The New York Times on “The Little Known Statistician” Who Passed

As many of you may recall, I wrote a post last March about the passing of William L. Sanders at age 74. Sanders developed the Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS) — the value-added model (VAM) on which I have conducted most of my research (see, for example, here and here) and the VAM at the core of most of the teacher evaluation lawsuits in which I have been (or still am) engaged (see here, here, and here).

Over the weekend, though, The New York Times released a similar piece about Sanders’s passing, titled “The Little-Known Statistician Who Taught Us to Measure Teachers.” Because I had multiple colleagues and blog followers email me (or email me about) this article, I thought I would share it out with all of you, with some additional comments, of course, but also given the comments I already made in my prior post here.

First, I will start by saying that the title of this article is misleading in that what this “little-known” statistician contributed to the field of education was hardly “little” in terms of its size and impact. Rather, Sanders and his associates at SAS Institute Inc. greatly influenced our nation in terms of the last decade of our nation’s educational policies, as largely bent on high-stakes teacher accountability for educational reform. This occurred in large part due to Sanders’s (and others’) lobbying efforts when the federal government ultimately choose to incentivize and de facto require that all states hold their teachers accountable for their value-added, or lack thereof, while attaching high-stakes consequences (e.g., teacher termination) to teachers’ value-added estimates. This, of course, was to ensure educational reform. This occurred at the federal level, as we all likely know, primarily via Race to the Top and the No Child Left Behind Waivers essentially forced upon states when states had to adopt VAMs (or growth models) to also reform their teachers, and subsequently their schools, in order to continue to receive the federal funds upon which all states still rely.

It should be noted, though, that we as a nation have been relying upon similar high-stakes educational policies since the late 1970s (i.e., for now over 35 years); however, we have literally no research evidence that these high-stakes accountability policies have yielded any of their intended effects, as still perpetually conceptualized (see, for example, Nevada’s recent legislative ruling here) and as still advanced via large- and small-scale educational policies (e.g., we are still A Nation At Risk in terms of our global competitiveness). Yet, we continue to rely on the logic in support of such “carrot and stick” educational policies, even with this last decade’s teacher- versus student-level “spin.” We as a nation could really not be more ahistorical in terms of our educational policies in this regard.

Regardless, Sanders contributed to all of this at the federal level (that also trickled down to the state level) while also actively selling his VAM to state governments as well as local school districts (i.e., including the Houston Independent School District in which teacher plaintiffs just won a recent court ruling against the Sanders value-added system here), and Sanders did this using sets of (seriously) false marketing claims (e.g., purchasing and using the EVAAS will help “clear [a] path to achieving the US goal of leading the world in college completion by the year 2020”). To see two empirical articles about the claims made to sell Sanders’s EVAAS system, the research non-existent in support of each of the claims, and the realities of those at the receiving ends of this system (i.e., teachers) as per their experiences with each of the claims, see here and here.

Hence, to assert that what this “little known” statistician contributed to education was trivial or inconsequential is entirely false. Thankfully, with the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act” (ESSA) the federal government came around, in at least some ways. While not yet acknowledging how holding teachers accountable for their students’ test scores, while ideal, simply does not work (see the “Top Ten” reasons why this does not work here), at least the federal government has given back to the states the authority to devise, hopefully, some more research-informed educational policies in these regards (I know….).

Nonetheless, may he rest in peace (see also here), perhaps also knowing that his forever stance of “[making] no apologies for the fact that his methods were too complex for most of the teachers whose jobs depended on them to understand,” just landed his EVAAS in serious jeopardy in court in Houston (see here) given this stance was just ruled as contributing to the violation of teachers’ Fourteenth Amendment rights (i.e., no state or in this case organization shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process [emphasis added]).

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.

