Virginia SGP’s Side of the Story

In one of my most recent posts I wrote about how Virginia SGP, aka parent Brian Davison, won in court against the state of Virginia, requiring them to release teachers’ Student Growth Percentile (SGP) scores. Virginia SGP is a very vocal promoter of the use of SGPs to evaluate teachers’ value-added (although many do not consider the SGP model to be a value-added model (VAM); see general differences between VAMs and SGPs here). Regardless, he sued the state of Virginia to release teachers’ SGP scores so he could make them available to all via the Internet. He did this, more specifically, so parents and perhaps others throughout the state would be able to access and then potentially use the scores to make choices about who should and should not teach their kids. See other posts about this story here and here.

Those of us who are familiar with Virginia SGP and the research literature writ large know that, unfortunately, there’s much that Virginia SGP does not understand about the now loads of research surrounding VAMs as defined more broadly (see multiple research article links here). Likewise, Virginia SGP, as evidenced below, rides most of his research-based arguments on select sections of a small handful of research studies (e.g., those written by economists Raj Chetty and colleagues, and Thomas Kane as part of Kane’s Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) studies) that do not represent the general research on the topic. He simultaneously ignores/rejects the research studies that empirically challenge his research-based claims (e.g., that there is no bias in VAM-based estimates, and that because Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff “proved this,” it must be true, despite the research studies that have presented evidence otherwise (see for example here, here, and here).

Nonetheless, given that him winning this case in Virginia is still noteworthy, and followers of this blog should be aware of this particular case, I invited Virginia SGP to write a guest post so that he could tell his side of the story. As we have exchanged emails in the past, which I must add have become less abrasive/inflamed as time has passed, I recommend that readers read and also critically consume what is written below. Let’s hope that we might have some healthy and honest dialogue on this particular topic in the end.

From Virginia SGP:

I’d like to thank Dr. Amrein-Beardsley for giving me this forum.

My school district recently announced its teacher of the year. John Tuck teaches in a school with 70%+ FRL students compared to a district average of ~15% (don’t ask me why we can’t even those #’s out). He graduated from an ordinary school with a degree in liberal arts. He only has a Bachelors and is not a National Board Certified Teacher (NBCT). He is in his ninth year of teaching specializing in math and science for 5th graders. Despite the ordinary background, Tuck gets amazing student growth. He mentors, serves as principal in the summer, and leads the school’s leadership committees. In Dallas, TX, he could have risen to the top of the salary scale already, but in Loudoun County, VA, he only makes $55K compared to a top salary of $100K for Step 30 teachers. Tuck is not rewarded for his talent or efforts largely because Loudoun eschews all VAMs and merit-based promotion.

This is largely why I enlisted the assistance of Arizona State law school graduate Lin Edrington in seeking the Virginia Department of Education’s (VDOE) VAM (SGP) data via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit (see pertinent files here).

VAMs are not perfect. There are concerns about validity when switching from paper to computer tests. There are serious concerns about reliability when VAMs are computed with small sample sizes or are based on classes not taught by the rated teacher (as appeared to occur in New Mexico, Florida, and possibly New York). Improper uses of VAMs give reformers a bad name. This was not the case in Virginia. SGPs were only to be used when appropriate with 2+ years of data and 40+ scores recommended.

I am a big proponent of VAMs based on my reviews of the research. We have the Chetty/Friedman/Rockoff (CFR) studies, of course, including their recent paper showing virtually no bias (Table 6). The following briefing presented by Professor Friedman at our trial gives a good layman’s overview of their high level findings. When teachers are transferred to a completely new school but their VAMs remain consistent, that is very convincing to me. I understand some point to the cautionary statement of the ASA suggesting districts apply VAMs carefully and explicitly state their limitations. But the ASA definitely recommends VAMs for analyzing larger samples including schools or district policies, and CFR believe their statement failed to consider updated research.

To me, the MET studies provided some of the most convincing evidence. Not only are high VAMs on state standardized tests correlated to higher achievement on more open-ended short-answer and essay-based tests of critical thinking, but students of high-VAM teachers are more likely to enjoy class (Table 14). This points to VAMs measuring inspiration, classroom discipline, the ability to communicate concepts, subject matter knowledge and much more. If a teacher engages a disinterested student, their low scores will certainly rise along with their VAMs. CFR and others have shown this higher achievement carries over into future grades and success later in life. VAMs don’t just measure the ability to identify test distractors, but the ability of teachers to inspire.

