Large-Scale Test Scores to Officially Count for 40% V. 50% of Nevada Teachers’ Annual Evaluations

Written into my last post here were “The ‘Top Ten’ Research-Based Reasons Why Large-Scale, Standardized Tests Should Not Be Used to Evaluate Teachers…” really anywhere, but specific to this post in the state of Nevada. Accordingly, this post pertained to what were then the ongoing legislative negotiations in Nevada, and a testimony that I submitted and titled as such.

Well, it looks like those in Nevada who, as detailed more fully in another post here, were “trying to eliminate — or at least reduce — the role [students’] standardized tests play[ed] in evaluations of teachers, saying educators [were] being unfairly judged on factors outside of their control,” lost their legislative fight.

As per their proposed AB320, the state would have eliminated large-scale standardized test results as a mandated teacher evaluation measure, but the state would have allowed local assessments to account for 20% of a teacher’s total evaluation.

On Friday, however, the Nevada Independent released an article about how the state, instead, passed a “compromised bill.” Accordingly, large-scale standardized test scores are to still to be used to evaluate teachers, although they are to now count for 40% versus 50% of Nevada teachers’ overall evaluation scores. This is clearly a loss given the bill was passed as “something [so] much closer to the system already in place” (i.e., moving from 50% to 40%).

This is all  unfortunate, also given this outcome seemed to come down to a vote that fell along party lines (i.e., in favor of the 40% “compromise”), and this was ultimately signed by Nevada’s Republican Governor Sandoval, who also had the authority to see AB320 through (i.e., not in its revised form).

Apparently, Nevada will continue to put up a good fight. Hopefully in the future, the state will also fall in line with what seems to be trending across other states (e.g., Connecticut, Texas), in which legislators are removing such misinformed, arbitrary, and commonsensical (i.e., without research evidence and support) mandates and requirements.

Also Last Thursday in Nevada: The “Top Ten” Research-Based Reasons Why Large-Scale, Standardized Tests Should Not Be Used to Evaluate Teachers

Last Thursday was a BIG day in terms of value-added models (VAMs). For those of you who missed it, US Magistrate Judge Smith ruled — in Houston Federation of Teachers (HFT) et al. v. Houston Independent School District (HISD) — that Houston teacher plaintiffs’ have legitimate claims regarding how their EVAAS value-added estimates, as used (and abused) in HISD, was a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment due process protections (i.e., no state or in this case organization shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process). See post here: “A Big Victory in Court in Houston.” On the same day, “we” won another court case — Texas State Teachers Association v. Texas Education Agency —  on which The Honorable Lora J. Livingston ruled that the state was to remove all student growth requirements from all state-level teacher evaluation systems. In other words, and in the name of increased local control, teachers throughout Texas will no longer be required to be evaluated using their students’ test scores. See prior post here: “Another Big Victory in Court in Texas.”

Also last Thursday (it was a BIG day, like I said), I testified, again, regarding a similar provision (hopefully) being passed in the state of Nevada. As per a prior post here, Nevada’s “Democratic lawmakers are trying to eliminate — or at least reduce — the role [students’] standardized tests play in evaluations of teachers, saying educators are being unfairly judged on factors outside of their control.” More specifically, as per AB320 the state would eliminate statewide, standardized test results as a mandated teacher evaluation measure but allow local assessments to account for 20% of a teacher’s total evaluation. AB320 is still in work session. It has the votes in committee and on the floor, thus far.

The National Center on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), unsurprisingly (see here and here), submitted (unsurprising) testimony against AB320 that can be read here, and I submitted testimony (I think, quite effectively 😉 ) refuting their “research-based” testimony, and also making explicit what I termed “The “Top Ten” Research-Based Reasons Why Large-Scale, Standardized Tests Should Not Be Used to Evaluate Teachers” here. I have also pasted my submission below, in case anybody wants to forward/share any of my main points with others, especially others in similar positions looking to impact state or local educational policies in similar ways.


May 4, 2017

Dear Assemblywoman Miller:

Re: The “Top Ten” Research-Based Reasons Why Large-Scale, Standardized Tests Should Not Be Used to Evaluate Teachers

While I understand that the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) submitted a letter expressing their opposition against Assembly Bill (AB) 320, it should be officially noted that, counter to that which the NCTQ wrote into its “research-based” letter,[1] the American Statistical Association (ASA), the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the National Academy of Education (NAE), and other large-scale, highly esteemed, professional educational and educational research/measurement associations disagree with the assertions the NCTQ put forth. Indeed, the NCTQ is not a nonpartisan research and policy organization as claimed, but one of only a small handful of partisan operations still in existence and still pushing forward what is increasingly becoming dismissed as America’s ideal teacher evaluation systems (e.g., announced today, Texas dropped their policy requirement that standardized test scores be used to evaluate teachers; Connecticut moved in the same policy direction last month).