David Berliner on The Purported Failure of America’s Schools

My primary mentor, David Berliner (Regents Professor at Arizona State University (ASU)) wrote, yesterday, a blog post for the Equity Alliance Blog (also at ASU) on “The Purported Failure of America’s Schools, and Ways to Make Them Better” (click here to access the original blog post). See other posts about David’s scholarship on this blog here, here, and here. See also one of our best blog posts that David also wrote here, about “Why Standardized Tests Should Not Be Used to Evaluate Teachers (and Teacher Education Programs).”

In sum, for many years David has been writing “about the lies told about the poor performance of our students and the failure of our schools and teachers.” For example, he wrote one of the education profession’s all time classics and best sellers: The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud, And The Attack On America’s Public Schools (1995). If you have not read it, you should! All educators should read this book, on that note and in my opinion, but also in the opinion of many other iconic educational scholars throughout the U.S. (Paufler, Amrein-Beardsley, Hobson, under revision for publication).

While the title of this book accurately captures its contents, more specifically it “debunks the myths that test scores in America’s schools are falling, that illiteracy is rising, and that better funding has no benefit. It shares the good news about public education.” I’ve found the contents of this book to still be my best defense when others with whom I interact attack America’s public schools, as often misinformed and perpetuated by many American politicians and journalists.

In this blog post David, once again, debunks many of these myths surrounding America’s public schools using more up-to-date data from international tests, our country’s National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), state-level SAT and ACT scores, and the like. He reminds us of how student characteristics “strongly influence the [test] scores obtained by the students” at any school and, accordingly, “strongly influence” or bias these scores when used in any aggregate form (e.g., to hold teachers, schools, districts, and states accountable for their students’ performance).

He reminds us that “in the US, wealthy children attending public schools that serve the wealthy are competitive with any nation in the world…[but in]…schools in which low-income students do not achieve well, [that are not competitive with many nations in the world] we find the common correlates of poverty: low birth weight in the neighborhood, higher than average rates of teen and single parenthood, residential mobility, absenteeism, crime, and students in need of special education or English language instruction.” These societal factors explain poor performance much more (i.e., more variance explained) than any school-level, and as pertinent to this blog, teacher-level factor (e.g., teacher quality as measured by large-scale standardized test scores).

In this post David reminds us of much, much more, that we need to remember and also often recall in defense of our public schools and in support of our schools’ futures (e.g., research-based notes to help “fix” some of our public schools).

Again, please do visit the original blog post here to read more.

NCTQ on States’ Teacher Evaluation Systems’ Failures

The controversial National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) — created by the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute and funded (in part) by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as “part of a coalition for ‘a better orchestrated agenda’ for accountability, choice, and using test scores to drive the evaluation of teachers” (see here; see also other instances of controversy here and here) — recently issued yet another report about state’s teacher evaluation systems titled: “Running in Place: How New Teacher Evaluations Fail to Live Up to Promises.” See a related blog post in Education Week about this report here. See also a related blog post about NCTQ’s prior large-scale (and also slanted) study — “State of the States 2015: Evaluating Teaching, Leading and Learning” — here. Like I did in that post, I summarize this study below.

From the abstract: Authors of this report find that “within the 30 states that [still] require student learning measures to be at least a significant factor in teacher evaluations, state guidance and rules in most states allow teachers to be rated effective even if they receive low scores on the student learning component of the evaluation.” They add in the full report that in many states “a high score on an evaluation’s observation and [other] non-student growth components [can] result in a teacher earning near or at the minimum number of points needed to earn an effective rating. As a result, a low score on the student growth component of the evaluation is sufficient in several states to push a teacher over the minimum number of points needed to earn a summative effective rating. This essentially diminishes any real influence the student growth component has on the summative evaluation rating” (p. 3-4).

The first assumption surrounding the authors’ main tenets they make explicit: that “[u]nfortunately, [the] policy transformation [that began with the publication of the “Widget Effect” report in 2009] has not resulted in drastic alterations in outcomes” (p. 2). This is because, “[in] effect…states have been running in place” (p. 2) and not using teachers’ primarily test-based indicators for high-stakes decision-making. Hence, “evaluation results continue to look much like they did…back in 2009” (p. 2). The authors then, albeit ahistorically, ask, “How could so much effort to change state laws result in so little actual change?” (p. 2). Yet they don’t realize (or care to realize) that this is because we have almost 40 years of evidence that really any type of test-based, educational accountability policies and initiatives have never yield their intended consequences (i.e., increased student achievement on national and international indicators). Rather, the authors argue, that “most states’ evaluation laws fated these systems to status quo results long before” they really had a chance (p. 2).