So why exactly did the Richmond City Circuit Court force the release of Virginia’s SGPs? VDOE applied for and received a No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waiver like many other states. But in court testimony provided in December of 2014, VDOE acknowledged that districts were not complying with the waiver by not providing the SGP data to teachers or using SGPs in teacher evaluations despite “assurances” to the US Department of Education (USDOE). When we initially received a favorable verdict in January of 2015, instead of trying to comply with NCLB waiver requirements, my district of Loudoun County Publis Schools (LCPS) laughed. LCPS refused to implement SGPs or even discuss them.

There was no dispute that the largest Virginia districts had committed fraud when I discussed these facts with the US Attorney’s office and lawyers from the USDOE in January of 2016, but the USDOE refused to support a False Claim Act suit. And while nearly every district stridently refused to use VAMs [i.e., SGPs], the Virginia Secretary of Education was falsely claiming in high profile op-eds that Virginia was using “progress and growth” in the evaluation of schools. Yet, VDOE never used the very measure (SGPs) that the ESEA [i.e., NCLB] waivers required to measure student growth. The irony is that if these districts had used SGPs for just 1% of their teachers’ evaluations after the December of 2014 hearing, their teachers’ SGPs would be confidential today. I could only find one county that utilized SGPs, and their teachers’ SGPs are exempt. Sometimes fraud doesn’t pay.

My overall goals are threefold:

  1. Hire more Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) majors to get kids excited about STEM careers and effectively teach STEM concepts
  2. Use growth data to evaluate policies, administrators, and teachers. Share the insights from the best teachers and provide professional development to ineffective ones
  3. Publish private sector equivalent pay so young people know how much teachers really earn (pensions often add 15-18% to their salaries). We can then recruit more STEM teachers and better overall teaching candidates

What has this lawsuit and activism cost me? A lot. I ate $5K of the cost of the VDOE SGP suit even after the award[ing] of fees. One local school board member has banned me from commenting on his “public figure” Facebook page (which I see as a free speech violation), both because I questioned his denial of SGPs and some other conflicts of interests I saw, although indirectly related to this particular case. The judge in the case even sanctioned me $7K just for daring to hold him accountable. And after criticizing LCPS for violating Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by coercing kids who fail Virginia’s Standards of Learning tests (SOLs) to retake them, I was banned from my kids’ school for being a “safety threat.”

Note that I am a former Naval submarine officer and have held Department of Defense (DOD) clearances for 20+ years. I attended a meeting this past Thursday with LCPS officials in which they [since] acknowledged I was no safety threat. I served in the military, and along with many I have fought for the right to free speech.

Accordingly, I am no shrinking violet. Despite having LCPS attorneys sanction perjury, the Republican Commonwealth Attorney refused to prosecute and then illegally censored me in public forums. So the CA will soon have to sign a consent order acknowledging violating my constitutional rights (he effectively admitted as much already). And a federal civil rights complaint against the schools for their retaliatory ban is being drafted as we speak. All of this resulted from my efforts to have public data released and hold LCPS officials accountable to state and federal laws. I have promised that the majority of any potential financial award will be used to fund other whistle blower cases, [against] both teachers and reformers. I have a clean background and administrators still targeted me. Imagine what they would do to someone who isn’t willing to bear these costs!

In the end, I encourage everyone to speak out based on your beliefs. Support your case with facts not anecdotes or hastily conceived opinions. And there are certainly efforts we can all support like those of Dr. Darling-Hammond. We can hold an honest debate, but please remember that schools don’t exist to employ teachers/principals. Schools exist to effectively educate students.

Ohio Bill to Review Value-Added Component of Schools’ A-F Report Cards

Ohio state legislators just last week introduced a bill to review the value-added measurements required when evaluating schools as per the state’s A-F school report cards (as based on Florida’s A-F school report card model). The bill is to be introduced by political members of the Republican side of the House who, more specifically, want officials and/or others to review how the state comes up with their school report card grades, with emphasis on the state’s specific value-added (i.e., Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS)) component.

According to one article here, “especially confusing” with Ohio’s school reports cards is the school-level value added section. At the school level, value-added means essentially the same thing — the measurement of how well a school purportedly grew its students from one year to the next, when students’ growth in test scores over time are aggregated beyond the classroom and to the school-wide level. While value-added estimates are still to count for 35-50% of a teacher’s individual evaluation throughout the state, this particular bill has to do with school-level value-added only.

While most in the House, Democrats included, seem to be in favor of the idea of reviewing the value-added component (e.g., citing parent/user confusion, lack of transparency, common questions posed to the state and others about this specific component that they cannot answer), at least one Democrat is questioning Republicans’ motives (e.g., charging that Republicans might have ulterior motives to not hold charter schools accountable using VAMs and to simultaneously push conservative agendas further).

