3 ms·
In that case, good teachers will avoid such students, and bad teachers will seek them out. This is actually quite a highly desirable result - we won't waste a g
by MichaelSalib 16y ago
In that case, good teachers will avoid such students, and bad teachers will seek them out. This is actually quite a highly desirable result - we won't waste a good teacher on hopeless students, and a bad teacher can't harm them much.
That might be the case in a world where there was perfect information, no barriers to entry, and no significant asymmetries. In the real world though, a brilliant young teacher may get her start working with children damaged by, say, lead poisoning, and get no results. As a result, she'll be branded as incompetent. Since she's been branded as a bad teacher, she won't be able to get jobs in high performing schools with better students and will never get an opportunity to demonstrate her brilliance. Or she might be so discouraged by her failure that she leaves the profess altogether. You can imagine the equivalent problem faced by teachers of well-off children.
- yummyfajitas 16y agoNonsense. The students are hopeless and she has no power to help or harm them. Hence, her students perform exactly as well as they are expected to and her VA score is 0 (average). That's the beauty of VAM. If student sensitivity is measured as well, she will simply be branded as "inadequate information to evaluate performance". If you are concerned that she might be really unlucky and get a class full of people worse than their statistical predictor, that's what confidence intervals are for. As for barriers to entry and imperfect information, VAM also doesn't provide green energy or solve P=NP. All it does is improve incentives and give administrators a better measure of teacher performance.