Many states are moving to a “value-added” component of teacher
evaluation. It looks at student test
scores and measures the value-added by the teacher in student
performance. In theory it sounds
reasonable, but in reality so many variables influence a student’s test scores
in any given year. Also, most teachers
do not have a standardized test for their subject matter.
In yesterday’s New York Times (click
here to read the article) there was an example of another problem cropping
up with using and releasing valued-added data.
There have been several studies, and the entire process has been
questioned as to whether it improves student performance and accurately
measures teacher performance.
The article looks at fifth grade in a NY City schoolhouse. The teachers have impressive credentials and
work tirelessly to prepare students each week.
“In 2009, 96 percent of their fifth
graders were proficient in English, 89 percent in math. When the New York City Education Department released its numerical
ratings recently, it seemed a sure bet that the P.S. 146 teachers would be at
the very top. Actually, they were near the very bottom.”
How could such a group of teachers be rated so poorly? According to The Times, “The short answer is:
Numbers lie. And not only do they lie,
but they are out of date, in this case covering student test results from 2007
to 2010.”
The students had a negative gain in student performance. They scored at the top (97 percent
proficient) to having lower scores in the next grade level (89 percent
proficient). The students moved from a
grade where test prep was important (4th grade scores were always used
in school ratings) to a grade that focused on real-life curriculum (testing had
not been used to “grade” schools in the past).
The students made gains, but the focus in the curriculum was
different. The fifth grade teachers were
preparing the students for life, and not specifically for taking a standardized
test. The principal of the school calls
this data “invalid value-addeds” when looking at and explaining these results.
Here’s an example of differences in the teaching
approach: “Across the hallway, Ms. Sangree might have
scored higher than 11 in English by doing more test prep. There is a standard
test-prep formula for writing an essay: Topic sentence; three sentences that
give examples to support the thesis, one from literature, one from current
events, and one from personal experience; concluding sentence. Instead, her
class has spent weeks working on research papers about the Mayans.”
As we move in this direction in our state, I hope folks are
paying close attention to research in this area and the problems that exist with “value-added”
methodology in rating teachers.