Regardless, that lawmakers in at least the state of Ohio are now admitting that they have too little understanding of how the value-added system works, and also works in practice, seems to be a step in the right direction. Let’s just hope the intentions of those backing the bill are in the right place, as also explained here. Perhaps the fact that the whole bill is one paragraph in length speaks to the integrity and forthrightness of the endeavor — perhaps not.

Otherwise, the Vice President for Ohio policy and advocacy for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute — a strong supporter of value added — is quoted as saying that “it makes sense to review the measurement…There are a lot of myths and misconceptions out there, and the more people know, the more people will understand the important role looking at student growth plays in the accountability system.”  One such “myth” he cites is that, “[t]here are measures on our state report card that correlate with demographics, but value added isn’t one of them.” In fact, and rather, we have evidence directly from the state of Ohio contradicting this claim that he calls a “myth” — that, indeed, bias is alive and well in Ohio (as well as elsewhere), especially when VAM-based estimates are aggregated at the school level (see a post with figures illustrating bias in Ohio here).

On that note, I just hope that whomever they invite for this forthcoming review, if the bill is passed, is well-informed, very knowledgeable of the literature surrounding value-added in general but also in breadth and depth, and is not representing a vendor or any particular think tank, philanthropic, or other entity with a clear agenda. Balance, at minimum for this review, is key.

Chetty et al. v. Rothstein on VAM-Based Bias, Again

Recall the Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff studies at focus of many posts on this blog in the past (see for example here, here, and here)? These studies were cited in President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address. Since, they have been cited by every VAM proponent as the key set of studies to which others should defer, especially when advancing, or defending in court, the large- and small-scale educational policies bent on VAM-based accountability for educational reform.

In a newly released working, not-yet-peer-reviewed, National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) paper, Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff attempt to assess how “Using Lagged Outcomes to Evaluate Bias in Value-Added Models [VAMs]” might better address the amount of bias in VAM-based estimates due to the non-random assignment of students to teachers (a.k.a. sorting). Accordingly, Chetty et al. argue that the famous “Rothstein” falsification test (a.k.a. the Jesse Rothstein — Associate Professor of Economics at University of California – Berkeley — falsification test) that is oft-referenced/used to test for the presence of bias in VAM-based estimates might not be the most effective approach. This is the second time this set of researchers have  argued with Rothstein about the merits of his falsification test (see prior posts about these debates here and here).

In short, at question is the extent to which teacher-level VAM-based estimates might be influenced by the groups of students a teacher is assigned to teach. If biased, the value-added estimates are said to be biased or markedly different from the actual parameter of interest the VAM is supposed to estimate, ideally, in an unbiased way. If bias is found, the VAM-based estimates should not be used in personnel evaluations, especially those associated with high-stakes consequences (e.g., merit pay, teacher termination). Hence, in order to test for the presence of the bias, Rothstein demonstrated that he could predict past outcomes of students with current teacher value-added estimates, which is impossible (i.e., the prediction of past outcomes). One would expect that past outcomes should not be related to current teacher effectiveness, so if the Rothstein falsification test proves otherwise, it indicates the presence of bias. Rothstein also demonstrated that this was (is still) the case with all conventional VAMs.

In their new study, however, Chetty et al. demonstrate that there might be another explanation regarding why Rothstein’s falsification test would reveal bias, even if there might not be bias in VAM estimates, and this bias is not caused by student sorting. Rather, the bias might result from different reasons, given the presence of what they term as dynamic sorting (i.e., there are common trends across grades and years, known as correlated shocks). Likewise, they argue, small sample sizes for a teacher, which are normally calculated as the number of students in a teacher’s class or on a teacher’s roster, also cause such bias. However, this problem cannot be solved even with the large scale data since the number of students per teacher remains the same, independent of the total number of students in any data set.

Chetty et al., then, using simulated data (i.e., generated with predetermined characteristics of teachers and students), demonstrate that even in the absence of bias, when dynamic sorting is not accounted for in a VAM, teacher-level VAM estimates will be correlated with  lagged student outcomes that will still “reveal” said bias. However,  they argue that the correlations observed will be due to noise rather than, again, the non-random sorting of students as claimed by Rothstein.

So, the bottom line is that bias exists, it just depends on whose side one might fall to claim from where it came.

