Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Using the nonparametric Mann–Whitney U-Test to analyze 128 survey responses from K-12 teachers, this paper considers how value-added measures (VAM) impact educators’ decisions to include Latinx topics in their social studies lessons. The authors found that VAM teachers are more likely to rely on district/state curriculum standards whereas non-VAM teachers rely on curriculum resources to incorporate Latinx topics. When compared to non-VAM teachers, VAM teachers cover less Latinx content when it does not align with the standards, but higher coverage when the topics do align. The findings suggest that VAM can restrict teachers from implementing a diverse curriculum.

Keywords

social justice teachers accountability value added measures social studies Latinx

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

E. L.

Barton

P. E.

Darling-Hammond

Haertel

Ladd

H. F.

Linn

R. L.

Shepard

L. A.

(2010). Problems with the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. EPI briefing paper# 278. Economic Policy Institute.

Chetty

Friedman

J. N.

Rockoff

J. E.

(2014). Measuring the impacts of Teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–2679. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633

Darling-Hammond

Amrein-Beardsley

Haertel

Rothstein

(2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171209300603

Davis

(2019). (Mis)representation of Latinxs in Florida social studies standards. Social Studies Research and Practice, 14, 1–13.

Demoiny

S. B.

Ferreras-Stone

(2020). We are history too: Using text sets to honor Latinx stories in social studies and ELA integrated instruction. The Councilor: A Journal of the Social Studies, 81(1), 1.

Education Data Partnership. (2020). Los Angeles Unified. California Department of Education, EdSource, and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team/California School Information Services. http://www.ed-data.org/district/Los-Angeles/Los-Angeles-Unified

Farrell

I. K.

Hamed

K. M.

(2017). Examining the relationship between technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) and student achievement utilizing the Florida value-added model. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3–4), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1328992

Fitchett

P. G.

Heafner

T. L.

VanFossen

(2014). An analysis of time prioritization for social studies in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 8(2), 7–35.

Fitchett

P. G.

Vanfossen

P. J.

(2013). Survey on the status of social studies: Development and analysis. Social Studies Research and Practice, 8(1), 1–23. http://www.socstrpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/MS_06462_no1.pdf

10.

Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Student growth. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from http://www.fldoe.org/teaching/performance-evaluation/student-growth.stml

11.

Garcia

(1993). The changing image of ethnic groups in textbooks. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 29–35.

12.

Grossman

Loeb

Cohen

Wyckoff

(2013). Measure for Measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English Language Arts and teachers’ value-added scores. American Journal of Education, 119(3), 445–470. https://doi.org/10.1086/669901

13.

Hallinger

Heck

R. H.

Murphy

(2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment Evaluation and Accountability, 26(1), 5–28.

14.

Hazi

H. M.

(2017). VAM under scrutiny: Teacher evaluation litigation in the states. The Clearing House A Journal of Educational Strategies Issues and Ideas, 90(5-6), 184–190.

15.

Heafner

T. L.

(2018). Elementary ELA/social studies integration: Challenges and limitations. Social Studies, 109(1), 1–12.

16.

Hewitt

K. K.

(2015). Educator evaluation policy that incorporates EVAAS value-added measures: Undermined intentions and exacerbated inequities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23, 76.

17.

Holloway-Libell

Collins

(2014). VAM-based teacher evaluation policies: Ideological foundations, policy mechanisms, and implications. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 10(1).

18.

Illinois State Board of Education. (2021). Educator evaluations. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Educator-Evaluations.aspx

19.

Jacob

B. A.

(2011). Do principals fire the worst teachers? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 403–434. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711414704

20.

Jiang

J. Y.

Sporte

S. E.

Luppescu

(2015). Teacher perspectives on evaluation reform: Chicago’s REACH students. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 105–116. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24571537

21.

Ladd

H. F.

Walsh

R. P.

(2002). Implementing value-added measures of school effectiveness: Getting the incentives right. Economics of Education Review, 21(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-7757(00)00039-x

22.

Lee

(2011). What did the teachers think? Teachers’ responses to the use of value-added modeling as a tool for evaluating teacher effectiveness. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 7, 97–103.

