What is a Value Added Analysis Teacher Rating?
With such a push for holding teachers accountable for student achievement and high scores on high-stakes testing, there has also been a push to figure out a way to look at teacher ratings from a more statistical viewpoint. One way of doing this is by using value added analysis.
While value added analysis can be very helpful in identifying teachers who are effective in teaching the information measured on a specific test, it’s not always a good measure of how a teacher rates in other areas of teaching.
Value added analysis provides an estimate of how well a teacher is doing at increasing student performance on standardized tests. It provides an idea of how well a student will do on future tests by looking at past test scores (his baseline) and comparing them to current scores, measuring student academic growth.
Academic growth in this equation, be it positive, negative or neutral is the “value.” This value is used as an indicator of how effective the current teacher is in teaching the student. It is, in essence, her value as a teacher.
Having data makes it easier to rate a teacher based on measurable, quantifiable information rather than anecdotal evidence, report cards or observations and reviews. While those measures may still play some role in measuring teacher success, a value-added score looks at teacher effectiveness on a case-by-case basis as well.
Some of the other benefits of this type of rating include:
There are some problems with using value-rated analysis as the only way of measuring teacher effectiveness. A teacher has no control over what happened educationally before a student stepped into her classroom and is only able to propel a child forward from where he began. If he began below standard and she taught him so that he barely reaches the standard, the student has still made progress that will not show up in testing. Other drawbacks include:
There is no way way to calculate a teacher’s score using value-added analysis, a fact to which critics, including the National Education Association and local teacher’s unions, point in their concerns about using this model as a teacher rating system. A report from the National Academies of Science points out such scores have yet to be scientifically validated.
In its report, Using Student Progress To Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added Models, the Educational Testing Service identifies three different systems used to calculate teacher scores and notes these are only the most widely used. These models are the:
1. Educational Value-Added Assessment System, which was developed in 1993 for use in Tennessee and is now used by many other districts across the nation. It uses a complicated system that looks not only at student achievement and progress, but also district averages and the teacher effect from year to year.
2. Dallas Value-Added Accountability System, which is in use in the large Dallas school district and differs from the EVAAS in that it doesn’t look at scores across many grades, but only from year to year, looking not at gains, but a connection between the scores.
3. Rate of Expected Academic Change, which proposes to use test data to measure a student’s progress toward a proficiency goal instead of comparing student-to-student achievement, as many standardized tests do.
Using a value-added model for measuring teacher effectiveness works well in providing an overall snapshot of how the teacher is doing in terms of teaching to the test. It can be of assistance to administrators in helping to make decisions about classroom and professional development funding.
However, until there is a scientifically validated and standardized model, using VAM for incentive pay or contract renewal may cause districts to lose good teachers to bad decisions.
While value added analysis can be very helpful in identifying teachers who are effective in teaching the information measured on a specific test, it’s not always a good measure of how a teacher rates in other areas of teaching.
What is Value Added Analysis?
Value added analysis provides an estimate of how well a teacher is doing at increasing student performance on standardized tests. It provides an idea of how well a student will do on future tests by looking at past test scores (his baseline) and comparing them to current scores, measuring student academic growth.
Academic Growth = Current/recent test performance - baseline (past test performance)Academic growth in this equation, be it positive, negative or neutral is the “value.” This value is used as an indicator of how effective the current teacher is in teaching the student. It is, in essence, her value as a teacher.
What Are the Benefits of Value Added Analysis?
Having data makes it easier to rate a teacher based on measurable, quantifiable information rather than anecdotal evidence, report cards or observations and reviews. While those measures may still play some role in measuring teacher success, a value-added score looks at teacher effectiveness on a case-by-case basis as well.
Some of the other benefits of this type of rating include:
- Looking at individual student success, rather than the class as a whole. In measuring each child’s progress from his own baseline, it’s easier to see a trend. If most of the scores are improving, then it’s likely the teacher is being effective in getting information across to students.
- It reduces the discrepancies found in other measurement systems due to socio-economic class, gender and English-as-a-second-language speakers.
- It allows administrators to look at specific areas of need, both in terms of professional development for teachers and intervention programs for students.
- It combines the elements of achievement and progress, whereas some other ratings of teacher effectiveness are solely based on achievement.
What Are the Drawbacks?
There are some problems with using value-rated analysis as the only way of measuring teacher effectiveness. A teacher has no control over what happened educationally before a student stepped into her classroom and is only able to propel a child forward from where he began. If he began below standard and she taught him so that he barely reaches the standard, the student has still made progress that will not show up in testing. Other drawbacks include:
- The system can only be used in school districts which give standardized tests on an annual basis.
- The test being used for comparison needs to evaluate the goals being targeted by the school’s curriculum.
- Standardized tests aren’t always the most effective assessment of student skill and learning. Using standardized tests as a measurement tool doesn’t take into account learning and growth that have been made in areas outside the scope of the test, not only academically, but socially and behaviorally as well.
- Teacher ratings can vary wildly from year to year, based on the student population and their prior test scores. Also, in his report on this issue for the Anneberg Institute for School Reform Professor Sean P. Corcoran pointed out that "because value-added is statistically estimated, it is subject to uncertainty, or a 'margin of error'.”
Is There One Way to Calculate a Teacher’s Score?
There is no way way to calculate a teacher’s score using value-added analysis, a fact to which critics, including the National Education Association and local teacher’s unions, point in their concerns about using this model as a teacher rating system. A report from the National Academies of Science points out such scores have yet to be scientifically validated.
In its report, Using Student Progress To Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added Models, the Educational Testing Service identifies three different systems used to calculate teacher scores and notes these are only the most widely used. These models are the:
1. Educational Value-Added Assessment System, which was developed in 1993 for use in Tennessee and is now used by many other districts across the nation. It uses a complicated system that looks not only at student achievement and progress, but also district averages and the teacher effect from year to year.
2. Dallas Value-Added Accountability System, which is in use in the large Dallas school district and differs from the EVAAS in that it doesn’t look at scores across many grades, but only from year to year, looking not at gains, but a connection between the scores.
3. Rate of Expected Academic Change, which proposes to use test data to measure a student’s progress toward a proficiency goal instead of comparing student-to-student achievement, as many standardized tests do.
What’s the Bottom Line?
Using a value-added model for measuring teacher effectiveness works well in providing an overall snapshot of how the teacher is doing in terms of teaching to the test. It can be of assistance to administrators in helping to make decisions about classroom and professional development funding.
However, until there is a scientifically validated and standardized model, using VAM for incentive pay or contract renewal may cause districts to lose good teachers to bad decisions.
Source...