Accordingly, Chetty et al. offer two potential solutions: (1) “We” develop VAMs that might account for dynamic sorting and be, thus, more robust to misspecification, or (2) “We” use experimental or quasi-experimental data to estimate the magnitude of such bias. This all, of course, assumes we should continue with our use of VAMs for said purposes, but given the academic histories of these authors, this is of no surprise.

Chetty et al. ultimately conclude that more research is needed on this matter, and that researchers should focus future studies on quantifying the bias that appears within and across any VAM, thus providing a potential threshold for an acceptable magnitude of bias, versus trying to prove its existence or lack thereof.

*****

Thanks to ASU Assistant Professor of Education Economics, Margarita Pivovarova, for her review of this study

A Retired Massachusetts Principal on her Teachers’ “Value-Added”

A retired Massachusetts principal, named Linda Murdock, posted a post on her blog titled “Murdock’s EduCorner” about her experiences, as a principal, with “value-added,” or more specifically in her state the use of Student Growth Percentile (SGP) scores to estimate said “value-added.” It’s certainly worth reading as one thing I continue to find is that which we continue to find in the research on value-added models (VAMs) is also being realized by practitioners in the schools being required to use value-added output such as these. In this case, for example, while Murdock does not discuss the technical terms we use in the research (e.g., reliability, validity, and bias), she discusses these in pragmatic, real terms (e.g., year-to-year fluctuations, lack of relationship of SGP scores and other indicators of teacher effectiveness, and the extent to which certain sets of students can hinder teachers’ demonstrated growth or value-added, respectively). Hence, do give her post a read here, and also pasted in full below. Do also pay special attention to the bulleted sections in which she discusses these and other issues on a case-by-case basis.

Murdock writes:

At the end of the last school year, I was chatting with two excellent teachers, and our conversation turned to the new state-mandated teacher evaluation system and its use of student “growth scores” (“Student Growth Percentiles” or “SGPs” in Massachusetts) to measure a teacher’s “impact on student learning.”

“Guess we didn’t have much of an impact this year,” said one teacher.

The other teacher added, “It makes you feel about this high,” showing a tiny space between her thumb and forefinger.

Throughout the school, comments were similar — indicating that a major “impact” of the new evaluation system is demoralizing and discouraging teachers. (How do I know, by the way, that these two teachers are excellent? I know because I worked with them as their principal – being in their classrooms, observing and offering feedback, talking to parents and students, and reviewing products demonstrating their students’ learning – all valuable ways of assessing a teacher’s “impact”.)

According to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (“DESE”), the new evaluation system’s goals include promoting the “growth and development of leaders and teachers,” and recognizing “excellence in teaching and leading.” The DESE website indicates that the DESE considers a teacher’s median SGP as an appropriate measure of that teacher’s “impact on student learning”:

“ESE has confidence that SGPs are a high quality measure of student growth. While the precision of a median SGP decreases with fewer students, median SGP based on 8-19 students still provides quality information that can be included in making a determination of an educator’s impact on students.”

Given the many concerns about the use of “value-added measurement” tools (such as SGPs) in teacher evaluation, this confidence is difficult to understand, particularly as applied to real teachers in real schools. Considerable research notes the imprecision and variability of these measures as applied to the evaluation of individual teachers. On the other side, experts argue that use of an “imperfect measure” is better than past evaluation methods. Theories aside, I believe that the actual impact of this “measure” on real people in real schools is important.

As a principal, when I first heard of SGPs I was curious. I wondered whether the data would actually filter out other factors affecting student performance, such as learning disabilities, English language proficiency, or behavioral challenges, and I wondered if the data would give me additional information useful in evaluating teachers.

Unfortunately, I found that SGPs did not provide useful information about student growth or learning, and median SGPs were inconsistent and not correlated with teaching skill, at least for the teachers with whom I was working. In two consecutive years of SGP data from our Massachusetts elementary school:

  • One 4th grade teacher had median SGPs of 37 (ELA) and 36 (math) in one year, and 61.5 and 79 the next year. The first year’s class included students with disabilities and the next year’s did not.
  • Two 4th grade teachers who co-teach their combined classes (teaching together, all students, all subjects) had widely differing median SGPs: one teacher had SGPs of 44 (ELA) and 42 (math) in the first year and 40 and 62.5 in the second, while the other teacher had SGPs of 61 and 50 in the first year and 41 and 45 in the second.
  • A 5th grade teacher had median SGPs of 72.5 and 64 for two math classes in the first year, and 48.5, 26, and 57 for three math classes in the following year. The second year’s classes included students with disabilities and English language learners, but the first year’s did not.
  • Another 5th grade teacher had median SGPs of 45 and 43 for two ELA classes in the first year, and 72 and 64 in the second year. The first year’s classes included students with disabilities and students with behavioral challenges while the second year’s classes did not.

