3 ms·

I'm okay with value-added metrics, so long as it is not the only tool used to evaluate and assess. 1) Not all things taught appear on a test, or can be easily

I'm okay with value-added metrics, so long as it is not the only tool used to evaluate and assess. 1) Not all things taught appear on a test, or can be easily measured, and 2) Teachers are not the only entities responsible for student growth. There is also the curriculum, the social environment, the home life, and so on. 3) The natural reaction to such metrics, particularly in the current educational climate, is "Holy crap. If I don't do well on this, I'll get fired." Rather than jumping on the "Let's fire 'em" wagon, I feel that comprehensive professional development plans, based around highlighting strengths and excellent patterns, would accomplish just as much. Instead, though, the current professional development plan seems to be "Fire 'em".

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Most of what you describe is not a problem, due to the law of large numbers. Regarding (1), it's very true that a test is just a sample of the material taught. Say you teach 90% of the material well, 10% poorly. The probability of the test being comprised primarily of the 10% you taught poorly is highly improbable. Regarding (2), this is irrelevant as well. VAM compares your group of 30 low income students in district A being taught curriculum X to the overall average of low income students in district A being taught curriculum X. While it's possible that all your 90-150 students (depending on how many classes you teach) have a worse home life than the average low income student in district A, the probability of that is very low.