Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Ongoing or recently completed across the United States are a series of lawsuits via which teacher plaintiffs are contesting how they are being evaluated using value-added models (VAMs) as part of states’/districts’ teacher accountability systems. To investigate the empirical and pragmatic matters addressed in court, researchers conducted a case study analysis of the documents submitted for five such cases. Researchers framed analyses using measurement concepts resident within the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, given issues with (a) reliability, (b) validity, (c) bias, (d) transparency, and (e) fairness, with emphases also on (f) whether VAMs are being used to make consequential decisions using concrete (e.g., not arbitrary) evidence, and (g) whether VAMs’ unintended consequences are also of legal pertinence and concern.

Keywords

accountability education policy educational reform evaluation and assessment legal issues policy implementation teacher quality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aaronson

Barrow

Sanders

(2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25, 95-135. doi:10.1086/508733

American Educational Research Association. (2000). Position statement on high-stakes testing in PreK-12 education. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/AERARulesPolicies/AERAPolicyStatements/PositionStatementonHighStakesTesting/tabid/11083/Default.aspx

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

American Educational Research Association Council. (2015). AERA statement on use of value-added models (VAM) for the evaluation of educators and educator preparation programs. Educational Researcher, 44, 448-452. doi:10.3102/0013189X15618385

American Statistical Association. (2014). ASA statement on using value-added models for educational assessment. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/asa_vam_statement.pdf

Amrein-Beardsley

(2008). Methodological concerns about the Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS). Educational Researcher, 37(2), 65-75. doi: 10.3102/0013189X08316420

Amrein-Beardsley

(2014). Rethinking value-added models in education: Critical perspectives on tests and assessment-based accountability. New York, NY: Routledge.

Baker

B. D.

(2012, December). It’s good to be King: More misguided rhetoric on the NY State Eval System. School Finance 101. Retrieved from http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2012/12/12/its-good-to-be-king-more-misguided-rhetoric-on-the-ny-state-eval-system/

Baker

B. D.

Oluwole

J. O.

Green

P. C.

(2013). The legal consequences of mandating high stakes decisions based on low quality information: Teacher evaluation in the Race-to-the-Top era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(5), 1-71. Retrieved from https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1298

10.

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. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp278

11.

Ballou

(2005). Value-added assessment: Lessons from Tennessee. In Lissitz

R. W.

(Ed.), Value-added models in education: Theory and application (pp. 272-297). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.

12.

Ballou

Springer

M. G.

(2015). Using student test scores to measure teacher performance: Some problems in the design and implementation of evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, 44, 77-86. doi:10.3102/0013189X15574904

13.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2013, January 8). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET project’s three-year study. Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://k12education.gatesfoundation.org/resource/ensuring-fair-and-reliable-measures-of-effective-teaching-culminating-findings-from-the-met-projects-three-year-study/

14.

Boeije

(2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36, 391-409.

15.

Braun

H. I.

(2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICVAM.pdf

16.

Braun

H. I.

(2015). The value in value added depends on the ecology. Educational Researcher, 44, 127-131. doi:10.3102/0013189X15576341

17.

Brennan

R. L.

(2006). Perspectives on the evolution and future of educational measurement. In Brennan

R. L.

(Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 1-16). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.

18.

Brennan

R. L.

(2013). Commentary on “validating interpretations and uses of test scores.” Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 74-83. doi:10.1111/jedm.12001

19.

Brown

(2014, July 31). Stephen Colbert interview with Campbell Brown: The Colbert report. New York, NY: Comedy Central. Retrieved from http://www.cc.com/video-clips/2mpwlv/the-colbert-report-campbell-brown

20.

Burris

C. C.

Welner

K. G.

(2011). Letter to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan concerning evaluation of teachers and principals. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/letter-to-Arne-Duncan

21.

Campbell

(1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, 8, 178-185.

22.

Capitol Hill Briefing. (2011, September 14). Getting teacher evaluation right: A challenge for policy makers (Research in brief). Washington, DC: Dirksen Senate Office Building.

23.