As an experienced observer/evaluator, I found that median SGPs did not correlate with teachers’ teaching skills but varied with class composition. Stronger teachers had the same range of SGPs in their classes as teachers with weaker skills, and median SGPs for a new teacher with a less challenging class were higher than median SGPs for a highly skilled veteran teacher with a class that included English language learners.

Furthermore, SGP data did not provide useful information regarding student growth. In analyzing students’ SGPs, I noticed obvious general patterns: students with disabilities had lower SGPs than students without disabilities, English language learners had lower SGPs than students fluent in English, students who had some kind of trauma that year (e.g., parents’ divorce) had lower SGPs, and students with behavioral/social issues had lower SGPs. SGPs were correlated strongly with test performance: in one year, for example, the median ELA SGP for students in the “Advanced” category was 88, compared with 51.5 for “Proficient” students, 19.5 for “Needs Improvement,” and 5 for the “Warning” category.

There were also wide swings in student SGPs, not explainable except perhaps by differences in student performance on particular test days. One student with disabilities had an SGP of 1 in the first year and 71 in the next, while another student had SGPs of 4 in ELA and 94 in math in 4th grade and SGPs of 50 in ELA and 4 in math in 5th grade, both with consistent district test scores.

So how does this “information” impact real people in a real school?  As a principal, I found that it added nothing to what I already knew about the teaching and learning in my school. Using these numbers for teacher evaluation does, however, negatively impact schools: it demoralizes and discourages teachers, and it has the potential to affect class and teacher assignments.

In real schools, student and teacher assignments are not random. Students are grouped for specific purposes, and teachers are assigned classes for particular reasons. Students with disabilities and English language learners are often grouped to allow specialists, such as the speech/language teacher or the ELL teacher, to work more effectively with them. Students with behavioral issues are sometimes placed in special classes, and are often assigned to teachers who work particularly well with them. Leveled classes (AP, honors, remedial), create different student combinations, and teachers are assigned particular classes based on the administrator’s judgment of which teachers will do the best with which classes. For example, I would assign new or struggling teachers less challenging classes so I could work successfully with them on improving their skills.

In the past, when I told a teacher that he/she had a particularly challenging class, because he/she could best work with these students, he/she generally cheerfully accepted the challenge, and felt complimented on his/her skills. Now, that teacher could be concerned about the effect of that class on his/her evaluation. Teachers may be reluctant to teach lower level courses, or to work with English language learners or students with behavioral issues, and administrators may hesitate to assign the most challenging classes to the most skilled teachers.

In short, in my experience, the use of this type of “value-added” measurement provides no useful information and has a negative impact on real teachers and real administrators in real schools. If “data” is not only not useful, but actively harmful, to those who are supposedly benefitting from using it, what is the point? Why is this continuing?

Special Issue of “Educational Researcher” (Paper #7 of 9): VAMs Situated in Appropriate Ecologies

Recall that the peer-reviewed journal Educational Researcher (ER) – recently published a “Special Issue” including nine articles examining value-added measures (VAMs). I have reviewed the next of nine articles (#7 of 9), which is actually a commentary titled “The Value in Value-Added Depends on the Ecology.” This commentary is authored by Henry Braun – Professor of Education and Public Policy, Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation at Boston College (also the author of a previous post on this site here).

In this article Braun, importantly, makes explicit the assumptions on which this special issue of ER is based; that is, on assumptions that (1) too many students in America’s public schools are being inadequately educated, (2) evaluation systems as they currently exist “require radical overhaul,” and (3) it is therefore essential to use student test performance with low- and high-stakes attached to improve that which educators do (or don’t do) to adequately address the first assumption. There are counterarguments Braun also offers to readers on each of these assumptions (see p. 127), but more importantly he makes evident that the focus of this special issue is situated otherwise, as in line with current education policies. This special issue, overall, then “raise[s] important questions regarding the potential for high-stakes, test-driven educator accountability systems to contribute to raising student achievement” (p. 127).

Given this context, the “value-added” provided within this special issue, again according to Braun, is that the authors of each of the five main research articles included report on how VAM output actually plays out in practice, given “careful consideration to how the design and implementation of teacher evaluation systems could be modified to enhance the [purportedly, see comments above] positive impact of accountability and mitigate the negative consequences” at the same time (p. 127). In other words, if we more or less agree to the aforementioned assumptions, also given the educational policy context influence, perpetuating, or actually forcing these assumptions, these articles should help others better understand VAMs’ and observational systems’ potentials and perils in practice.

