Some educators and critics question the ability of value - added modeling to accurately
predict teacher performance.
Mounting pressure in the policy arena to improve teacher productivity either by improving signals that
predict teacher performance or through creating incentive contracts based on performance — has spurred two related questions: Are there important determinants of teacher productivity that are not captured by teacher credentials but that can be measured by subjective assessments?
Not exact matches
Similar work has found that screening
performance predicts teacher attrition, so we were a little surprised there was not a significant relationship with retention in our study.
Our report concluded that, in general, the evaluation systems we examined do a decent job of distinguishing
teachers based on characteristics of classroom
performance that
predict how
teachers will perform in subsequent years.
These sorts of questions led us to a paper by Allison Atteberry, Susanna Loeb, and James Wyckoff that looked at how well a
teacher's early - career
performance predicted her effectiveness in subsequent years.
Or were less costly components of the
teachers» National Board scores, such as the one - day assessment at a Sylvan Learning Center, just as effective as the costly, time - consuming (and coaching - or cheating - prone) portfolio in
predicting student
performance?
Several studies, including our own, clearly demonstrate that
teacher evaluation systems that are based on a number of components, such as classroom observation scores and test - score gains, are already much more effective at
predicting future
teacher performance than paper credentials and years of experience.
As with
teachers, it is difficult to
predict principal
performance by just looking at their background, training, and objective characteristics.
We identify a number of background characteristics (e.g., undergraduate GPA) as well as screening measures (e.g., applicant
performance on a mock teaching lesson) that strongly
predict teacher effectiveness.
One quick and effective way for
teachers to get a better understanding of what expectations students have set for themselves is to ask them to
predict their
performance on an assessment.
The report recommended that: policy makers ensure curriculum and assessments are aligned at state, district and local levels; districts survey
teachers on test prep activities and keep those that are highly rated, while dropping those that aren't; districts expand access to technology so students can develop skills before taking tests and
teachers can support them; and districts only use interim tests aimed at
predicting performance on end - of - the - year tests, if
teachers believe they are high - quality.
This type of misclassification helps tell us how well we can
predict future measured
performance, and, to the extent that true
teacher performance is stable across time, it also provides information about how imprecise measures may lead to classification errors.
Because value - added measures were so reliable at
predicting teachers»
performance, the researchers urged school districts to use it as a «benchmark» for studying the effect of other measures.
We have spent much of the last year reading everything we can find related to students» ability to
predict their
performance (and grades), take ownership of their learning, and become their own (and others»)
teachers.
Because value - added measures were so reliable at
predicting teachers» future
performance, the researchers urged school districts to use it as a «benchmark» for studying the effect of other measures.
The error associated with using initial
performance to
predict future
performance appears to be quite high: only 32 percent of
teachers classified as low - performing in math are in the lowest
performance quintile in future years, meaning that the false negative rate is 68 percent.
In this model, each student becomes his or her own control, with the
predicted score being based on that student's past
performance with other
teachers.
This article asks how much
teachers vary in
performance improvement during their first 5 years of teaching and to what extent initial job
performance predicts later
performance.
Teacher performance was calculated by using a value - added model, which
predicts how students will do in a given year based on how they performed in the previous year.
The key finding they present is that «half or more of the variance in
teacher scores from the [SGP] model is due to random or otherwise unstable sources rather than to reliable information that could
predict future
performance.
In Indian River County, an English Language Arts middle school
teacher named Luke Flynt told his school board that through VAM formulas, each student is assigned a «
predicted» score — based on past
performance by that student and other students — on the state - mandated standardized test.
Specifically, we test whether a
teacher's
performance on each measure under naturally occurring (i.e., non-experimental) settings
predicts performance following random assignment of that
teacher to a class of students.
In the application for the $ 100 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Hillsborough
predicted they would fire at least 5 % of the districts tenured
teachers for «poor
performance,» and the grant work led her to develop, with collaboration from the
teachers» union, an evaluation system that uses test scores for 40 % of
teachers» ratings.
Districts could also track, over time, the average achievement of grade - level cohorts within schools to determine if
performance changes as
predicted by the value added by
teachers who transfer into or out of schools and grades.
The value - added formulas actually compare how students are
predicted to perform on the state ELA and math tests, based on their prior year's
performance, with their actual
performance, as
Teachers College Professor Aaron Pallas wrote here.
Using a statistical technique called value - added modeling, the
Teacher Data Reports compare how students are
predicted to perform on the state ELA and math tests, based on their prior year's
performance, with their actual
performance.
Such research, in particular, might investigate to what extent
teacher arts integration professional development outcomes are statistically linked to student arts learning and to what extent measures of student arts or arts integration learning
predict academic
performance?
Our goal is to better understand the extent to which measures of
teacher effectiveness during the first two years reliably
predicts future
performance.
Findings show year - to - year correlations in
teacher effects are modest, but pre-tenure estimates of
teacher job
performance do
predict estimated post-tenure
performance in both math and reading, and would therefore seem to be a reasonable metric to use as a factor in making substantive
teacher selection decisions.
We find little evidence of convergence or divergence in
teacher effectiveness across
teachers as they advance in their careers, but strong evidence that prior year estimates of job
performance for individual
teachers predict student achievement even when there is a multi-year lag between the two.
I also assess the extent to which their evaluations
predict alternative measures of
teacher performance, including student and parent evaluations of individual
teachers in the same and future school years.
Additional analysis of the ability of value - added modeling to
predict significant differences in
teacher performance finds that this data doesn't effectively differentiate among
teachers.
Scores were not available for all
teachers and the estimates were often volatile from one year to the next, though they still
predicted teachers» future
performance well.
Performance during practice teaching provides some basis for
predicting the future success of the
teacher.
Summary of hierarchical regression analyses for children's birth status and children's sustained selective attention
performance predicting children's problem behavior, as reported by mothers and
teachers