Accordingly, these aforementioned and highly esteemed organizations have all released statements cautioning all against the use of students’ large-scale, state-level standardized tests to evaluate teachers, primarily, for the following research-based reasons, that I have limited to ten for obvious purposes:

  1. The ASA evidenced that teacher effects correlate with only 1-14% of the variance in their students’ large-scale standardized test scores. This means that the other 86%-99% of the variance is due to factors outside of any teacher’s control (e.g., out-of-school and student-level variables). That teachers’ effects, as measured by large-scaled standardized tests (and not including other teacher effects that cannot be measured using large-scaled standardized tests), account for such little variance makes using them to evaluate teachers wholly irrational and unreasonable.
  1. Large-scale standardized tests have always been, and continue to be, developed to assess levels of student achievement, but not levels of growth in achievement over time, and definitely not growth in achievement that can be attributed back to a teacher (i.e., in terms of his/her effects). Put differently, these tests were never designed to estimate teachers’ effects; hence, using them in this regard is also psychometrically invalid and indefensible.
  1. Large-scale standardized tests, when used to evaluate teachers, often yield unreliable or inconsistent results. Teachers who should be (more or less) consistently effective are, accordingly, being classified in sometimes highly inconsistent ways year-to-year. As per the current research, a teacher evaluated using large-scale standardized test scores as effective one year has a 25% to 65% chance of being classified as ineffective the following year(s), and vice versa. This makes the probability of a teacher being identified as effective, as based on students’ large-scale test scores, no different than the flip of a coin (i.e., random).
  1. The estimates derived via teachers’ students’ large-scale standardized test scores are also invalid. Very limited evidence exists to support that teachers whose students’ yield high- large-scale standardized tests scores are also effective using at least one other correlated criterion (e.g., teacher observational scores, student satisfaction survey data), and vice versa. That these “multiple measures” don’t map onto each other, also given the error prevalent in all of the “multiple measures” being used, decreases the degree to which all measures, students’ test scores included, can yield valid inferences about teachers’ effects.
  1. Large-scale standardized tests are often biased when used to measure teachers’ purported effects over time. More specifically, test-based estimates for teachers who teach inordinate proportions of English Language Learners (ELLs), special education students, students who receive free or reduced lunches, students retained in grade, and gifted students are often evaluated not as per their true effects but group effects that bias their estimates upwards or downwards given these mediating factors. The same thing holds true with teachers who teach English/language arts versus mathematics, in that mathematics teachers typically yield more positive test-based effects (which defies logic and commonsense).
  1. Related, large-scale standardized tests estimates are fraught with measurement errors that negate their usefulness. These errors are caused by inordinate amounts of inaccurate and missing data that cannot be replaced or disregarded; student variables that cannot be statistically “controlled for;” current and prior teachers’ effects on the same tests that also prevent their use for making determinations about single teachers’ effects; and the like.
  1. Using large-scale standardized tests to evaluate teachers is unfair. Issues of fairness arise when these test-based indicators impact some teachers more than others, sometimes in consequential ways. Typically, as is true across the nation, only teachers of mathematics and English/language arts in certain grade levels (e.g., grades 3-8 and once in high school) can be measured or held accountable using students’ large-scale test scores. Across the nation, this leaves approximately 60-70% of teachers as test-based ineligible.
  1. Large-scale standardized test-based estimates are typically of very little formative or instructional value. Related, no research to date evidences that using tests for said purposes has improved teachers’ instruction or student achievement as a result. As per UCLA Professor Emeritus James Popham: The farther the test moves away from the classroom level (e.g., a test developed and used at the state level) the worst the test gets in terms of its instructional value and its potential to help promote change within teachers’ classrooms.
  1. Large-scale standardized test scores are being used inappropriately to make consequential decisions, although they do not have the reliability, validity, fairness, etc. to satisfy that for which they are increasingly being used, especially at the teacher-level. This is becoming increasingly recognized by US court systems as well (e.g., in New York and New Mexico).
  1. The unintended consequences of such test score use for teacher evaluation purposes are continuously going unrecognized (e.g., by states that pass such policies, and that states should acknowledge in advance of adapting such policies), given research has evidenced, for example, that teachers are choosing not to teach certain types of students whom they deem as the most likely to hinder their potentials positive effects. Principals are also stacking teachers’ classes to make sure certain teachers are more likely to demonstrate positive effects, or vice versa, to protect or penalize certain teachers, respectively. Teachers are leaving/refusing assignments to grades in which test-based estimates matter most, and some are leaving teaching altogether out of discontent or in professional protest.

[1] Note that the two studies the NCTQ used to substantiate their “research-based” letter would not support the claims included. For example, their statement that “According to the best-available research, teacher evaluation systems that assign between 33 and 50 percent of the available weight to student growth ‘achieve more consistency, avoid the risk of encouraging too narrow a focus on any one aspect of teaching, and can support a broader range of learning objectives than measured by a single test’ is false. First, the actual “best-available” research comes from over 10 years of peer-reviewed publications on this topic, including over 500 peer-reviewed articles. Second, what the authors of the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Studies found was that the percentages to be assigned to student test scores were arbitrary at best, because their attempts to empirically determine such a percentage failed. This face the authors also made explicit in their report; that is, they also noted that the percentages they suggested were not empirically supported.

Breaking News: Another Big Victory in Court in Texas

Earlier today I released a post regarding “A Big Victory in Court in Houston,” in which I wrote about how, yesterday, US Magistrate Judge Smith ruled — in Houston Federation of Teachers et al. v. Houston Independent School District — that Houston teacher plaintiffs’ have legitimate claims regarding how their Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS) value-added scores, as used (and abused) in HISD, was a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment due process protections (i.e., no state or in this case organization shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process). Hence, on this charge, this case is officially going to trial.