Carey

(2017, May). The little-known statistician who taught us to measure teachers. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/upshot/the-little-known-statistician-who-transformed-education.html?_r=0

24.

Chetty

Friedman

Rockoff

(2014a). Measuring the impacts of Teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. American Economic Review, 104, 2593-2632.

25.

Chetty

Friedman

Rockoff

(2014b). Measuring the impacts of Teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104, 2633-2679.

26.

Chiang

McCullough

Lipscomb

Gill

(2016). Can student test scores provide useful measures of school principals’ performance? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/2016002/pdf/2016002.pdf

27.

Chin

Goldhaber

(2015). Exploring explanations for the “weak” relationship between value added and observation-based measures of teacher performance. Cambridge, MA: Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University. Retrieved from http://cepr.harvard.edu/files/cepr/files/sree2015_simulation_working_paper.pdf

28.

Collins

(2014). Houston, we have a problem: Teachers find no value in the SAS Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS®). Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1594

29.

Corcoran

S. P.

(2010). Can teachers be evaluated by their students’ test scores? Should they be? The use of value-added measures of teacher effectiveness in policy and practice. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED522163

30.

Amrein-Beardsley

(2018). Learning from what doesn’t work in teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(1), 15-19. Retrieved from http://www.kappanonline.org/learning-from-what-doesnt-work-in-teacher-evaluation/

31.

Amrein-Beardsley

Collins

(2018). State-level assessments and teacher evaluation systems after the passage of the every student succeeds act: Some steps in the right direction. Boulder, CO: Nation Education Policy Center (NEPC). Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/state-assessment

32.

Darling-Hammond

(2015). Can value added add value to teacher evaluation? Educational Researcher, 44, 132-137. doi:10.3102/0013189X15575346

33.

Darling-Hammond

Haertel

(2012, November 5). A better way to grade teachers. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-nov-05-la-oe-darling-teacher-evaluations-20121105-story.html

34.

Darville

(2017, October 19). Gates foundation to move away from teacher evals, shifting attention to “networks” of public schools. Chalkbeat. Retrieved from https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2017/10/19/gates-foundation-to-move-away-from-teacher-evals-shifting-attention-to-networks-of-public-schools/

35.

Deshpande

(1981). Action and enlightenment functions of research: Comparing private-and public-sector perspectives. Knowledge, 2, 317-330. doi:10.1177/107554708100200302

36.

Doherty

K. M.

Jacobs

(2015). State of the states 2015: Evaluating teaching, leading and learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/StateofStates2015

37.

Dorans

N. J.

Cook

L. L.

(2016). Fairness in educational assessment and measurement. New York, NY: Routledge.

38.

Duncan

(2009, July 4). The race to the top begins: Remarks by Secretary Arne Duncan. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/race-top-begins

39.

Duncan

(2011, March 9). Winning the future with education: Responsibility, reform and results: Testimony given to the U.S. Congress. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/winning-future-education-responsibility-reform-and-results

40.

Eckert

J. M.

Dabrowski

(2010, May). Should value-added measures be used for performance pay? Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 88-92.

41.

Erickson

R. J.

Simon

R. J.

(1998). The use of social science data in Supreme Court decisions. Champaign: University of Illinois Press.

42.

ExcelinEd. (2017). ESSA state plans: 50-state landscape analysis. Tallahassee, FL. Retrieved from https://www.excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ExcelinEd.Quality.ESSA_.50StateAnalysis.Dec072017.pdf

43.

Farmer

(2017, December). In school funding court battles, there’s been a winning shift. Governing. Retrieved from http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-winning-shift-school-funding-court-battles.html

44.

Fischman

Tefara

(2014). If the research is not used, does it exist? Teachers College Record, 17570, 1-10.

45.

Flyvbjerg

(2011). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219-245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363

46.

Furlough

(2010). Open access, education research, and discovery. Teachers College Record, 112, 2623-2648. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15874

47.

Gabriel

Lester

J. N.

(2013). Sentinels guarding the grail: Value-added measurement and the quest for education reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(9), 1-30. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1165

48.

