addressing assessment and accountability in teacher education that would move the community forward in considering the topics both more precisely and with greater complexity. The range of suggested subtopics and questions within assessment and accountability in teacher education was broad to elicit a wide range of responses. In general, we asked, "Who is to be held accountable? For what? And by whom?" As we reviewed the many excellent submissions, one predominant response to these questions centered on value-added modeling (VAM) approaches to accountability. Although this is only one of several answers to the questions we asked, it is one that has important intended and unintended consequences for various stakeholders in teacher education, including beginning teachers, mentor teachers, administrators, teacher educators, higher education institutions, and policy makers. Emergence of Value-Added Models for Teacher Education The rise of interest in VAM for teacher education is related to the search for the definition of teacher quality that has emerged as a primary factor in determination of K-12 student performance, probably as a confluence of a number of events (see Knight, 2011). The Tennessee study (Sanders & Horn, 1998), a landmark study using random assignment of teachers and students to classrooms, firmly established the advantage for students of having a high-quality teacher over a number of years. For many years, educators had struggled with the seemingly intractable socioeconomic factors related to poor student performance. The notion of teacher quality appeared to be manipulable and constituted a viable approach for closing student achievement gaps. Not only do teachers make a difference but their effectiveness can potentially be assessed, rewarded, and improved through recruitment, incentives, and/or professional development. No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top funding and legislation served to popularize the VAM approach for determination of teacher quality. Given the emphasis on teacher professional development as a contributor to teacher quality, the application of VAM approaches for teacher education accountability may have appeared to be an obvious connection to policy makers (see Floden, 2012 [this issue]). Despite the rather limited evidence of the impacts of teacher preparation programs on student achievement (Duckworth, Quinn, & Seligman, 2009), many policy makers concluded that the quality of teacher education preparation, as with individual teachers, can potentially be assessed, rewarded, and improved--or removed if necessary. However, just as VAM applied to determination of individual teacher quality resulted in a number of methodological, ethical, and other concerns, VAM used to determine the quality of teacher education programs carries similar concerns as well as others specific to teacher education. Possibilities and Limitations of VAM for Teacher Education In February 2012, Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) sponsored a Major Forum at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) Annual Meeting in Chicago that featured research using VAM for assessment of the quality of teacher education programs in several states and commentaries that focused participants on both the possibilities as well as the limitations of this approach. Participants agreed that the framing of VAM as a policy issue is important and that much is at stake as we consider the education of teachers and the education of young people in this country. Federal and state governments are investing a great deal of money in value-added assessment systems, and the consequences of policy implementation are complex and significant. …