Well, also yesterday, “we” won another court case on which I also served as an expert witness (I served as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs alongside Jesse Rothstein in the court case noted above). As per this case — Texas State Teachers Association v. Texas Education Agency, Mike Morath in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of Education for the State of Texas (although there were three similar cases also filed – see all four referenced below) — The Honorable Lora J. Livingston ruled that the Defendants are to make revisions to 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 150.1001 that most notably include the removal of (A) student learning objectives [SLOs], (B) student portfolios, (C) pre and post test results on district level assessments; or (D) value added data based on student state assessment results. In addition, “The rules do not restrict additional factors a school district may consider…,” and “Under the local appraisal system, there [will be] no required weighting for each measure…,” although districts can chose to weight whatever measures they might choose. “Districts can also adopt an appraisal system that does not provide a single, overall summative rating.” That is, increased local control.

If the Texas Education Agency (TEA) does not adopt the regulations put forth by the court by next October, this case will continue. This does not look likely, however, in that as per a news article released today, here, Texas “Commissioner of Education Mike Morath…agreed to revise the [states’] rules in exchange for the four [below] teacher groups’ suspending their legal challenges.” As noted prior, the terms of this settlement call for the removal of the above-mentioned, state-required, four growth measures when evaluating teachers.

This was also highlighted in a news article, released yesterday, here, with this one more generally about how teachers throughout Texas will no longer be evaluated using their students’ test scores, again, as required by the state.

At the crux of this case, as also highlighted in this particular piece, and to which I testified (quite extensively), was that the value-added measures formerly required/suggested by the state did not constitute teachers’ “observable,” job-related behaviors. See also a prior post about this case here.


Cases Contributing to this Ruling:

1. Texas State Teachers Association v. Texas Education Agency, Mike Morath, in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of Education for the State of Texas; in the 345th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas

2. Texas Classroom Teachers Association v. Mike Morath, Texas Commissioner of Education; in the 419th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas

3. Texas American Federation of Teachers v. Mike Morath, Commissioner of Education, in his official capacity, and Texas Education Agency; in the 201st Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas

4. Association of Texas Professional Educators v. Mike Morath, the Commissioner of Education and the Texas Education Agency; in the 200th District Court of Travis County, Texas.

Breaking News: A Big Victory in Court in Houston

Recall from multiple prior posts (see here, here, here, and here) that a set of teachers in the Houston Independent School District (HISD), with the support of the Houston Federation of Teachers (HFT) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), took their district to federal court to fight against the (mis)use of their value-added scores, derived via the Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS) — the “original” value-added model (VAM) developed in Tennessee by William L. Sanders who just recently passed away (see here). Teachers’ EVAAS scores, in short, were being used to evaluate teachers in Houston in more consequential ways than anywhere else in the nation (e.g., the termination of 221 teachers in just one year as based, primarily, on their EVAAS scores).

The case — Houston Federation of Teachers et al. v. Houston ISD — was filed in 2014 and just yesterday, United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm. Smith denied in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, the district’s request for summary judgment given the plaintiffs’ due process claims. Put differently, Judge Smith ruled that the plaintiffs’ did have legitimate claims regarding how EVAAS use in HISD was a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment due process protections (i.e., no state or in this case organization shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process). Hence, on this charge, this case is officially going to trial.

This is a huge victory, and one unprecedented that will likely set precedent, trial pending, for others, and more specifically other teachers.

Of primary issue will be the following (as taken from Judge Smith’s Summary Judgment released yesterday): “Plaintiffs [will continue to] challenge the use of EVAAS under various aspects of the Fourteenth Amendment, including: (1) procedural due process, due to lack of sufficient information to meaningfully challenge terminations based on low EVAAS scores,” and given “due process is designed to foster government decision-making that is both fair and accurate.”

Related, and of most importance, as also taken directly from Judge Smith’s Summary, he wrote:

  • HISD’s value-added appraisal system poses a realistic threat to deprive plaintiffs of constitutionally protected property interests in employment.
  • HISD does not itself calculate the EVAAS score for any of its teachers. Instead, that task is delegated to its third party vendor, SAS. The scores are generated by complex algorithms, employing “sophisticated software and many layers of calculations.” SAS treats these algorithms and software as trade secrets, refusing to divulge them to either HISD or the teachers themselves. HISD has admitted that it does not itself verify or audit the EVAAS scores received from SAS, nor does it engage any contractor to do so. HISD further concedes that any effort by teachers to replicate their own scores, with the limited information available to them, will necessarily fail. This has been confirmed by plaintiffs’ expert, who was unable to replicate the scores despite being given far greater access to the underlying computer codes than is available to an individual teacher [emphasis added, as also related to a prior post about how SAS claimed that plaintiffs violated SAS’s protective order (protecting its trade secrets), that the court overruled, see here].
  • The EVAAS score might be erroneously calculated for any number of reasons, ranging from data-entry mistakes to glitches in the computer code itself. Algorithms are human creations, and subject to error like any other human endeavor. HISD has acknowledged that mistakes can occur in calculating a teacher’s EVAAS score; moreover, even when a mistake is found in a particular teacher’s score, it will not be promptly corrected. As HISD candidly explained in response to a frequently asked question, “Why can’t my value-added analysis be recalculated?”:
    • Once completed, any re-analysis can only occur at the system level. What this means is that if we change information for one teacher, we would have to re- run the analysis for the entire district, which has two effects: one, this would be very costly for the district, as the analysis itself would have to be paid for again; and two, this re-analysis has the potential to change all other teachers’ reports.
  • The remarkable thing about this passage is not simply that cost considerations trump accuracy in teacher evaluations, troubling as that might be. Of greater concern is the house-of-cards fragility of the EVAAS system, where the wrong score of a single teacher could alter the scores of every other teacher in the district. This interconnectivity means that the accuracy of one score hinges upon the accuracy of all. Thus, without access to data supporting all teacher scores, any teacher facing discharge for a low value-added score will necessarily be unable to verify that her own score is error-free.
  • HISD’s own discovery responses and witnesses concede that an HISD teacher is unable to verify or replicate his EVAAS score based on the limited information provided by HISD.
  • According to the unrebutted testimony of plaintiffs’ expert, without access to SAS’s proprietary information – the value-added equations, computer source codes, decision rules, and assumptions – EVAAS scores will remain a mysterious “black box,” impervious to challenge.
  • While conceding that a teacher’s EVAAS score cannot be independently verified, HISD argues that the Constitution does not require the ability to replicate EVAAS scores “down to the last decimal point.” But EVAAS scores are calculated to the second decimal place, so an error as small as one hundredth of a point could spell the difference between a positive or negative EVAAS effectiveness rating, with serious consequences for the affected teacher.

