4 ms·

> "This paper has shown that the same VA measures are also an informative proxy for teachers’ long-term impacts." Ah, as I figured, you are promoting VAM. I al

> "This paper has shown that the same VA measures are also an informative proxy for teachers’ long-term impacts." Ah, as I figured, you are promoting VAM. I already mentioned how it's a difficult tool to use. And there are well-known problems with using VAM which aren't mentioned in that paper, which you don't seem to be aware of. For example, a Texas court threw out EVAAS, as a way to evaluate Houston teachers, because of due process concerns, like how teachers are unable to have their score independently re-evalauted. The judge also points out the "house-of-cards" nature of VAM, and the ongoing academic debate about its applicability. https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/HoustonTeachers.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Ho... The VAM opponent expert witness presented their main arguments. Quoting http://vamboozled.com/houston-lawsuit-update-with-summary-of-expert-witnesses-key-findings-about-the-evaas-vam/ http://vamboozled.com/houston-lawsuit-update-with-summary-of... 1) Large-scale standardized tests have never been validated for this use. 2) When tested against another VAM system, EVAAS produced wildly different results. 3) EVAAS scores are highly volatile from one year to the next. 4) EVAAS overstates the precision of teachers' estimated impacts on growth 5) Teachers of English Language Learners (ELLs) and “highly mobile” students are substantially less likely to demonstrate added value 6) The number of students each teacher teaches (i.e., class size) also biases teachers’ value-added scores. 7) Ceiling effects are certainly an issue. 8) There are major validity issues with “artificial conflation.” (This is the phenomenon in which administrators feel forced to make their observation scores "align" with VAAS scores.) 9) Teaching-to-the-test is of perpetual concern. 10) HISD is not adequately monitoring the EVAAS system. HISD was not even allowed to see or test the secret VAM sauce. 11) EVAAS lacks transparency. 12) Related, teachers lack opportunities to verify their own scores. Here's one paper analyzing the specific details of the EVAAS numbers SAS generated for Houston - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341532272_Methodological_Concerns_About_the_Education_Value-Added_Assessment_System_EVAAS_Validity_Reliability_and_Bias https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341532272_Methodolo... , with citations of its own about various issues with VAM. More below (via Google Scholar 'EVAAS houston effective'). > consistent as he or she moves across schools Here's another paper: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2750/275022797012.pdf https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2750/275022797012.pdf . "Almost half (46%) of a sample of HISD teachers who moved to different grade levels reported switching value-added ranks after the move, from “ineffective” to “effective” or vice versa, also across grade levels that were adjacent ". If it's not consistent when moving grade levels, why do you think it's consistent moving across schools? Is it because "Dr. William L. Sanders, the developer of the SAS ® EVAAS®, claims that teachers who move from one environment to another, even if radically different, continue to do just as well (LeClaire, 2011)"? > GPAs are highly subjective, and more importantly, harder to compare across schools and even across classes. And yet are a better predictor of future academic success than test scores. As I highlighted. It appears you prefer to use use a worse predictor, one which requires an artificially imposed "high-stakes" testing environment, because it lets you do fancier types of data science that appeal to your sense that numbers are objective. > strong research exist to show that SGPs are a valid and useful measurement Remember earlier how you implied these methods were objective? Odd that the paper you linked to says the other VAM methods didn't factor for a "drift in teacher quality". Almost as if there's no agreement on what the model should be. Almost as if the choice of model to use was also "highly subjective." If they aren't subjective, then different VAM models should make the same predictions for the same population, right? Points #2 and #3 above should be very rare, right? And if they are not rare, they should not be used to determine who to fire, right? > Remember, this was about measuring teacher performance, not student performance. And VAM has not proved useful at measuring teacher performance, because of the flaws I quoted above. I believe you approve of the idea of firing teachers with low VAM scores, which Houston and other school districts have done. Yet, quoting now from "All sizzle and no steak: Value-added model doesn’t add value in Houston" at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0031721717734191 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00317217177341... ] while EVAAS was in use for educational reform purposes in Houston (i.e. to increase student achievement), Houston students saw no improvements of the sort that had been promised in grades 3-8 in reading, grades 4 and 7 in writing, grades 5 and 8 in science, and grade 8 in social studies (Figure 1, blue trend lines). In those subject areas and grades, tests scores declined overall from 2012 to 2015, as compared to other similar students throughout the state (black trend lines). Almost as if VAM-based firing isn't a useful tool. > and amenable to standardized testing Yes, that's exactly my point. You highlighted the areas which are easy to test. Composition is not easy to test, and it's also important. Being able to write an essay on Populism in the late 1800 US is not easy to test (not impossible - the AP American History tests do this, but it's expensive). But this is also a skill taught in school. My school required students take a practical art course. Yet testing for drafting skills, or wood working, or auto repair, isn't included in the high-stakes testing. Why does it just happen to be that only those things which are easy/cheap to test are coincidentally the right topics to test? > Everyone is biased Film at 11. I don't listen only to Philip Morris scientists to judge if smoking tobacco has health problems. > I trust the bias that says standardized tests are useful So far it doesn't seem like you are aware of the evidence that VAM is not an effective method for deciding if a teacher should be fired. That would easily explain your comments.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago
> Ah, as I figured, you are promoting VAM. I am promoting student growth measures in teacher evaluations, which is related to VAM, but not necessarily the same thing depending on who you are talking to: https://www.michigan.gov/mde/services/ed-serv/educator-retention-supports/educator-eval/student-growth https://www.michigan.gov/mde/services/ed-serv/educator-reten... > If it's not consistent when moving grade levels, why do you think it's consistent moving across schools? Some models have been shown to be consistent across both grade levels and schools. > And yet are a better predictor of future academic success than test scores. As I highlighted And as I highlighted, GPAs are too subjective and in control of the teacher. If GPAs were used for teacher evaluation a teacher could write his or her own pay check via grade inflation. Standardized tests also act as a counterbalance in general to slow down grade inflation. > Almost as if VAM-based firing isn't a useful too Neither is trusting the teacher's unions to decide who to fire, because they fire virtually no one and even protect known incompetent teachers. We need a better solution than what we have now, and SGPs/SGMs have been shown to be far more effective than what we have now. > So far it doesn't seem like you are aware of the evidence that VAM is not an effective method for deciding if a teacher should be fired There is also plenty of evidence for using student growth measures as part teacher evaluations. You seem happy, however, to ignore the evidence I've given you that goes against your own bias. A little self-awareness might be in order.
- eesmith 4y ago
  > which is related to VAM, I noticed that one of those two methods you linked to is the VAM method used in Houston, EVAAS. > Some models have been shown to be consistent across both grade levels and schools. So said the creator of EVAAS. However, the EVAAS method has not been published, the algorithm is proprietary, and the results of the Texas trial showed the limitations of EVAAS. Your citations in support of your view are either published by people trying to sell you their testing system, or were published during the hype phase of VAM, before there was evidence that they were not able to do things like identify poorly performing teachers for the purposes of firing them. > If GPAs were used for teacher evaluation a teacher Like, duh. That's why GPAs aren't used for teacher evaluation. You can't seriously think that 50 years ago there were no effective ways to evaluate teachers. > Standardized tests also act as a counterbalance in general to slow down grade inflation. And yet grades are still more effective at predicting college success than standardized tests. Huh. And we've had a full student generation of students required to do high-stakes testing, yet the decades of yammering about grade inflation is still going on, as if the two really coupled at all? Huh. And, umm, standardized tests are normed. If students or teachers across the US were getting better, norming would hide that improvement. We know this because of the Flynn effect. Unnormed IQ scores have improved by about 15 points over the decades. Shouldn't this be reflected in improved overall school grades? > Neither is trusting the teacher's unions to decide who to fire We don't trust teacher unions to decide who to fire. School districts decide. Unions can slow it down, or provide legal support to stop it. They are their to help the teachers. It's not like principals and school districts always follow the law and employment contract requirements. And never pressure teachers to give better grades to the football team, or the kid of the head of the school board. > We need a better solution than what we have now Non-union charters schools haven't proved any better. We now have, what, a full generation of students that have gone through high-stakes testing? When do we decide it's not worthwhile? In my view, all this noise about testing and teacher evaluation is meant to justify school privatization, so private companies can profit from all that public school money, and rich people can get tax-payer subsidized good private school education while poor people are left with the dregs. In my view, if you want to improve grades and future success then don't look to high-stakes testing. Look to free breakfasts and lunches for everyone, low limits on class size, more teaching aides, school nurses who can provide basic health care support, and more. But those are expensive. So instead we punish the teachers which some secretive black box say are under-performing. > using student growth measures as part teacher evaluations That statement alone is meaningless. It could mean anything from "huh, your XYZ scores are a bit low, so we'll provide additional training for you" to "your XYZ scores are a bit low, we're going to fire you." So when you say "as part teacher evaluations", you need to clarify just what you mean. VAM has been used to fire teachers - which is what its supporters often want - and in violation of their due process rights. VAM has not been used to provide more funding to lower-scoring schools to help with staffing or facility issues. Yet it could also be used for that.