Gale

N. K.

Heath

Cameron

Rashid

Redwood

(2013). Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, Article 117. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-117

49.

Gates

(2013, April 3). Bill Gates: A fairer way to evaluate teachers. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-gates-a-fairer-way-to-evaluate-teachers/2013/04/03/c99fd1bc-98c2-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html

50.

Gerring

(2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98, 341-354. doi:10.1017/S0003055404001182

51.

Goldhaber

(2015). Exploring the potential of value-added performance measures to affect the quality of the teacher workforce. Educational Researcher, 44, 87-95. doi:10.3102/0013189X15574905

52.

Goldhaber

Chaplin

D. D.

(2015). Assessing the “Rothstein Falsification Test”: Does it really show teacher value-added models are biased? Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8, 8-34. doi:10.1080/19345747.2014.978059

53.

Goldring

Grissom

J. A.

Rubin

Neumerski

C. M.

Cannata

Drake

Schuermann

(2015). Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44, 96-104. doi:10.3102/0013189X15575031

54.

Graue

M. E.

Delaney

K. K.

Karch

A. S.

(2013). Ecologies of education quality. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(8), 1-36. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1163

55.

Green

M. F.

(2000). Bridging the gap: Multiple players, multiple approaches. New Directions for Higher Education, 110, 107-113.

56.

Green

P. C.

Baker

B. D.

Oluwole

(2012). The legal and policy implication of value-added teacher assessment policies. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2012, 1-29.

57.

Grossman

Cohen

Ronfeldt

Brown

(2014). The test matters: The relationship between classroom observation scores and teacher value added on multiple types of assessment. Educational Researcher, 43, 293-303. doi:10.3102/0013189X14544542

58.

Guarino

C. M.

Reckase

M. D.

Stacy

B. W.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2014). Evaluating specification tests in the context of value-added estimation. East Lansing: The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University.

59.

Hanushek

(2009). Teacher deselection. In Goldhaber

Hannaway

(Eds.), Creating a new teaching profession (pp. 165-180). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

60.

Harris

D. N.

(2011). Value-added measures in education: What every educator needs to know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

61.

Harris

D. N.

Herrington

C. D.

(2015). Editors’ introduction: The use of teacher value-added measures in schools: New evidence, unanswered questions, and future prospects. Educational Researcher, 44, 71-76. doi:10.3102/0013189X15576142

62.

Hill

H. C.

Kapitula

Umland

(2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 794-831. doi:10.3102/0002831210387916

63.

Holloway-Libell

(2015). Evidence of grade and subject-level bias in value-added measures. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=17987

64.

Huffman

(2014). Kevin Huffman at TEDxNashville [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IznMHnRH5c

65.

Jiang

J. Y.

Sporte

S. E.

Luppescu

(2015). Teacher perspectives on evaluation reform: Chicago’s REACH students. Educational Researcher, 44, 105-116. doi:10.3102/0013189X15575517

66.

Johnson

S. M.

(2015). Will VAMS reinforce the walls of the egg-crate school? Educational Researcher, 44, 117-126. doi:10.3102/0013189X15573351

67.

Kane

M. T.

(2006). Validation. In Brennan

R. L.

(Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17-64). Washington, DC: National Council on Measurement in Education & American Council on Education.

68.

Kane

M. T.

(2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50, 1-73. doi:10.1111/jedm.12000

69.

Kane

T. J.

(2015, April). Teachers must look in the mirror. New York Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/thomas-kane-teachers-mirror-article-1.2172662

70.

Kane

T. J.

McCaffrey

D. F.

Miller

Staiger

D. O.

(2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment (MET project). Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540959.pdf

71.

Kane

T. J.

Staiger

(2012). Gathering feedback on teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from http://k12education.gatesfoundation.org/resource/gathering-feedback-on-teaching-combining-high-quality-observations-with-student-surveys-and-achievement-gains-3/

72.

Kappler Hewitt

. (2015). Educator evaluation policy that incorporates EVAAS value-added measures: Undermined intentions and exacerbated inequities. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(76), 1-49. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1968

73.