Hence, “When a public agency adopts a policy of making high stakes employment decisions based on secret algorithms incompatible with minimum due process, the proper remedy is to overturn the policy.”

Moreover, he wrote, that all of this is part of the violation of teaches’ Fourteenth Amendment rights. Hence, he also wrote, “On this summary judgment record, HISD teachers have no meaningful way to ensure correct calculation of their EVAAS scores, and as a result are unfairly subject to mistaken deprivation of constitutionally protected property interests in their jobs.”

Otherwise, Judge Smith granted summary judgment to the district on the other claims forwarded by the plaintiffs, including plaintiffs’ equal protection claims. All of us involved in the case — recall that Jesse Rothstein and I served as the expert witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs, and Thomas Kane of the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project and John Friedman of the infamous Chetty et al. studies (see here and here) served as the expert witnesses on behalf of the defendants — knew that all of the plaintiffs’ claims would be tough to win given all of the constitutional legal standards would be difficult for plaintiffs to satisfy (e.g., that evaluating teachers using their value-added scores was not “unreasonable” was difficult to prove, as it was in the Tennessee case we also fought and was then dismissed on similar grounds (see here)).

Nonetheless, that “we” survived on the due process claim is fantastic, especially as this is the first case like this of which we are aware across the country.

Here is the press release, released last night by the AFT:

May 4, 2017 – AFT, Houston Federation of Teachers Hail Court Ruling on Flawed Evaluation System

Statements by American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and Houston Federation of Teachers President Zeph Capo on U.S. District Court decision on Houston’s Evaluation Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS), known elsewhere as VAM or value-added measures:

AFT President Randi Weingarten: “Houston developed an incomprehensible, unfair and secret algorithm to evaluate teachers that had no rational meaning. This is the algebraic formula: = + (Σ∗≤Σ∗∗ × ∗∗∗∗=1)+

“U.S. Magistrate Judge Stephen Smith saw that it was seriously flawed and posed a threat to teachers’ employment rights; he rejected it. This is a huge victory for Houston teachers, their students and educators’ deeply held contention that VAM is a sham.

“The judge said teachers had no way to ensure that EVAAS was correctly calculating their performance score, nor was there a way to promptly correct a mistake. Judge Smith added that the proper remedy is to overturn the policy; we wholeheartedly agree. Teaching must be about helping kids develop the skills and knowledge they need to be prepared for college, career and life—not be about focusing on test scores for punitive purposes.”

HFT President Zeph Capo: “With this decision, Houston should wipe clean the record of every teacher who was negatively evaluated. From here on, teacher evaluation systems should be developed with educators to ensure that they are fair, transparent and help inform instruction, not be used as a punitive tool.”

Nevada (Potentially) Dropping Students’ Test Scores from Its Teacher Evaluation System

This week in Nevada “Lawmakers Mull[ed] Dropping Student Test Scores from Teacher Evaluations,” as per a recent article in The Nevada Independent (see here). This would be quite a move from 2011 when the state (as backed by state Republicans, not backed by federal Race to the Top funds, and as inspired by Michelle Rhee) passed into policy a requirement that 50% of all Nevada teachers’ evaluations were to rely on said data. The current percentage rests at 20%, but it is to double next year to 40%.

Nevada is one of a still uncertain number of states looking to retract the weight and purported “value-added” of such measures. Note also that last week Connecticut dropped some of its test-based components of its teacher evaluation system (see here). All of this is occurring, of course, post the federal passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), within which it is written that states must no longer set up teacher-evaluation systems based in significant part on their students’ test scores.

Accordingly, Nevada’s “Democratic lawmakers are trying to eliminate — or at least reduce — the role [students’] standardized tests play in evaluations of teachers, saying educators are being unfairly judged on factors outside of their control.” The Democratic Assembly Speaker, for example, said that “he’s always been troubled that teachers are rated on standardized test scores,” more specifically noting: “I don’t think any single teacher that I’ve talked to would shirk away from being held accountable…[b]ut if they’re going to be held accountable, they want to be held accountable for things that … reflect their actual work.” I’ve never met a teacher would disagree with this statement.