The authors’ second assumption they imply: that the two most often used teacher evaluation indicators (i.e., the growth or value-added and observational measures) should be highly correlated, which many argue they should be IF in fact they are measuring general teacher effectiveness. But the more fundamental assumption here is that if the student learning (i.e., test based) indicators do not correlate with the observational indicators, the latter MUST be wrong, biased, distorted, and accordingly less trustworthy and the like. They add that “teachers and students are not well served when a teacher is rated effective or higher even though her [sic] students have not made sufficient gains in their learning over the course of a school year” (p. 4). Accordingly, they add that “evaluations should require that a teacher is rated well on both the student growth measures and the professional practice component (e.g., observations, student surveys, etc.) in order to be rated effective” (p. 4). Hence, also in this report the authors put forth recommendations for how states might address this challenge. See these recommendations forthcoming, as also related to a new phenomenon my students and I are studying called artificial inflation.

Artificial inflation is a term I recently coined to represent what is/was happening in Houston, and elsewhere (e.g., Tennessee), when district leaders (e.g., superintendents) mandate or force principals and other teacher effectiveness appraisers or evaluators to align their observational ratings of teachers’ effectiveness with teachers’ value-added scores, with the latter being (sometimes relentlessly) considered the “objective measure” around which all other measures (e.g., subjective observational measures) should revolve, or align. Hence, the push is to conflate the latter “subjective” measure to match the former “objective” measure, even if the process of artificial conflation causes both indicators to become invalid. As per my affidavit from the still ongoing lawsuit in Houston (see here), “[t]o purposefully and systematically endorse the engineering and distortion of the perceptible ‘subjective’ indicator, using the perceptibly ‘objective’ indicator as a keystone of truth and consequence, is more than arbitrary, capricious, and remiss…not to mention in violation of the educational measurement field’s “Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.”


Here is one important figure, taken out of context in some ways on purpose (e.g., as the text surrounding this particular figure is ironically, subjectively used to define what the NCTQ defines as as indicators or progress, or regress).

Near Figure 1 (p. 1) the authors note that “as of January 2017, there has been little evidence of a large-scale reversal of states’ formal evaluation policies. In fact, only four states (Alaska, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Oklahoma) have reversed course on factoring student learning into a teacher’s evaluation rating” (p. 3). While this reversal of four is not illustrated in their accompanying figure, see also a prior post about what other states, beyond just these four states of dishonorable mention, have done to “reverse” the “course” (p. 3) here. While the authors shame all states for minimizing teachers’ test-based ratings before these systems had a chance, as also ignorant to what they cite as “a robust body of research” (without references or citations here, and few elsewhere in a set of footnotes), they add that it remains an unknown as to “why state educational agencies put forth regulations or guidance that would allow teachers to be rated effective without meeting their student growth goals” (p. 4). Many of us know that this was often done to counter the unreliable and invalid results often yielded via the “objective” test-based sides of things that the NCTQ continues to advance.

Otherwise, here are also some important descriptive findings:

  • Thirty states require measures of student academic growth to be at least a significant factor within teacher evaluations; another 10 states require some student growth, and 11 states do not require any objective measures of student growth (p. 5).
  • With only [emphasis added] two exceptions, in the 30 states where student
    growth is at least a significant factor in teacher evaluations, state
    rules or guidance effectively allow teachers who have not met student
    growth goals to still receive a summative rating of at least effective (p. 5).
  • In 18 [of these 30] states, state educational agency regulations and/or guidance
    explicitly permit teachers to earn a summative rating of effective even after earning a less-than-effective score on the student learning portion of their evaluations…these regulations meet the letter of the law while still allowing teachers with low ratings on
    student growth measures to be rated effective or higher (p. 5). In Colorado, for example…a teacher can earn a rating of highly effective with a score of just 1 for student growth (which the state classifies as “less than expected”) in conjunction with a top professional practice score (p. 4).
  • Ten states do not specifically address whether a teacher who has not met student growth goals may be rated as effective or higher. These states neither specifically allow nor specifically disallow such a scenario, but by failing to provide guidance to prevent such an occurrence, they enable it to exist (p. 6).
  • Only two of the 30 states (Indiana and Kentucky) make it impossible for a teacher who has not been found effective at increasing student learning to receive a summative rating of effective (p. 6).

Finally, here are some of their important recommendations, as related to all of the above, and to create more meaningful teacher evaluation systems. So they argue, states should:

  • Establish policies that preclude teachers from earning a label of effective if they are found ineffective at increasing student learning (p. 12).
  • Track the results of discrete components within evaluation systems, both statewide and districtwide. In districts where student growth measures and observation measures are significantly out of alignment, states should reevaluate their systems and/or offer districts technical assistance (p. 12). ][That is, states should possibly promote artificial inflation as we have observed elsewhere. The authors add that] to ensure that evaluation ratings better reflect teacher performance, states should [more specifically] track the results of each evaluation measure to pinpoint where misalignment between components, such as between student learning and observation measures, exists. Where major components within an evaluation system are significantly misaligned, states should examine their systems and offer districts technical assistance where needed, whether through observation training or examining student growth models or calculations (p. 12-13). [Tennessee, for example,] publishes this information so that it is transparent and publicly available to guide actions by key stakeholders and point the way to needed reforms (p. 13).

See also state-by-state reports in the appendices of the full report, in case your state was one of the state’s that responded or, rather, “recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.”

Citation: Walsh, K., Joseph, N., Lakis, K., & Lubell, S. (2017). Running in place: How new teacher evaluations fail to live up to promises. Washington DC: National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ). Retrieved from

States’ Teacher Evaluation Systems Now “All over the Map”

We are now just one year past 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. As per a recent article written in Education Week, accordingly, most states are still tinkering with their teacher evaluation systems—particularly regarding the student growth or value-added measures (VAMs) that were also formerly required to help states assesses teachers’ purported impacts on students’ test scores over time.

“States now have a newfound flexibility to adjust their evaluation systems—and in doing so, they’re all over the map.” Likewise, though, “[a] number of states…have been moving away from [said] student growth [and value-added] measures in [teacher] evaluations,” said a friend, colleague, co-editor, and occasional writer on this blog (see, for example, here and here) Kimberly Kappler Hewitt (University of North Carolina at Greensboro).  She added that this is occurring “whether [this] means postponing [such measures’] inclusion, reducing their percentage in the evaluation breakdown, or eliminating those measures altogether.”

While states like Alabama, Iowa, and Ohio seem to still be moving forward with the attachment of students’ test scores to their teachers, other states seem to be going “back and forth” or putting a halt to all of this altogether (e.g, California). Alaska cut back the weight of the measure, while New Jersey tripled the weight to count for 30% of a teacher’s evaluation score, and then introduced a bill to reduce it back to 0%. In New York teacher are to still receive a test-based evaluation score, but it is not to be tied to consequences and completely revamped by 2019. In Alabama a bill that would have tied 25% of a teacher’s evaluation to his/her students’ ACT and ACT Aspire college-readiness tests has yet to see the light of day. In North Carolina state leaders re-framed the use(s) of such measures to be more for improvement tool (e.g., for professional development), but not “a hammer” to be used against schools or teachers. The same thing is happening in Oklahoma, although this state is not specifically mentioned in this piece.

While some might see all of this as good news — or rather better news than what we have seen for nearly the last decade during which states, state departments of education, and practitioners have been grappling with and trying to make sense of student growth measures and VAMs — others are still (and likely forever will be) holding onto what now seems to be some of the now unclenched promises attached to such stronger accountability measures.