Koedel

Betts

J. R.

(2007, April). Re-examining the role of teacher quality in the educational production function (Working Paper No. 07-08). University of Missouri. Retrieved from https://economics.missouri.edu/working-papers/2007/wp0708_koedel.pdf

74.

Koedel

Betts

J. R.

(2009, July). Does student sorting invalidate value-added models of teacher effectiveness? An extended analysis of the Rothstein critique (Working Paper No. 2009-01). Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives.

75.

Koedel

Mihaly

Rockoff

J. E.

(2015). Value-added modeling: A review. Economics of Education Review, 47, 180-195. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.006

76.

Kraft

M. A.

Gilmour

A. F.

(2017). Revisiting the Widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46, 234-249. doi:10.3102/0013189X17718797

77.

Lavery

M. R.

Amrein-Beardsley

Pivovarova

Holloway

Geiger

Hahs-Vaughn

D. L.

(2019). Do value-added models (VAMs) tell truth about teachers? Analyzing validity evidence from VAM scholars. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Toronto, Canada.

78.

Lingard

(2013). The impact of research on education policy in an era of evidence-based policy. Critical Studies in Education, 54, 113-131. doi:10.1080/17508487.2013.781515

79.

Martinez

J. F.

Schweig

Goldschmidt

(2016). Approaches for combining multiple measures of teacher performance: Reliability, validity, and implications for evaluation policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 738-756. doi:10.3102/0162373716666166

80.

Mathematica Policy Research. (2014). Alignment of state teacher evaluation policies with Race to the Top priorities. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/news/alignment-of-state-teacher-evaluation-policies-with-race-to-the-top-priorities

81.

McCaffrey

D. F.

Lockwood

J. R.

Koretz

Louis

T. A.

Hamilton

(2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 67-101. Retrieved from www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/2005/RAND_RP1165.pdf

82.

McCaffrey

D. F.

Sass

T. R.

Lockwood

J. R.

Mihaly

(2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 572-606. doi:10.1162/edfp.2009.4.4.572

83.

Mellon

(2010, January 14). HISD moves ahead on dismissal policy: In the past, teachers were rarely let go over poor performance, data show. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6816752.html

84.

Messick

(1975). The standard problem: Meaning and values in measurement and evaluation. American Psychologist, 30, 955-966.

85.

Messick

(1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012-1027.

86.

Messick

(1989). Validity. In Linn

R. L.

(Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York, NY: American Council on Education/Macmillan.

87.

Messick

(1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749.

88.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

89.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (n.d.). Value-added measures in teacher evaluation: Position statement. Reston, VA: NASSP Board of Directors. Retrieved from https://www.nassp.org/who-we-are/board-of-directors/position-statements/value-added-measures-in-teacher-evaluation?SSO=true

90.

The New Teacher Project. (2012). The irreplaceables: Understanding the real retention crisis in America’s urban school. Brooklyn, NY: Author. Retrieved from http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP_Irreplaceables_2012.pdf

91.

Newton

Darling-Hammond

Haertel

Thomas

(2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23), 1-27. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/810

92.

Nutley

Walter

Davies

H. T.

(2003). From knowing to doing: A framework for understanding the evidence-into-practice agenda. Evaluation, 9, 125-148. doi:10.1177/1356389003009002002

93.

Papay

J. P.

(2011). Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 163-193. doi:10.3102/0002831210362589

94.

Polikoff

M. S.

Porter

A. C.

(2014). Instructional alignment as a measure of teaching quality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 399-416. doi:10.3102/0162373714531851

95.

Prothero

(2018, May). Fate of Washington’s charter school law to be decided, again, by state supreme court. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/charterschoice/2018/05/fate_of_washingtons_charter_school_law_to_be_decided_again_by_state_supreme_court.html

96.

Pullin

(2013). Legal issues in the use of student test scores and value-added models (VAM) to determine educational quality. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(6), 1-27. doi:10.14507/epaa.v21n6.2013

97.

Pullin

(2014). Professional testing standards in the eyes of the law. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(4), 19-21.