At the same time, Braun encourages us to note that “[t]he general consensus is that a set of VAM scores does contain some useful information that meaningfully differentiates among teachers, especially in the tails of the distribution [although I would argue bias has a role here]. However, individual VAM scores do suffer from high variance and low year-to-year stability as well as an undetermined amount of bias [which may be greater in the tails of the distribution]. Consequently, if VAM scores are to be used for evaluation, they should not be given inordinate weight and certainly not treated as the “gold standard” to which all other indicators must be compared” (p. 128).

Likewise, it’s important to note that IF consequences are to be attached to said indicators of teacher evaluation (i.e., VAM and observational data), there should be validity evidence made available and transparent to warrant the inferences and decisions to be made, and the validity evidence “should strongly support a causal [emphasis added] argument” (p. 128). However, both indicators still face major “difficulties in establishing defensible causal linkage[s]” as theorized, and desired (p. 128); hence, this prevents validity in inference. What does not help, either, is when VAM scores are given precedence over other indicators OR when principals align teachers’ observational scores with the same teachers’ VAM scores given the precedence often given to (what are often viewed as the superior, more objective) VAM-based measures. This sometimes occurs given external pressures (e.g., applied by superintendents) to artificially conflate, in this case, levels of agreement between indicators (i.e., convergent validity).

Related, in the section Braun titles his “Trio of Tensions,” (p. 129) he notes that (1) [B]oth accountability and improvement are undermined, as attested to by a number of the articles in this issue. In the current political and economic climate, [if possible] it will take thoughtful and inspiring leadership at the state and district levels to create contexts in which an educator evaluation system constructively fulfills its roles with respect to both public accountability and school improvement” (p. 129-130); (2) [T]he chasm between the technical sophistication of the various VAM[s] and the ability of educators to appreciate what these models are attempting to accomplish…sow[s] further confusion…[hence]…there must be ongoing efforts to convey to various audiences the essential issues—even in the face of principled disagreements among experts on the appropriate roles(s) for VAM[s] in educator evaluations” (p. 130); and finally (3) [H]ow to balance the rights of students to an adequate education and the rights of teachers to fair evaluations and due process [especially for]…teachers who have value-added scores and those who teach in subject-grade combinations for which value-added scores are not feasible…[must be addressed; this] comparability issue…has not been addressed but [it] will likely [continue to] rear its [ugly] head” (p. 130).

In the end, Braun argues for another “Trio,” but this one including three final lessons: (1) “although the concerns regarding the technical properties of VAM scores are not misplaced, they are not necessarily central to their reputation among teachers and principals. [What is central is]…their links to tests of dubious quality, their opaqueness in an atmosphere marked by (mutual) distrust, and the apparent lack of actionable information that are largely responsible for their poor reception” (p. 130); (2) there is a “very substantial, multiyear effort required for proper implementation of a new evaluation system…[related, observational] ratings are not a panacea. They, too, suffer from technical deficiencies and are the object of concern among some teachers because of worries about bias” (p. 130); and (3) “legislators and policymakers should move toward a more ecological approach [emphasis added; see also the Review of Article (Essay) #6 – on VAMs as tools for “egg-crate” schools here] to the design of accountability systems; that is, “one that takes into account the educational and political context for evaluation, the behavioral responses and other dynamics that are set in motion when a new regime of high-stakes accountability is instituted, and the long-term consequences of operating the system” (p. 130).

*****

If interested, see the Review of Article #1 – the introduction to the special issue here; see the Review of Article #2 – on VAMs’ measurement errors, issues with retroactive revisions, and (more) problems with using standardized tests in VAMs here; see the Review of Article #3 – on VAMs’ potentials here; see the Review of Article #4 – on observational systems’ potentials here; see the Review of Article #5 – on teachers’ perceptions of observations and student growth here; and see the Review of Article (Essay) #6 – on VAMs as tools for “egg-crate” schools here.

Article #7 Reference: Braun, H. (2015). The value in value-added depends on the ecology. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 127-131. doi:10.3102/0013189X15576341

Houston Lawsuit Update, with Summary of Expert Witnesses’ Findings about the EVAAS

Recall from a prior post that a set of teachers in the Houston Independent School District (HISD), with the support of the Houston Federation of Teachers (HFT) are taking their district to federal court to fight for their rights as professionals, and how their value-added scores, derived via the Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS), have allegedly violated them. The case, Houston Federation of Teachers, et al. v. Houston ISD, is to officially begin in court early this summer.