Anyhow, this past Monday the state’s Assembly Education Committee heard public testimony on these matters and three bills “that would alter the criteria for how teachers’ effectiveness is measured.” These three bills are as follows:

  • AB212 would prohibit the use of student test scores in evaluating teachers, while
  • AB320 would eliminate statewide [standardized] test results as a measure but allow local assessments to account for 20 percent of the total evaluation.
  • AB312 would ensure that teachers in overcrowded classrooms not be penalized for certain evaluation metrics deemed out of their control given the student-to-teacher ratio.

Many presented testimony in support of these bills over an extended period of time on Tuesday. I was also invited to speak, during which I “cautioned lawmakers against being ‘mesmerized’ by the promised objectivity of standardized tests. They have their own flaws, [I] argued, estimating that 90-95 percent of researchers who are looking at the effects of high-stakes testing agree that they’re not moving the dial [really whatsoever] on teacher performance.”

Lawmakers have until the end of tomorrow (i.e., Friday) to pass these bills outside of the committee. Otherwise, they will die.

Of course, I will keep you posted, but things are currently looking “very promising,” especially for AB320.

The Tripod Student Survey Instrument: Its Factor Structure and Value-Added Correlations

The Tripod student perception survey instrument is a “research-based” instrument increasingly being used by states to add to state’s teacher evaluation systems as based on “multiple measures.” While there are other instruments also in use, as well as student survey instruments being developed by states and local districts, this one in particular is gaining in popularity, also in that it was used throughout the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s ($43 million worth of) Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) studies. A current estimate (as per the study discussed in this post) is that during the 2015–2016 school year approximately 1,400 schools purchased and administered the Tripod. See also a prior post (here) about this instrument, or more specifically a chapter of a book about the instrument as authored by the instrument’s developer and lead researcher in a  research surrounding it – Ronald Ferguson.

In a study recently released in the esteemed American Educational Research Journal (AERJ), and titled “What Can Student Perception Surveys Tell Us About Teaching? Empirically Testing the Underlying Structure of the Tripod Student Perception Survey,” researchers found that the Tripod’s factor structure did not “hold up.” That is, Tripod’s 7Cs (i.e., seven constructs including: Care, Confer, Captivate, Clarify, Consolidate, Challenge, Classroom Management; see more information about the 7Cs here) and the 36 items that are positioned within each of the 7Cs did not fit the 7C framework as theorized by instrument developer(s).

Rather, using the MET database (N=1,049 middle school math class sections; N=25,423 students), researchers found that an alternative bi-factor structure (i.e., two versus seven constructs) best fit the Tripod items theoretically positioned otherwise. These two factors included (1) a general responsivity dimension that includes all items (more or less) unrelated to (2) a classroom management dimension that governs responses on items surrounding teachers’ classroom management. Researchers were unable to to distinguish across items seven separate dimensions.

Researchers also found that the two alternative factors noted — general responsivity and classroom management — were positively associated with teacher value-added scores. More specifically, results suggested that these two factors were positively and statistically significantly associated with teachers’ value-added measures based on state mathematics tests (standardized coefficients were .25 and .25, respectively), although for undisclosed reasons, results apparently suggested nothing about these two factors’ (cor)relationships with value-added estimates base on state English/language arts (ELA) tests. As per authors’ findings in the area of mathematics, prior researchers have also found low to moderate agreement between teacher ratings and student perception ratings; hence, this particular finding simply adds another source of convergent evidence.

Authors do give multiple reasons and plausible explanations as to why they found what they did that you all can read in more depth via the full article, linked to above and fully cited below. Authors also note that “It is unclear whether the original 7Cs that describe the Tripod instrument were intended to capture seven distinct dimensions on which students can reliably discriminate among teachers or whether the 7Cs were merely intended to be more heuristic domains that map out important aspects of teaching” (p. 1859); hence, this is also important to keep in mind given study findings.

As per study authors, and to their knowledge, “this study [was] the first to systematically investigate the multidimensionality of the Tripod student perception survey” (p. 1863).

Citation: Wallace, T. L., Kelcey, B., &  Ruzek, E. (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(6), 1834–1868.
doiI:10.3102/0002831216671864 Retrieved from

New (Unvetted) Research about Washington DC’s Teacher Evaluation Reforms

In November of 2013, I published a blog post about a “working paper” released by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and written by authors Thomas Dee – Economics and Educational Policy Professor at Stanford, and James Wyckoff – Economics and Educational Policy Professor at the University of Virginia. In the study titled “Incentives, Selection, and Teacher Performance: Evidence from IMPACT,” Dee and Wyckoff (2013) analyzed the controversial IMPACT educator evaluation system that was put into place in Washington DC Public Schools (DCPS) under the then Chancellor, Michelle Rhee. In this paper, Dee and Wyckoff (2013) presented what they termed to be “novel evidence” to suggest that the “uniquely high-powered incentives” linked to “teacher performance” via DC’s IMPACT initiative worked to improve the performance of high-performing teachers, and that dismissal threats worked to increase the voluntary attrition of low-performing teachers, as well as improve the performance of the students of the teachers who replaced them.