Namely in this article, Daniel Weisberg of The New Teacher Project (TNTP) and author of the now famous “Widget Effect” report — about “Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Differences in Teacher Effectiveness” that helped to “inspire” the last near-decade of these policy-based reforms — “doesn’t see states backing away” from using these measures given ESSA’s new flexibility. We “haven’t seen the clock turn back to 2009, and I don’t think [we]’re going to see that.”

Citation: Will, M. (2017). States are all over the map when it comes to how they’re looking to approach teacher-evaluation systems under ESSA. Education Week. Retrieved from

The Elephant in the Room – Fairness

While VAMs have many issues pertaining, fundamentally, to their levels of reliability, validity, and bias, they are wholeheartedly unfair. This is one thing that is so very important but so rarely discussed when those external to VAM-based metrics and metrics use are debating, mainly the benefits of VAMs.

Issues of “fairness” arise when a test, or more likely its summative (i.e., summary and sometimes consequential) and formative (i.e., informative) uses, impact some more than others in unfair yet often important ways. In terms of VAMs, the main issue here is that VAM-based estimates can be produced for only approximately 30-40% of all teachers across America’s public schools. The other 60-70%, which sometimes includes entire campuses of teachers (e.g., early elementary and high school teachers), cannot altogether be evaluated or “held accountable” using teacher- or individual-level VAM data.

Put differently, what VAM-based data provide, in general, “are incredibly imprecise and inconsistent measures of supposed teacher effectiveness for only a tiny handful [30-40%] of teachers in a given school” (see reference here). But this is often entirely overlooked, not only in the debates surrounding VAM use (and abuse) but also in the discussions surrounding how many taxpayer-derived funds are still being used to support such a (purportedly) reformatory overhaul of America’s public education system. The fact of the matter is that VAMs only directly impact the large minority.

While some states and districts are rushing into adopting “multiple measures” to alleviate at least some of these issues with fairness, what state and district leaders don’t entirely understand is that this, too, is grossly misguided. Should any of these states and districts also tie serious consequences to such output (e.g., merit pay, performance plans, teacher termination, denial of tenure), or rather tie serious consequences to measures of growth derived via any varieties of the “multiple assessment” that can be pulled from increasingly prevalent multiple assessment “menus,” states and districts are also setting themselves for lawsuits…no joke! Starting with the basic psychometrics, and moving onto the (entire) lack of research in support of using more “off-the-shelf” tests to help alleviate issues with fairness, would be the (easy) approach to take in a court of law as, really, doing any of this is entirely wrong.

School-level value-added is also being used to accommodate the issue of “fairness,” just less frequently now than before given the aforementioned “multiple assessment” trends. Regardless, many states and districts also continue to attribute a school-level aggregate score to teachers who do not teach primarily reading/language arts and mathematics, primarily in grades 3-8. That’s right, a majority of teachers receive a value-added score that is based on students whom they do not teach. This also calls for legal recourse, also in that this has been a contested issue within all of the lawsuits in which I’ve thus far been engaged.

Miami-Dade, Florida’s Recent “Symbolic” and “Artificial” Teacher Evaluation Moves

Last spring, Eduardo Porter – writer of the Economic Scene column for The New York Times – wrote an excellent article, from an economics perspective, about that which is happening with our current obsession in educational policy with “Grading Teachers by the Test” (see also my prior post about this article here; although you should give the article a full read; it’s well worth it). In short, though, Porter wrote about what economist’s often refer to as Goodhart’s Law, which states that “when a measure becomes the target, it can no longer be used as the measure.” This occurs given the great (e.g., high-stakes) value (mis)placed on any measure, and the distortion (i.e., in terms of artificial inflation or deflation, depending on the desired direction of the measure) that often-to-always comes about as a result.