More specifically, the teachers are arguing that EVAAS output are inaccurate, the EVAAS is unfair, that teachers are being evaluated via the EVAAS using tests that do not match the curriculum they are to teach, that the EVAAS system fails to control for student-level factors that impact how well teachers perform but that are outside of teachers’ control (e.g., parental effects), that the EVAAS is incomprehensible and hence very difficult if not impossible to actually use to improve upon their instruction (i.e., actionable), and, accordingly, that teachers’ due process rights are being violated because teachers do not have adequate opportunities to change as a results of their EVAAS results.

The EVAAS is the one value-added model (VAM) on which I’ve conducted most of my research, also in this district (see, for example, here, here, here, and here); hence, I along with Jesse Rothstein – Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the University of California – Berkeley, who also conducts extensive research on VAMs – are serving as the expert witnesses in this case.

What was recently released regarding this case is a summary of the contents of our affidavits, as interpreted by authors of the attached “EVAAS Litigation UPdate,” in which the authors declare, with our and others’ research in support, that “Studies Declare EVAAS ‘Flawed, Invalid and Unreliable.” Here are the twelve key highlights, again, as summarized by the authors of this report and re-summarized, by me, below:

  1. Large-scale standardized tests have never been validated for their current uses. In other words, as per my affidavit, “VAM-based information is based upon large-scale achievement tests that have been developed to assess levels of student achievement, but not levels of growth in student achievement over time, and not levels of growth in student achievement over time that can be attributed back to students’ teachers, to capture the teachers’ [purportedly] causal effects on growth in student achievement over time.”
  2. The EVAAS produces different results from another VAM. When, for this case, Rothstein constructed and ran an alternative, albeit sophisticated VAM using data from HISD both times, he found that results “yielded quite different rankings and scores.” This should not happen if these models are indeed yielding indicators of truth, or true levels of teacher effectiveness from which valid interpretations and assertions can be made.
  3. EVAAS scores are highly volatile from one year to the next. Rothstein, when running the actual data, found that while “[a]ll VAMs are volatile…EVAAS growth indexes and effectiveness categorizations are particularly volatile due to the EVAAS model’s failure to adequately account for unaccounted-for variation in classroom achievement.” In addition, volatility is “particularly high in grades 3 and 4, where students have relatively few[er] prior [test] scores available at the time at which the EVAAS scores are first computed.”
  4. EVAAS overstates the precision of teachers’ estimated impacts on growth. As per Rothstein, “This leads EVAAS to too often indicate that teachers are statistically distinguishable from the average…when a correct calculation would indicate that these teachers are not statistically distinguishable from the average.”
  5. Teachers of English Language Learners (ELLs) and “highly mobile” students are substantially less likely to demonstrate added value, as per the EVAAS, and likely most/all other VAMs. This, what we term as “bias,” makes it “impossible to know whether this is because ELL teachers [and teachers of highly mobile students] are, in fact, less effective than non-ELL teachers [and teachers of less mobile students] in HISD, or whether it is because the EVAAS VAM is biased against ELL [and these other] teachers.”
  6. The number of students each teacher teaches (i.e., class size) also biases teachers’ value-added scores. As per Rothstein, “teachers with few linked students—either because they teach small classes or because many of the students in their classes cannot be used for EVAAS calculations—are overwhelmingly [emphasis added] likely to be assigned to the middle effectiveness category under EVAAS (labeled “no detectable difference [from average], and average effectiveness”) than are teachers with more linked students.”
  7. Ceiling effects are certainly an issue. Rothstein found that in some grades and subjects, “teachers whose students have unusually high prior year scores are very unlikely to earn high EVAAS scores, suggesting that ‘ceiling effects‘ in the tests are certainly relevant factors.” While EVAAS and HISD have previously acknowledged such problems with ceiling effects, they apparently believe these effects are being mediated with the new and improved tests recently adopted throughout the state of Texas. Rothstein, however, found that these effects persist even given the new and improved.
  8. There are major validity issues with “artificial conflation.” This is a term I recently coined to represent what is 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, for example, to align their observational ratings of teachers’ effectiveness with value-added scores, with the latter being the “objective measure” around which all else should revolve, or align; hence, the conflation of the one to match the other, even if entirely invalid. As per my affidavit, “[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” (American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME), 2014).
  9. Teaching-to-the-test is of perpetual concern. Both Rothstein and I, independently, noted concerns about how “VAM ratings reward teachers who teach to the end-of-year test [more than] equally effective teachers who focus their efforts on other forms of learning that may be more important.”
  10. HISD is not adequately monitoring the EVAAS system. According to HISD, EVAAS modelers keep the details of their model secret, even from them and even though they are paying an estimated $500K per year for district teachers’ EVAAS estimates. “During litigation, HISD has admitted that it has not performed or paid any contractor to perform any type of verification, analysis, or audit of the EVAAS scores. This violates the technical standards for use of VAM that AERA specifies, which provide that if a school district like HISD is going to use VAM, it is responsible for ‘conducting the ongoing evaluation of both intended and unintended consequences’ and that ‘monitoring should be of sufficient scope and extent to provide evidence to document the technical quality of the VAM application and the validity of its use’ (AERA Statement, 2015).
  11. EVAAS lacks transparency. AERA emphasizes the importance of transparency with respect to VAM uses. For example, as per the AERA Council who wrote the aforementioned AERA Statement, “when performance levels are established for the purpose of evaluative decisions, the methods used, as well as the classification accuracy, should be documented and reported” (AERA Statement, 2015). However, and in contrast to meeting AERA’s requirements for transparency, in this district and elsewhere, as per my affidavit, the “EVAAS is still more popularly recognized as the ‘black box’ value-added system.”
  12. Related, teachers lack opportunities to verify their own scores. This part is really interesting. “As part of this litigation, and under a very strict protective order that was negotiated over many months with SAS [i.e., SAS Institute Inc. which markets and delivers its EVAAS system], Dr. Rothstein was allowed to view SAS’ computer program code on a laptop computer in the SAS lawyer’s office in San Francisco, something that certainly no HISD teacher has ever been allowed to do. Even with the access provided to Dr. Rothstein, and even with his expertise and knowledge of value-added modeling, [however] he was still not able to reproduce the EVAAS calculations so that they could be verified.”Dr. Rothstein added, “[t]he complexity and interdependency of EVAAS also presents a barrier to understanding how a teacher’s data translated into her EVAAS score. Each teacher’s EVAAS calculation depends not only on her students, but also on all other students with- in HISD (and, in some grades and years, on all other students in the state), and is computed using a complex series of programs that are the proprietary business secrets of SAS Incorporated. As part of my efforts to assess the validity of EVAAS as a measure of teacher effectiveness, I attempted to reproduce EVAAS calculations. I was unable to reproduce EVAAS, however, as the information provided by HISD about the EVAAS model was far from sufficient.”

