Value-added modeling is likely here to stay. Although VAM has some advantages over traditional teacher assessment methods, there also are shortcomings that should be noted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AaronsonD.BarrowL.SandersW. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25 (1), 95–135.
2.
AnyonJ. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement.New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
BowlesS.GintisH.GrovesM. (2005). Unequal chances: Family background and economic success.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
ColemanJ.CampbellE.HobsonC.McPartlandJ.MoodA.WeinfeldF.YorkR. (1966). Equality and educational opportunity.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
5.
HaneyW. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (41).
6.
HanushekE.A.RivkinS.G. (2006). Teacher quality. Handbook of the economics of education, 2, 1051–1078.
7.
KoretzD.HamiltonL.S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In BrennanR.L. (Ed.), Educational measurement, 4th ed. (pp. 531–578). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
8.
McNeilL.ValenzuelaA. (2000). The harmful impact of the TAAS system of testing in Texas: Beneath the accountability rhetoric.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project.
9.
RothmanR.SlatteryJ.B.VranekJ.L.ResnickL.B. (2002). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing. CSE technical report 566.Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
10.
RothsteinR.JacobsenR.WilderT. (2008). Grading education: Getting accountability right.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
11.
ScherrerJ. (2011). Measuring teaching using value-added modeling: The imperfect panacea. NAASP Bulletin, 95 (2), 122–140.