I critiqued this study in full (see both short and long versions of this critique here), and ultimately asserted that the study had “fatal flaws” which compromised the (exaggerated) claims Dee and Wyckoff (2013) advanced. These flaws included but were not limited to that only 17% of the teachers included in this study (i.e., teachers of reading and mathematics in grades 4 through 8) were actually evaluated under the value-added component of the IMPACT system. Put inversely, 83% of the teachers included in this study about teachers’ “value-added” did not have student test scores available to determine if they were indeed of “added value.” That is, 83% of the teachers evaluated, rather, were assessed on their overall levels of effectiveness or subsequent increases/decreases in effectiveness as per only the subjective observational and other self-report data include within the IMPACT system. Hence, while authors’ findings were presented as hard fact, given the 17% fact, their (exaggerated) conclusions did not at all generalize across teachers given the sample limitations, and despite what they claimed.

In short, the extent to which Dee and Wyckoff (2013) oversimplified very complex data to oversimplify a very complex context and policy situation, after which they exaggerated questionable findings, was of issue, that should have been reconciled or cleared out prior to the study’s release. I should add that this study was published in 2015 in the (economics-oriented and not-educational-policy specific) Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (see here), although I have not since revisited the piece to analyze, comparatively (e.g., via a content analysis), the original 2013 to the final 2015 piece.

Anyhow, they are at it again. Just this past January (2017) they published another report, albeit alongside two additional authors: Melinda Adnot – a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Virginia, and Veronica Katz – an Educational Policy PhD student, also at the University of Virginia. This study titled “Teacher Turnover, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement in DCPS,” was also (prematurely) released as a “working paper” by the same NBER, again, without any internal or external vetting but (irresponsibly) released “for discussion and comment.”

Hence, I provide below my “discussion and comments” below, all the while underscoring how this continues to be problematic, also given the fact that I was contacted by the media for comment. Frankly, no media reports should be released about these (or for that matter any other) “working papers” until they are not only internally but also externally reviewed (e.g., in press or published, post vetting). Unfortunately, as they too commonly do, however, NBER released this report, clearly without such concern. Now, we as the public are responsible for consuming this study with much critical caution, while also advocating that others (and helping others to) do the same. Hence, I write into this post my critiques of this particular study.

First, the primary assumption (i.e., the “conceptual model”) driving this Adnot, Dee, Katz, & Wyckoff (2016) piece is that low-performing teachers should be identified and replaced with more effective teachers. This is akin to the assumption noted in the first Dee and Wyckoff (2013) piece. It should be noted here that in DCPS teachers rated as “Ineffective” or consecutively as “Minimally Effective” are “separated” from the district; hence, DCPS has adopted educational policies that align with this “conceptual model” as well. Interesting to note is how researchers, purportedly external to DCPS, entered into this study with the same a priori “conceptual model.” This, in and of itself, is an indicator of researcher bias (see also forthcoming).

Nonetheless, Adnot et al.’s (2016) highlighted finding was that “on average, DCPS replaced teachers who left with teachers who increased student achievement by 0.08 SD [standard deviations] in math.” Buried further into the report they also found that DCPS replaced teachers who left with teachers who increased student achievement by 0.05 SD in reading (at not a 5% but a 10% statistical significance level). These findings, in simpler but also more realistic terms, mean that (if actually precise and correct, also given all of the problems with how teacher classifications were determined at the DCPS level), “effective” mathematics teachers who replaced “ineffective” mathematics teachers increased student achievement by approximately 2.7%, and “effective” reading teachers who replaced “ineffective” reading teachers increased student achievement by approximately 1.7% (at not a 5% but a 10% statistical significance level). These are hardly groundbreaking results as these proportional movements likely represented one or maybe two total test items on the large-scale standardized tests uses to assess DCPS’s policy impacts.

Interesting to also note is that not only were the “small effects” exaggerated to mean so much more than what they are actually worth (see also forthcoming), but also that only the larger of the two findings – the mathematics finding – is highlighted in the abstract. The complimentary and smaller reading effect is actually buried into the text. Also buried is that these findings pertain only to grade four and eight, general education teachers who were value-added eligible, akin to Dee and Wyckoff’s (2013) earlier piece (e.g., typically 30% of a school’s population, although Dee and Wyckoff’s (2013) piece marked this percentage at 17%).

As mentioned prior, none of this would have likely happened had this piece been internally and/or externally reviewed prior to this study’s release.

Regardless, Adnot et al. (2016) also found that the attrition of relatively higher-performing teachers (e.g., “Effective” or “Highly Effective”) had a negative but also statistically insignificant effect.

Hence, it can be concluded that the only “finding” highlighted in the abstract of this piece was not the only “finding,” but rather buried in this piece were these other findings that researchers (perhaps) purposefully buried into the text. It is possible, in other words, that because these other findings did not support researchers a priori conclusions and claims, researchers chose not to bring attention to these findings, or rather the lack thereof (e.g., in the abstract).

Related, I should note that in a few places the authors exaggerate how, for example, teachers’ effects on their students’ achievement are so tangible, without any mention of contrary reports, namely as published by the American Statistical Association (ASA), in which the ASA evidenced that these (oft-exaggerated) teacher effects account for no more than 1%-14% of the variance in students’ growth scores (see more information here). In fact, teacher effectiveness is very likely not “qualitatively large” as Adnot et al. (2016) argue, without evidence in this piece, and also imply throughout this piece as a foundational part of their aforementioned “conceptual model.”

