Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fw: [LiteracyForAll] change in strategy: just "fix" value-added

Expand Messages
  • Todd Groves
    How about this analysis of teacher evaluation? http://www.tntp.org/files/Teacher-Evaluation-Oct10F.pdf Todd Groves
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 4, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      How about this analysis of teacher evaluation?

      http://www.tntp.org/files/Teacher-Evaluation-Oct10F.pdf

      Todd Groves


      --- In wccusdtalk@yahoogroups.com, Eduardo Martinez <ezedmartin@...> wrote:
      >
      > More explanation for the uselessness of value-added measures as an evaluation
      > instrument.
      > http://www.eduardomartinez4richmond.net/index.html
      > As the parent of armies, war encourages debts and taxes, the known instruments
      > for bringing the many under the domination of the few. - James Madison
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- Forwarded Message ----
      > From: Jill Kerper Mora <jmora@...>
      > To: LiteracyForAll@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Thu, November 4, 2010 7:48:44 AM
      > Subject: RE: [LiteracyForAll] change in strategy: just "fix" value-added
      >
      >
      > Value-added measures (VAM) can't be "fixed" because its underlying theoretical
      > assumptions are false. VAM is based on the assumption that such a thing as a
      > "teacher effect" can be isolated, statistically at least. This is wrong for two
      > reasons: First, students' learning (or the lack thereof) is attributable to the
      > totality of their experiences, including all of the teachers they have for any
      > portion of their instruction during a school day & year. This number of teachers
      > is rarely N=1. This is especially true in grades 6-12 where teaching is
      > departmentalized & by courses. The "teacher effect" theory also fails because
      > the assumption is that all teachers are fully equipped with everything they need
      > (sound & effective curriculum, instructional materials, time & other resources)
      > to do a perfect job of teaching so that students' learning is purely
      > "value-added" based on teachers' effectiveness & efforts.
      >
      >
      > We can't let the likes of Eric Hanushek get away with leading policymakers & the
      > public to believe that by just "fixing" the statistical model that we can "fix"
      > value-added model research.
      >
      > See the pages on my website about merit pay and value-added model evaluations.
      >
      > http://moramodules.com/Pages/MeritPayWontWork.htm
      >
      > http://moramodules.com/MoraModules/LATimesVAM.htm
      >
      > JKM
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: LiteracyForAll@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LiteracyForAll@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Behalf Of Stephen Krashen
      > Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 4:30 PM
      > To: LiteracyForAll@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [LiteracyForAll] change in strategy: just "fix" value-added
      >
      > There has been a change in strategy: supporters of value-added and making
      > teacher evaluations public now admit that there are problems but think that they
      > can be easily fixed.
      >
      > The relevant section of the Star-Ledgrer's editoral:
      > "In New York, the teachers union filed a lawsuit to block such a release saying
      > errors are rampant: Some teachers were scored based on students or classes they
      > never taught, and there’s a high margin of error. Unpredictable swings rank a
      > teacher in the top tier one year and near the bottom in the next. If true, that
      > must be fixed."
      > I suspect that this confession comes from Hanushek's article in the NY Daily
      > News, available at http://susanohanian.org/show_nclb_outrages.php?id=4065.
      > My response:
      > Fixing value-added evaluations: Not our first priority Sent to the NJ
      > Star-Ledger, November 3, 2010 The Star-Ledger feels that value-added scores, the
      > gains a teacher's students make in a year on standardized tests, should be
      > released to the public (Nov. 2). The Star-Ledger recognizes that there are
      > problems with using value-added scores, and states that they must be "fixed."
      > It's not that simple.
      > Studies show that value-added ratings are unstable. Value-added ratings based on
      > one year are weak predictors of value-added ratings the next year. A teacher who
      > succeeds in boosting scores with one group will not necessarily succeed with
      > others. Studies also show that different reading tests result in different
      > value-added scores for the same teacher.
      >
      > Value-added ratings may not represent real learning. There are ways of pumping
      > up test scores without student learning, including teaching test-taking
      > strategies and making sure weak students don't take the test.
      >
      > It would take years of hard work and major financial support for research to fix
      > these problems. Our schools are facing tremendous financial problems: In high
      > poverty areas, science classes lack equipment, libraries lack books, and even
      > bathrooms lack toilet paper. Funding complex and subtle studies to attempt to
      > create what might or might not be a better teacher evaluation measure is not our
      > first priority.
      > Stephen Krashen
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.