23.

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2016). Performance evaluation for UTLA bargaining unit personnel. https://achieve.lausd.net/site/handlers/filedownload.ashx?moduleinstanceid=25091&dataid=40982&FileName=BUL-5335.5%20-%20PERFORMANCE%20EVALUATION%20FOR%20UTLA%20BAR%20UNIT.pdf

24.

MacFarland

Yates

(2016). Introduction to nonparametric statistics for the biological sciences using R. Springer.

25.

Montaño

Burstein

J. H.

(2006). Learning from las maestras: Experienced teacher activists who remain in the classroom. Journal of Borderland Education, 1(1), 29–39.

26.

Neumerski

C. M.

Grissom

J. A.

Goldring

Drake

T. A.

Rubin

Cannata

Schuermann

(2018). Restructuring instructional leadership: How multiple-measure teacher evaluation systems are redefining the role of the school principal. The Elementary School Journal, 119(2), 270–297.

27.

New York City Department of Education. (2019). Advance overall ratings guide: Understanding your Advance overall rating. Retrieved January 27, 2021, from https://www.uft.org/sites/default/files/attachments/overall-ratings-guide.pdf

28.

Noboa

(2013). Leaving Latinos out of history: Teaching U.S. history in Texas. Routledge.

29.

Pace

J. L.

(2008). Inequalities in history-social science teaching under high-stakes accountability: Interviews with fifth-grade teachers in California. Social Studies Research and Practice, 3(1), 24–40.

30.

Passe

Fitchett

P. G.

(Eds.). (2013). The status of social studies: Views from the field. Information Age Publishing.

31.

Patrick

(2016). Problems with percentiles: Student growth scores in New York’s teacher evaluation system. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 12(4), 32.

32.

Paufler

N. A.

(2018). Declining morale, diminishing autonomy, and decreasing value: Principal reflections on a high-stakes teacher evaluation system. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 13(8), 8.

33.

Pressley

Roehrig

A. D.

Turner

J. E.

(2018). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of a reformed teacher-evaluation system. Teaching Education, 53(1), 21–43.

34.

Putnam

Ross

Walsh

(2018). Making a difference: Six places where teacher evaluation systems are getting results. National Council on Teacher Quality.

35.

Restler

(2019). Countervisualities of care: Re-visualizing teacher labor. Gender and Education, 31(5), 643–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1543860

36.

Rockoff

J. E.

Speroni

(2011). Subjective and objective evaluations of teacher effectiveness: Evidence from New York City. Labour Economics, 18, 687–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2011.02.004

37.

Salinas

Castro

A. J.

(2010). Disrupting the official curriculum: Cultural biography and the curriculum decision making of Latino preservice teachers. Theory & Research in Social Education, 38(3), 428–463.

38.

Santiago

(2020a). Diluting Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County for public consumption: How Mendez became the ‘Mexican American Brown.’ Teachers College Record, 122(8). https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=23578

39.

Santiago

(2020b). From multicultural to romanticized representations of the past: How Mendez v. Westminster’s significance shapeshifts to appeal to different contexts. Journal of Social Studies Research, 44(1), 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2019.04.004

40.

Subedi

(2008). Contesting racialization: Asian immigrant teachers’ critiques and claims of teacher authenticity. Race Ethnicity and Education, 11(1), 57–70.

41.

United States Census. (2010). Hispanic or Latino by type. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2011/dec/c2010br-04.html

42.

Vogler

K. E.

Lintner

Lipscomb

G. B.

Knopf

Heafner

T. L.

Rock

T. C.

(2007). Getting off the back burner: Impact of testing elementary social studies as part of a state-mandated accountability program. The Journal of Social Studies Research, 31(2), 20.

43.

Vogler

K. E.

Virtue

(2007). Just the facts, ma’am”: Teaching Social Studies in the era of standards and high-stakes testing. Social Studies, 98(2), 54–58.

44.

von Zastrow

C. E.

Janc

(2004). Academic atrophy: The condition of the liberal arts in America’s public schools. Council for Basic Education.

The Unintended Consequences of VAM: Excluding Latinx Social Studies Topics

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References