Likewise, while most everyone would likely agree that there are “stark inequities” in students’ access to effective teachers, how to improve this condition is certainly of great debate, as also not explicitly or implicitly acknowledged throughout this piece. Rather, much disagreement and debate, in fact, still exist regarding whether inducing teacher turnover will get “us” really anywhere in terms of school reform, as also related to how big (or small) teachers’ effects on students’ measurable performance actually are as discussed prior. Accordingly, and perhaps not surprisingly, Adnot et al. (2016) cite only the articles of other researchers, or rather members of their proverbial choir (e.g, Eric Hanushek who, without actual evidence, has been hypothesizing about how replacing “ineffective” teachers with “effective” teachers will reform America’s schools for nearly now one decade) to support these same a priori conclusions. Consequently, the professional integrity of the researchers must be put into check given these simple (albeit biased) errors.

Taking all of this into consideration, I would hardly call the findings they advanced in this piece (and emphasized in the abstract) solid indicators of the “overall positive effects of teacher turnover,” with only one statistically but not practically significant finding of note in mathematics (i.e., a 2.7% increase if accurate)? None of this could/should, accordingly, lead anyone to conclude that “the supply of entering teachers appears to be of sufficient quality to sustain a relatively high turnover rate.”

Hence, this is yet another case of these authors oversimplifying very complex data to oversimplify a very complex context and policy situation, after which they exaggerated negligible findings while also dismissing others.

Related, would we not expect greater results given teachers who are deemed highly effective are to be given one-time bonuses of up to $25,000, and permanent increases to teachers’ base salaries of up to $27,000 per year? This bang, or lack thereof, may not be worth the buck, either.

Additionally, is an annual attrition rate of “low-performing teachers” (e.g., classified as such for one or two consecutive years) in the district, currently hanging at around 46% worth these diminutive results?

Did they also actually find, overall, that “high-poverty schools actually improve as a result of teacher turnover?” I don’t think so, but do give this study a full read to test their as well as my conclusions for yourself (see, again, the full study here).

In the end, Adnot et al. (2016) do conclude that they found “that the overall effect of teacher turnover in DCPS conservatively had no effect on achievement and, under reasonable assumptions, improved achievement.” This is a MUCH more balanced interpretation of this study, although I would certainly question their “reasonable assumptions” (see also prior). Moreover, it is much more curious as to why we had to wait for the actual headline of this study until the end. This is especially important given that others, including members of the media, public, and policy making community, might not make it that far (i.e., trusting only what is in the abstract).


Adnot, M., Dee, T., Katz, V., & Wyckoff, J. (2016). Teacher turnover, teacher quality, and student achievement in DCPS [Washington DC Public Schools]. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Retrieved from

Dee, T., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Retrieved from

Rest in Peace, EVAAS Developer William L. Sanders

Over the last 3.5 years since I developed this blog, I have written many posts about one particular value-added model (VAM) – the Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS), formerly known as the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS), now known by some states as the TxVAAS in Texas, the PVAAS in Pennsylvania, and also known as the generically-named EVAAS in states like Ohio, North Carolina, and South Carolina (and many districts throughout the nation). It is this model on which I have conducted most of my research (see, for example, the first piece I published about this model here, in which most of the claims I made still stand, although EVAAS modelers disagreed here). And it is this model that is at the source of the majority of the teacher evaluation lawsuits in which I have been or still am currently engaged (see, for example, details about the Houston lawsuit here, the former Tennessee lawsuit here, and the new Texas lawsuit here, although the model is more peripheral in this particular case).

Anyhow, the original EVAAS model (i.e, the TVAAS) was originally developed by a man named William L. Sanders who ultimately sold it to SAS Institute Inc. that now holds all rights to the proprietary model. See, for example, here. See also examples of prior posts about Sanders here, here, here, here, here, and here. See also examples of prior posts about the EVAAS here, here, here, here, here, and here.

It is William L. Sanders who just passed away and we sincerely hope may rest in peace.

Sanders had a bachelors degree in animal science and a doctorate in statistics and quantitative genetics. As an adjunct professor and agricultural statistician in the college of business at the University of Knoxville, Tennessee, he developed in the late 1980s his TVAAS.

Sanders thought that educators struggling with student achievement in the state should “simply” use more advanced statistics, similar to those used when modeling genetic and reproductive trends among cattle, to measure growth, hold teachers accountable for that growth, and solve the educational measurement woes facing the state of Tennessee at the time. It was to be as simple as that…. I should also mention that given this history, not surprisingly, Tennessee was one of the first states to receive Race to the Top funds to the tune of $502 million to further advance this model; hence, this has also contributed to this model’s popularity across the nation.

Nonetheless, Sanders passed away this past Thursday, March 16, 2017, from natural causes in Columbia, Tennessee. As per his obituary here,

  • He was most well-known for developing “a method used to measure a district, school, and teacher’s effect on student performance by tracking the year-to-year progress of students against themselves over their school career with various teachers’ classes.”
  • He “stood for a hopeful view that teacher effectiveness dwarfs all other factors as a predictor of student academic growth…[challenging]…decades of assumptions that student family life, income, or ethnicity has more effect on student learning.”
  • He believed, in the simplest of terms, “that educational influence matters and teachers matter most.”

Of course, we have much research evidence to counter these claims, but for now we will just leave all of this at that. Again, may he rest in peace.

