Performance Accountability

Overview 

Renaissance Partnership Project Goal:  To become accountable for the impact of teacher candidates on P-12 student learning.

Renaissance Partnership Project Five Year Objective:  All institutions will fully implement an accountability system that regularly collects and reports data on the performance of graduates, including their impact on student learning.

Renaissance Partnership institutions are committed to systematically improving the performances of teacher candidates they prepare and providing evidence that their graduates can facilitate the learning of all students. This implies that all partner institutions along with their partner schools have adopted a proactive stance towards standards-based teaching and learning for P-12 schooling and teacher preparation programs.

To ensure that all project partners have the capacity to achieve the above project goals and five-year objective, all project sites are working both collectively and individually to develop accountability and data management systems that have five critical elements:

  • A unit-wide commitment to accountability and data-based decision making
  • An accountability system coordinator with released time designated responsibilities and the authority to provide leadership for developing and managing all components of the system
  • An on-going collaborative process for developing and refining performance assessments linked to P-12 student learning
  • An electronic data system that can collect, process and store data over time and can provide performance results at the individual candidate, group, program and institution levels for a variety of audiences and purposes
  • A formal process for regularly examining performance data and making program improvements.

To assist partnership members assess their progress toward development of the above five critical elements, the project has developed the rubric shown below:


Rubric for Institutional Accountability System Development:

Standard: Development of the system reflects a unit-wide commitment to accountability and data management demonstrated by designation of an accountability system coordinator with released time, faculty involvement, accrual of resources for system development, and an on-going process of analyzing, reporting, and making data based decisions for program improvement.

 

1
Beginning

2
Developing

3
At Standard

4
Above Standard

 Score

Unit-wide commitment to accountability

Commitment to accountability, use of data, and data management is limited to those administrators directly responsible for NCATE (deans, assistant deans, department heads).

Commitment to accountability, use of data, and data management include both administrators and some faculty.

Unit-wide commitment to accountability, use of data, and development of a data management system.

Commitment to accountability, use of data, and data management include unit and other faculty outside the unit who are involved in preparing future teachers.

 

Accountability system coordinator

The institution has assigned several individuals to develop and manage its accountability system, but no one person is ultimately responsible.

The institution has appointed an accountability system coordinator, but this role is added to an individual's present duties.

The institution has appointed an accountability system coordinator and has provided ¼ to ½ released time for this responsibility.

The institution appointed an accountability system coordinator and has provided more than ½  released time for this responsibility.

 

Process for performance assessment development

One-time decisions about developing, implementing, and improving the accountability system are made by those administrators directly responsible for NCATE (deans, assistant deans, department heads).

Decisions about developing and refining a system of candidate performance assessment are made by administrators and some faculty.  Some assessments are standards based.

An ongoing, collaborative process is in place for developing and refining a standards based system of candidate performance assessment.

An ongoing, collaborative process, both within and outside the unit, is in place for developing and refining a standards based system of candidate performance.

 

Electronic data system

An electronic data system is in place that collects and stores data but does not have the capacity to store and analyze data from all candidates over time.

An electronic data system is in place that can store and process most candidate performance data over time.

An electronic data system is in place that can store and process all candidate performance data over time.  Data are regularly collected and stored for all candidates and analyzed and reported in user-friendly formats.

An electronic data system is in place that can store and process all candidate performance data over time.   Maintenance and enhancement needs have been anticipated.

 

Process for using data for program improvement

Data are only generated for external accountability reports (NCATE, AACTE, State), are not used for program improvement, and are available only to administrators.

Some generated data are based on internal standards and used for program improvement, but are available only to administrators "as needed".

An ongoing, systematic, standards based process is in place for reporting and using data to make decisions and improve programs within the unit.

An ongoing, systematic, standards based process is in place for reporting and using data to make decisions and improve programs both unit and university-wide.

 

TOP

Common Data Collection Points:

From the beginning of the Renaissance Partnership Project, all members agreed to collect and report performance data at a minimum of four points in the professional development of new teacher candidates’:

  •  admission to the program,

  • prior to student teaching,

  •  exit from the program, and

  • during the first year of classroom teaching.

Most member institutions have expanded these data points and have tailored their performance evaluation systems to respective state and local institution needs.

All project institutions are collecting common data of candidate performance on teacher work samples during student teaching.  Also, all member institutions are collecting similar survey data on first-year teachers.  Institutions are working collectively to conduct research that links measures of teacher candidate performance to teachers’ impact on learning of their students in their first and second year of teaching.

Three project institutions have taken leadership roles to develop, pilot test and share the results of their development efforts.  These are Idaho State University, Western Kentucky University and Longwood University in Virginia.  All three are state-supported institutions that produce about 200+, 400+ and 170+ student teachers each year respectively.

Click on any of the three institutions below to view a short slide summary presentation of progress on an accountability/data management system.

- Idaho State University  –     Larry Harris <harris@isu.edu>

Presents key items in Idaho State’s system of multiple assessments with examples of data entry pages using the Cognos Impromptu electronic data base 

- Western Kentucky University –     Sam Evans <sam.evans@wku.edu>

Presents characteristics of Western’s performance accountability system, including data collection sources, summary of progress and challenges for next steps in the development of the institution’s data base

- Longwood University –     Sue McCullough <slmccullo@ongwood.edu>

Presents summary data from Longwood’s electronic data system specifically related to the seven teaching processes addressed in the teacher work sample

TOP

PowerPoint Presentations

TOP

Papers & Publications


TOP

Assessment Coordinators

Universities Name E-mail
California State University, Fresno

Robin Chiero robin_chiero@csufresno.edu
Eastern Michigan University Pat Pokay
Carolyn Burns
Nelson Maylone
pat.pokay@emich.edu      carolyn.burns@emich.edu    nelson.maylone@emich.edu
Emporia State University Tony Ambrosia ambrosia@emporia.edu
Idaho State University Peter Denner dennpete@isu.edu
Kentucky State University Jo Anne Rainey jrainey@gwmail.kysu.edu
Longwood University, Virginia Ed Smith esmith@longwood.lwc.edu
Millersville University, Pennsylvania Thomas Neuville
Bennett Berhow
thomas.neuville@millersville.edu
Ben.Berhow@millersville.edu
Middle Tennessee State University Nancy Keese nkeese@mtsu.edu
Southeast Missouri State University Beverly Petch-Hogan bpetchhogan@semovm.semo.edu
University of Northern Iowa Rob Boody robert.boody@uni.edu
Western Kentucky University Tony Norman antony.norman@wku.edu

TOP