PathOfEclipse 4y ago

> Ah, as I figured, you are promoting VAM. I am promoting student growth measures in teacher evaluations, which is related to VAM, but not necessarily the same thing depending on who you are talking to: https://www.michigan.gov/mde/services/ed-serv/educator-retention-supports/educator-eval/student-growth https://www.michigan.gov/mde/services/ed-serv/educator-reten... > If it's not consistent when moving grade levels, why do you think it's consistent moving across schools? Some models have been shown to be consistent across both grade levels and schools. > And yet are a better predictor of future academic success than test scores. As I highlighted And as I highlighted, GPAs are too subjective and in control of the teacher. If GPAs were used for teacher evaluation a teacher could write his or her own pay check via grade inflation. Standardized tests also act as a counterbalance in general to slow down grade inflation. > Almost as if VAM-based firing isn't a useful too Neither is trusting the teacher's unions to decide who to fire, because they fire virtually no one and even protect known incompetent teachers. We need a better solution than what we have now, and SGPs/SGMs have been shown to be far more effective than what we have now. > So far it doesn't seem like you are aware of the evidence that VAM is not an effective method for deciding if a teacher should be fired There is also plenty of evidence for using student growth measures as part teacher evaluations. You seem happy, however, to ignore the evidence I've given you that goes against your own bias. A little self-awareness might be in order.

eesmith 4y ago
> which is related to VAM, I noticed that one of those two methods you linked to is the VAM method used in Houston, EVAAS. > Some models have been shown to be consistent across both grade levels and schools. So said the creator of EVAAS. However, the EVAAS method has not been published, the algorithm is proprietary, and the results of the Texas trial showed the limitations of EVAAS. Your citations in support of your view are either published by people trying to sell you their testing system, or were published during the hype phase of VAM, before there was evidence that they were not able to do things like identify poorly performing teachers for the purposes of firing them. > If GPAs were used for teacher evaluation a teacher Like, duh. That's why GPAs aren't used for teacher evaluation. You can't seriously think that 50 years ago there were no effective ways to evaluate teachers. > Standardized tests also act as a counterbalance in general to slow down grade inflation. And yet grades are still more effective at predicting college success than standardized tests. Huh. And we've had a full student generation of students required to do high-stakes testing, yet the decades of yammering about grade inflation is still going on, as if the two really coupled at all? Huh. And, umm, standardized tests are normed. If students or teachers across the US were getting better, norming would hide that improvement. We know this because of the Flynn effect. Unnormed IQ scores have improved by about 15 points over the decades. Shouldn't this be reflected in improved overall school grades? > Neither is trusting the teacher's unions to decide who to fire We don't trust teacher unions to decide who to fire. School districts decide. Unions can slow it down, or provide legal support to stop it. They are their to help the teachers. It's not like principals and school districts always follow the law and employment contract requirements. And never pressure teachers to give better grades to the football team, or the kid of the head of the school board. > We need a better solution than what we have now Non-union charters schools haven't proved any better. We now have, what, a full generation of students that have gone through high-stakes testing? When do we decide it's not worthwhile? In my view, all this noise about testing and teacher evaluation is meant to justify school privatization, so private companies can profit from all that public school money, and rich people can get tax-payer subsidized good private school education while poor people are left with the dregs. In my view, if you want to improve grades and future success then don't look to high-stakes testing. Look to free breakfasts and lunches for everyone, low limits on class size, more teaching aides, school nurses who can provide basic health care support, and more. But those are expensive. So instead we punish the teachers which some secretive black box say are under-performing. > using student growth measures as part teacher evaluations That statement alone is meaningless. It could mean anything from "huh, your XYZ scores are a bit low, so we'll provide additional training for you" to "your XYZ scores are a bit low, we're going to fire you." So when you say "as part teacher evaluations", you need to clarify just what you mean. VAM has been used to fire teachers - which is what its supporters often want - and in violation of their due process rights. VAM has not been used to provide more funding to lower-scoring schools to help with staffing or facility issues. Yet it could also be used for that.