98.

Pullin

(2015). Performance measures for teachers and teacher education: Corporate education reform opens the door to new legal issues. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(81), 1-36. Retrieved from https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1980

99.

Race to the Top Act of 2011, S. 844–112th Congress. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s844

100.

Ragin

C. C.

Becker

H. S.

(2000). Cases of “what is a case?” In Ragin

C. C.

Becker

H. S

(Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 1-17). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

101.

Rhee

(2011, April 6). The evidence is clear: Test scores must accurately reflect students’ learning. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-rhee/michelle-rhee-dc-schools_b_845286.html

102.

Ritchie

Lewis

Nicholls

C. M.

Ormston

(Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

103.

Rosenbaum

Rubin

D. B.

(1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55. doi:10.2307/2335942

104.

Rothstein

(2009). Student sorting and bias in value added estimation: Selection on observables and unobservables. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 537-571. doi:10.3386/w14666

105.

Rothstein

(2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125, 175-214. doi:10.1162/qjec.2010.125.1.175

106.

Rothstein

(2014). Revisiting the impacts of teachers (Working paper). Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.

107.

Rothstein

Mathis

W. J.

(2013, January). Review of two culminating reports from the MET project. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-MET-final-2013

108.

Rubin

D. B.

Stuart

E. A.

Zanutto

E. L.

(2004). A potential outcomes view of value-added assessment in education. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 103-116. doi:10.3102/10769986029001103

109.

Rubinstein

(2014, July). Pay no attention to the falling Tennessee reading test scores. Gary Rubinstein’s Blog. Retrieved from https://garyrubinstein.wordpress.com/2014/07/04/pay-no-attention-to-the-falling-tennessee-reading-test-scores/

110.

Sanders

W. L.

(2003, April). Beyond “No Child Left Behind.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

111.

Sanders

W. L.

(2006, October). Comparisons among various educational assessment value-added models. Paper presented at The Power of Two—National Value-Added Conference, Columbus, OH.

112.

Sanders

W. L.

Wright

S. P.

Rivers

J. C.

Leandro

J. G.

(2009, November). A response to criticisms of SAS® EVAAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Retrieved from http://www.sas.com/resources/asset/Response_to_Criticisms_of_SAS_EVAAS_11-13-09.pdf

113.

SAS Institute Inc. (n.d.). SAS® EVAAS® for K-12: Assess and predict student performance with precision and reliability. Cary, NC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.sas.com/en_us/software/evaas.html

114.

Sawchuk

(2016, January). ESSA loosens reins on teacher evaluations, qualifications. Education Week, 35(15), 14-15.

115.

Schochet

P. Z.

Chiang

H. S.

(2013). What are error rates for classifying teacher and school performance using value-added models? Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38, 142-171. doi:10.3102/1076998611432174

116.

Shaw

L. H.

Bovaird

J. A.

(2011, April). The impact of latent variable outcomes on value-added models of intervention efficacy. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

117.

Shulenburger

D. E.

(2005). Public goods and open access. New Review of Information Networking, 11, 3-11. doi:10.1080/13614570500268282

118.

Stake

R. E.

(1978). The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5-8.

119.

Stake

R. E.

Trumbull

(1982). Naturalistic generalizations. Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 7, 1-12.

120.

State of New York Supreme Court. (2016). Decision, order and judgment. Roger D. McDonough, Justice. Retrieved from http://vamboozled.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ruling.pdf

121.

Strauss

(2014, October). High-achieving teacher sues state over evaluation labeling her “ineffective.” The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/10/31/high-achieving-teacher-sues-state-over-evaluation-labeling-her-ineffective/?utm_term=.2ff667771a76

122.

Superfine

B. M.

(2016). Judging teacher evaluation: The legal implications of high-stakes teacher evaluation policy. In Kappler Hewitt

Amrein-Beardsle

(Eds.), Student growth measures in policy and practice: Intended and unintended consequences of high-stakes teacher evaluations (pp. 223-243). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

123.

