Comments on: Diane Ravitch on Teacher Evaluation and Value-Added http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2008/11/18/diane-ravitch-on-teacher-evaluation-and-value-added/ Closing the Achievement Gap: Teaching Content Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:59:33 -0600 hourly 1 By: Diane Ravitch http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2008/11/18/diane-ravitch-on-teacher-evaluation-and-value-added/comment-page-1/#comment-4887 Diane Ravitch Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:22:05 +0000 http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/?p=1476#comment-4887 I notice that the quotation you cite is a multi-faceted evaluation, not based on test scores alone. It includes "subjective evaluations by principals and peers, and parental evaluations" in addition to value-added scores. I suspect that Kane and Staiger would say that this approach is not necessarily inconsistent with their earlier work on random variation. Random variation is still a problem, and it is accentuated if one looks at only one-year test score changes. Most scholars who advocate value-added models suggest that it requires three years of testing, and testing done in September and June. Even then, there will be confounding factors, having to do with families, students, and the environment. Testing is not an exact science. In fact, the closer you get to the construction of tests, the more arbitrary they seem. I suggest that you read Richard Rothstein's recent work "Holding Accountability to Account," which you can google. Diane Ravitch Diane Ravitch I notice that the quotation you cite is a multi-faceted evaluation, not based on test scores alone. It includes “subjective evaluations by principals and peers, and parental evaluations” in addition to value-added scores. I suspect that Kane and Staiger would say that this approach is not necessarily inconsistent with their earlier work on random variation. Random variation is still a problem, and it is accentuated if one looks at only one-year test score changes. Most scholars who advocate value-added models suggest that it requires three years of testing, and testing done in September and June. Even then, there will be confounding factors, having to do with families, students, and the environment.
Testing is not an exact science. In fact, the closer you get to the construction of tests, the more arbitrary they seem.
I suggest that you read Richard Rothstein’s recent work “Holding Accountability to Account,” which you can google.

Diane Ravitch

Diane Ravitch

]]> By: Mike G http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2008/11/18/diane-ravitch-on-teacher-evaluation-and-value-added/comment-page-1/#comment-4884 Mike G Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:18:24 +0000 http://www.coreknowledge.org/blog/?p=1476#comment-4884 Hi there, You cite a 2002 paper by Kane et al questioning value-added. But in 2006 they authored a paper specifically advocating for value-added. "We propose federal support to help states measure the effectiveness of individual teachers—based on their impact on student achievement, subjective evaluations by principals and peers, and parental evaluations. States would be given considerable discretion to develop their own measures, as long as student achievement impacts (using so-called “value-added” measures) are a key component." Seems like the scholars you are citing disagree with you on whether value-added is ready for prime-time. In fact, I believe they're involved in a number of such projects. Hi there,

You cite a 2002 paper by Kane et al questioning value-added.

But in 2006 they authored a paper specifically advocating for value-added.

“We propose federal support to help states measure the effectiveness of individual teachers—based on their impact on student achievement, subjective evaluations by principals and peers, and parental evaluations. States
would be given considerable discretion to develop their own measures, as long as student achievement impacts (using so-called “value-added” measures) are a key component.”

Seems like the scholars you are citing disagree with you on whether value-added is ready for prime-time. In fact, I believe they’re involved in a number of such projects.

]]>