Taking Stock in 2015

In this issue, Marilyn Cochran-Smith provides the first of two Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) articles based on her chapter in the upcoming fifth edition of the Handbook of Research on Teaching (Cochran-Smith, Villegas, Abrams, Chavez Moreno, Mills, & Stern, in press). Her handbook chapter presents the findings from the review of 1,500 teacher education research studies published between 2000 and 2012. JTE is publishing the review in two parts. The first part, the lead article in this issue, describes the procedures and theoretical/analytical framework used in the literature review and outlines three major trends that have influenced the nature of research programs in teacher education: increased attention to teacher quality and accountability, changes in our conceptions of teacher and student learning, and changing demographics. Part 1 also presents the findings from the first of three major research programs in teacher education identified through the search--teacher preparation accountability, effectiveness, and policies. Part 2, to be published in the next issue of JTE, discusses the findings from the remaining two research programs. The first research program includes studies on alternative certification and pathways, analyses of policy trends and discourses, assessment of preservice teachers (PSTs) and/or teacher preparation programs (TPPs), and program evaluation studies. Cochran-Smith's reference in the article to her JTE editorial 10 years prior (Taking Stock in 2005; Cochran-Smith, 2005) prompted us to reflect on the contributions of JTE to advances in teacher education research in the areas identified in the first program described in the study. We comment briefly on research and issues associated with accountability, effectiveness, and policies in relation to the Cochran-Smith article and previous JTE articles published during our tenure as editors. Advances in Research on Teacher Preparation Accountability The theme of accountability has been widespread and persistent over the past 5 years, and JTE has published theme issues and articles related to the use of value-added models to determine the effectiveness of TPPs (Volume 63:5) and to examine the role of performance assessments in accountability (Volume 65:5). The articles on value-added modeling (VAM) for TPPs in the theme issue provide some support for the potential of the approach to provide feedback to policymakers and educators on the achievement of students taught by teachers in different TPPs (Gansle, Noell, & Burns, 2012; Plecki, Elfers, & Nakamura, 2012). However, the potential of using VAM for teacher preparation is diminished by the complexity and limitations of the choice of variables selected for the VAM models; the nature of the accountability criteria; the unidimensional focus on student standardized tests; decisions made about selection, estimation, and reporting; and the unintended consequences of the approach (see Floden, 2012; Goldhaber & Cowan, 2014; Henry, Kershaw, Zulli, & Smith, 2012; Lincove, Osborne, Dillon, & Mills, 2014.) The pitfalls associated with VAM make it less acceptable to educators as a high-stakes accountability measure and appear to outweigh the potential. On the other hand, performance assessment of teacher candidates (TPA) has been suggested as an alternative or addition to VAM to determine TPP effectiveness (Knight et al., 2014) and was the theme of the previous issue of JTE (Volume 65:5). While performance assessments appear to receive more support from educators as they can be used for program improvement as well as evidence for certification and licensure, problems with validity and reliability as well as questions about conceptualization of teaching and accompanying value assumptions have emerged (see Caughlan & Jiang, 2014; Duckor, Castellano, Tellez, Wihardini, & Wilson, 2014; Sato, 2014). More research is needed to address the concerns of both accountability approaches and to determine the feasibility of using a combination of VAM and TPA for high-stakes TPP accountability. …