New Texas Lawsuit: VAM-Based Estimates as Indicators of Teachers’ “Observable” Behaviors

Last week I spent a few days in Austin, one day during which I provided expert testimony for a new state-level lawsuit that has the potential to impact teachers throughout Texas. The lawsuit — Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA) v. Texas Education Agency (TEA), Mike Morath in his Official Capacity as Commissioner of Education for the State of Texas.

The key issue is that, as per the state’s Texas Education Code (Sec. § 21.351, see here) regarding teachers’ “Recommended Appraisal Process and Performance Criteria,” The Commissioner of Education must adopt “a recommended teacher appraisal process and criteria on which to appraise the performance of teachers. The criteria must be based on observable, job-related behavior, including: (1) teachers’ implementation of discipline management procedures; and (2) the performance of teachers’ students.” As for the latter, the State/TEA/Commissioner defined, as per its Texas Administrative Code (T.A.C., Chapter 15, Sub-Chapter AA, §150.1001, see here), that teacher-level value-added measures should be treated as one of the four measures of “(2) the performance of teachers’ students;” that is, one of the four measures recognized by the State/TEA/Commissioner as an “observable” indicator of a teacher’s “job-related” performance.

While currently no district throughout the State of Texas is required to use a value-added component to assess and evaluate its teachers, as noted, the value-added component is listed as one of four measures from which districts must choose at least one. All options listed in the category of “observable” indicators include: (A) student learning objectives (SLOs); (B) student portfolios; (C) pre- and post-test results on district-level assessments; and (D) value-added data based on student state assessment results.

Related, the state has not recommended or required that any district, if the value-added option is selected, to choose any particular value-added model (VAM) or calculation approach. Nor has it recommended or required that any district adopt any consequences as attached to these output; however, things like teacher contract renewal and sharing teachers’ prior appraisals with other districts in which teachers might be applying for new jobs is not discouraged. Again, though, the main issue here (and the key points to which I testified) was that the value-added component is listed as an “observable” and “job-related” teacher effectiveness indicator as per the state’s administrative code.

Accordingly, my (5 hour) testimony was primarily (albeit among many other things including the “job-related” part) about how teacher-level value-added data do not yield anything that is observable in terms of teachers’ effects. Likewise, officially referring to these data in this way is entirely false, in fact, in that:

  • “We” cannot directly observe a teacher “adding” (or detracting) value (e.g., with our own eyes, like supervisors can when they conduct observations of teachers in practice);
  • Using students’ test scores to measure student growth upwards (or downwards) and over time, as is very common practice using the (very often instructionally insensitive) state-level tests required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and doing this once per year in mathematics and reading/language arts (that includes prior and other current teachers’ effects, summer learning gains and decay, etc.), is not valid practice. That is, doing this has not been validated by the scholarly/testing community; and
  • Worse and less valid is to thereafter aggregate this student-level growth to the teacher level and then call whatever “growth” (or the lack thereof) is because of something the teacher (and really only the teacher did), as directly “observable.” These data are far from assessing a teacher’s causal or “observable” impacts on his/her students’ learning and achievement over time. See, for example, the prior statement released about value-added data use in this regard by the American Statistical Association (ASA) here. In this statement it is written that: “Research on VAMs has been fairly consistent that aspects of educational effectiveness that are measurable and within teacher control represent a small part of the total variation [emphasis added to note that this is variation explained which = correlational versus causal research] in student test scores or growth; most estimates in the literature attribute between 1% and 14% of the total variability [emphasis added] to teachers. This is not saying that teachers have little effect on students, but that variation among teachers [emphasis added] accounts for a small part of the variation [emphasis added] in [said test] scores. The majority of the variation in [said] test scores is [inversely, 86%-99% related] to factors outside of the teacher’s control such as student and family background, poverty, curriculum, and unmeasured influences.”

If any of you have anything to add to this, please do so in the comments section of this post. Otherwise, I will keep you posted on how this goes. My current understanding is that this one will be headed to court.

New Article Published on Using Value-Added Data to Evaluate Teacher Education Programs

A former colleague, a current PhD student, and I just had an article released about using value-added data to (or rather not to) evaluate teacher education/preparation, higher education programs. The article is titled “An Elusive Policy Imperative: Data and Methodological Challenges When Using Growth in Student Achievement to Evaluate Teacher Education Programs’ ‘Value-Added,” and the abstract of the article is included below.

If there is anyone out there who might be interested in this topic, please note that the journal in which this piece was published (online first and to be published in its paper version later) – Teaching Education – has made the article free for its first 50 visitors. Hence, I thought I’d share this with you all first.

If you’re interested, do access the full piece here.

Happy reading…and here’s the abstract:

In this study researchers examined the effectiveness of one of the largest teacher education programs located within the largest research-intensive universities within the US. They did this using a value-added model as per current federal educational policy imperatives to assess the measurable effects of teacher education programs on their teacher graduates’ students’ learning and achievement as compared to other teacher education programs. Correlational and group comparisons revealed little to no relationship between value-added scores and teacher education program regardless of subject area or position on the value-added scale. These findings are discussed within the context of several very important data and methodological challenges researchers also made transparent, as also likely common across many efforts to evaluate teacher education programs using value-added approaches. Such transparency and clarity might assist in the creation of more informed value-added practices (and more informed educational policies) surrounding teacher education accountability.