Well, it’s happened again, this time in Miami-Dade, Florida, where the Miami-Dade district’s teachers are saying its now “getting harder to get a good evaluation” (see the full article here). Apparently, teachers evaluation scores, from last to this year, are being “dragged down,” primarily given teachers’ students’ performances on tests (as well as tests of subject areas that and students whom they do not teach).

“In the weeks after teacher evaluations for the 2015-16 school year were distributed, Miami-Dade teachers flooded social media with questions and complaints. Teachers reported similar stories of being evaluated based on test scores in subjects they don’t teach and not being able to get a clear explanation from school administrators. In dozens of Facebook posts, they described feeling confused, frustrated and worried. Teachers risk losing their jobs if they get a series of low evaluations, and some stand to gain pay raises and a bonus of up to $10,000 if they get top marks.”

As per the figure also included in this article, see the illustration of how this is occurring below; that is, how it is becoming more difficult for teachers to get “good” overall evaluation scores but also, and more importantly, how it is becoming more common for districts to simply set different cut scores to artificially increase teachers’ overall evaluation scores.

00-00 template_cs5

“Miami-Dade say the problems with the evaluation system have been exacerbated this year as the number of points needed to get the “highly effective” and “effective” ratings has continued to increase. While it took 85 points on a scale of 100 to be rated a highly effective teacher for the 2011-12 school year, for example, it now takes 90.4.”

This, as mentioned prior, is something called “artificial deflation,” whereas the quality of teaching is likely not changing nearly to the extent the data might illustrate it is. Rather, what is happening behind the scenes (e.g., the manipulation of cut scores) is giving the impression that indeed the overall teacher system is in fact becoming better, more rigorous, aligning with policymakers’ “higher standards,” etc).

This is something in the educational policy arena that we also call “symbolic policies,” whereas nothing really instrumental or material is happening, and everything else is a facade, concealing a less pleasant or creditable reality that nothing, in fact, has changed.

Citation: Gurney, K. (2016). Teachers say it’s getting harder to get a good evaluation. The school district disagrees. The Miami Herald. Retrieved from

Ohio Rejects Subpar VAM, for Another VAM Arguably Less Subpar?

From a prior post coming from Ohio (see here), you may recall that Ohio state legislators recently introduced a bill to review its state’s value-added model (VAM), especially as it pertains to the state’s use of their VAM (i.e., the Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS); see more information about the use of this model in Ohio here).

As per an article published last week in The Columbus Dispatch, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) apparently rejected a proposal made by the state’s pro-charter school Ohio Coalition for Quality Education and the state’s largest online charter school, all of whom wanted to add (or replace) this state’s VAM with another, unnamed “Similar Students” measure (which could be the Student Growth Percentiles model discussed prior on this blog, for example, here, here, and here) used in California.

The ODE charged that this measure “would lower expectations for students with different backgrounds, such as those in poverty,” which is not often a common criticism of this model (if I have the model correct), nor is it a common criticism of the model they already have in place. In fact, and again if I have the model correct, these are really the only two models that do not statistically control for potentially biasing factors (e.g., student demographic and other background factors) when calculating teachers’ value-added; hence, their arguments about this model may be in actuality no different than that which they are already doing. Hence, statements like that made by Chris Woolard, senior executive director of the ODE, are false: “At the end of the day, our system right now has high expectations for all students. This (California model) violates that basic principle that we want all students to be able to succeed.”

The models, again if I am correct, are very much the same. While indeed the California measurement might in fact consider “student demographics such as poverty, mobility, disability and limited-English learners,” this model (if I am correct on the model) does not statistically factor these variables out. If anything, the state’s EVAAS system does, even though EVAAS modelers claim they do not do this, by statistically controlling for students’ prior performance, which (unfortunately) has these demographics already built into them. In essence, they are already doing the same thing they now protest.

Indeed, as per a statement made by Ron Adler, president of the Ohio Coalition for Quality Education, not only is it “disappointing that ODE spends so much time denying that poverty and mobility of students impedes their ability to generate academic performance…they [continue to] remain absolutely silent about the state’s broken report card and continually defend their value-added model that offers no transparency and creates wild swings for schools across Ohio” (i.e., the EVAAS system, although in all fairness all VAMs and the SGP yield the “wild swings’ noted). See, for example, here.