Swedian

(2014, September). Statistical guru for evaluations leaving PED. Albuquerque Journal. Retrieved from https://www.abqjournal.com/463424/statistical-guru-for-evaluations-leaving-ped.html

124.

Teacher evaluation heads to the courts. (2015, October). Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/teacher-evaluation-heads-to-the-courts.html

125.

Tennessee State Board of Education (TSBE). (2012). Teacher and principal evaluation policy. Nashville, TN. Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov/assets/entities/sbe/attachments/7-27-12-II_C_Teacher_and_Principal_Evaluation_Revised.pdf

126.

Thomas

(2011). A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 511-521. doi:10.1177/1077800411409884

127.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006a, November 9). Secretary spellings approves additional growth model pilots for 2006-2007. Retrieved from https://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=37501

128.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006b, May 17). Secretary spellings approves Tennessee and North Carolina growth model pilots for 2005-2006. Retrieved from https://votesmart.org/public-statement/174269/secretary-spellings-approves-tennessee-and-north-carolina-growth-model-pilots-for-2005-2006%23.U2kVosf94a8#.XJ4ehJgza1s

129.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf

130.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). Delaware and Tennessee win first Race to the Top grants. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/delaware-and-tennessee-win-first-race-top-grants

131.

U.S. Department of Education. (2014). States granted waivers from No Child Left Behind allowed to reapply for renewal for 2014 and 2015 school years. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/states-granted-waivers-no-child-left-behind-allowed-reapply-renewal-2014-and-2015-school-years

132.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Title I waivers. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/flexibility/waiverletters2009/index.html

133.

VAMboozled. (2014a, April). Another lawsuit in Tennessee. Retrieved from http://vamboozled.com/another-lawsuit-in-tennessee/

134.

VAMboozled. (2014b, May). Breaking news: Houston teachers suing over their district’s EVAAS use. Retrieved from http://vamboozled.com/breaking-news-houston-teachers-suing-over-their-districts-evaas-use/

135.

VAMboozled. (2014c, May). Florida’s VAM-based evaluation system ruled “unfair but not unconstitutional.” Retrieved from http://vamboozled.com/floridas-vam-based-evaluation-system-ruled-unfair-but-not-unconstitutional/

136.

VAMboozled. (2018, June). New Mexico teacher evaluation lawsuit updates. Retrieved from http://vamboozled.com/new-mexico-teacher-evaluation-lawsuit-updates/

137.

VanWynsberghe

Khan

(2007). Redefining case study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 6, 80-94.

138.

Wainer

(2004). Introduction to a special issue of the Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics on value-added assessment. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 1-3. doi:10.3102/10769986029001001

139.

Wallace

T. L.

Kelcey

Ruzek

(2016). What can student perception surveys tell us about teaching? Empirically testing the underlying structure of the tripod student perception survey. American Educational Research Journal, 53, 1834-1868. doi:10.3102/0002831216671864

140.

Walsh

Joseph

Lakis

Lubell

(2017). Running in place: How new teacher evaluations fail to live up to promises. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Final_Evaluation_Paper

141.

Weisberg

Sexton

Mulhern

Keeling

(2009). The Widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. New York, NY: The New Teacher Project. Retrieved from http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TheWidgetEffect_2nd_ed.pdf

142.

Welner

K. G.

(2012). Scholars as policy actors: Research, public discourse, and the zone of judicial constraints. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 7-29. doi:10.3102/0002831211415253

143.

Wright

S. P.

Sanders

W. L.

Rivers

J. C.

(2006). Measurement of academic growth of individual students toward variable and meaningful academic standards. In Lissitz

(Ed.), Longitudinal and value added models of student performance (pp. 385-406). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.

144.

Wright

S. P.

White

J. T.

Sanders

W. L.

Rivers

J. C.

(2010, March 25). SAS® EVAAS® statistical models Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

145.

Yeh

S. S.

(2013). A re-analysis of the effects of teacher replacement using value-added modeling. Teachers College Record, 115(12), 1-35. Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=16934

Teacher-Level Value-Added Models on Trial: Empirical and Pragmatic Issues of Concern Across Five Court Cases

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References