Skip to:

A Quick Look At The ASA Statement On Value-Added


Good stuff. I agree with your #3 in particular. How can that be figured out? Would you support implementing a teacher evaluation system as an RCT, precisely to measure "the actions and dispositions of teachers, principals and other educators.” I.e., does teacher attrition rise or fall; what about morale via survey; what about total student achievement; what about quality of new teachers attracted (or not) to district?

Matt, For me, this was the big takeaway. I am surprised you did not mention it. "VAMs should be viewed within the context of quality improvement, which distinguishes aspects of quality that can be attributed to the system from those that can be attributed to individual teachers, teacher preparation programs, or schools. Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions. Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality."

If you think VAM is potentially useful, isn't the burden of proof on VAM supporters not critics. Have you seen _any_ district avoid the serious issues you caution against?


This web site and the information contained herein are provided as a service to those who are interested in the work of the Albert Shanker Institute (ASI). ASI makes no warranties, either express or implied, concerning the information contained on or linked from The visitor uses the information provided herein at his/her own risk. ASI, its officers, board members, agents, and employees specifically disclaim any and all liability from damages which may result from the utilization of the information provided herein. The content in the Shanker Blog may not necessarily reflect the views or official policy positions of ASI or any related entity or organization.