What might be worse, though, is that the ODE apparently found that, depending on the variables used in the California model, it produced different results. Guess what! All VAMs, depending on the variables used, produce different results. In fact, using the same data and different VAMs for the same teachers at the same time also produce (in some cases grossly) different results. The bottom line here is if any thinks that any VAM is yielding estimates from which valid or “true” statements can be made are fooling themselves.

New Mexico: Holding Teachers Accountable for Missing More Than 3 Days of Work

One state that seems to still be going strong after the passage of last January’s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) — via which the federal government removed (or significantly relaxed) its former mandates that all states adopt and use of growth and value-added models (VAMs) to hold their teachers accountable (see here) — is New Mexico.

This should be of no surprise to followers of this blog, especially those who have not only recognized the decline in posts via this blog post ESSA (see a post about this decline here), but also those who have noted that “New Mexico” is the state most often mentioned in said posts post ESSA (see for example here, here, and here).

Well, apparently now (and post  revisions likely caused by the ongoing lawsuit regarding New Mexico’s teacher evaluation system, of which attendance is/was a part; see for example here, here, and here), teachers are to now also be penalized if missing more than three days of work.

As per a recent article in the Santa Fe New Mexican (here), and the title of this article, these new teacher attendance regulations, as to be factored into teachers’ performance evaluations, has clearly caught schools “off guard.”

“The state has said that including attendance in performance reviews helps reduce teacher absences, which saves money for districts and increases students’ learning time.” In fact, effective this calendar year, 5 percent of a teacher’s evaluation is to be made up of teacher attendance. New Mexico Public Education Department spokesman Robert McEntyre clarified that “teachers can miss up to three days of work without being penalized.” He added that “Since attendance was first included in teacher evaluations, it’s estimated that New Mexico schools are collectively saving $3.5 million in costs for substitute teachers and adding 300,000 hours of instructional time back into [their] classrooms.”

“The new guidelines also do not dock teachers for absences covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, or absences because of military duty, jury duty, bereavement, religious leave or professional development programs.” Reported to me only anecdotally (i.e., I could not find evidence of this elsewhere), the new guidelines might also dock teachers for engaging in professional development or overseeing extracurricular events such as debate team performances. If anybody has anything to add on this end, especially as evidence of this, please do comment below.

New Book: Student Growth Measures (SGMs) in Educational Policy and Practice

Many of you might recall that just over two years ago my book titled “Rethinking Value-Added Models in Education: Critical Perspectives on Tests and Assessment-Based Accountability,” was officially released. Another book that I co-edited along with Kimberly Kappler-Hewitt — Assistant Professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro — was also just released.


For those of you who might be interested, within this new book — “Student Growth Measures in Policy and Practice: Intended and Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Teacher Evaluations” — we along with 14 total chapter authors representing multiple states across the U.S. (e.g., Henry Braun, Sean Corcoran, Jonathan Eckert, Drew Gitomer, Michael Hansen, Jessica Holloway, Margaret Plecki, Benjamin Superfine) examine “the intersection of policy and practice in the use of student growth measures (SGMs [e.g., value-added models (VAMs)]) for high-stakes purposes as per such educator evaluation systems.” We also examine “educators’ perceptions of and reactions to the use of SGMs; ethical implications pertaining to the use of SGMs; contextual challenges when implementing SGMs; and legal implications of SGM use” pre and post the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

As we all know, pre and post ESSA, the use of student test score data has been the cornerstone of really the past decade’s transfiguration of teacher evaluation and accountability systems; hence, for those of you who might be interested, this book will hopefully be of “added value” in terms of our collective understandings about SGMs/VAMs use and applications, from policy to practice.

The book is 291 pages, 14 chapters, and it was published by Palgrave Macmillan, United Kingdom, at an (unfortunately high) cost of $94. For more information click here.