Special Issue of “Educational Researcher” (Paper #6 of 9): VAMs as Tools for “Egg-Crate” Schools

Recall that the peer-reviewed journal Educational Researcher (ER) – published a “Special Issue” including nine articles examining value-added measures (VAMs). I have reviewed the next of nine articles (#6 of 9), which is actually an essay here, titled “Will VAMS Reinforce the Walls of the Egg-Crate School?” This essay is authored by Susan Moore Johnson – Professor of Education at Harvard and somebody who I in the past I had the privilege of interviewing as an esteemed member of the National Academy of Education (see interviews here and here).

In this article, Moore Johnson argues that when policymakers use VAMs to evaluate, reward, or dismiss teachers, they may be perpetuating an egg-crate model, which is (referencing Tyack (1974) and Lortie (1975)) a metaphor for the compartmentalized school structure in which teachers (and students) work, most often in isolation. This model ultimately undermines the efforts of all involved in the work of schools to build capacity school wide, and to excel as a school given educators’ individual and collective efforts.

Contrary to the primary logic supporting VAM use, however, “teachers are not inherently effective or ineffective” on their own. Rather, their collective effectiveness is related to their professional development that may be stunted when they work alone, “without the benefit of ongoing collegial influence” (p. 119). VAMs then, and unfortunately, can cause teachers and administrators to (hyper)focus “on identifying, assigning, and rewarding or penalizing individual [emphasis added] teachers for their effectiveness in raising students’ test scores [which] depends primarily on the strengths of individual teachers” (p. 119). What comes along with this, then, are a series of interrelated egg-crate behaviors including, but not limited to, increased competition, lack of collaboration, increased independence versus interdependence, and the like, all of which can lead to decreased morale and decreased effectiveness in effect.

Inversely, students are much “better served when human resources are deliberately organized to draw on the strengths of all teachers on behalf of all students, rather than having students subjected to the luck of the draw in their classroom assignment[s]” (p. 119). Likewise, “changing the context in which teachers work could have important benefits for students throughout the school, whereas changing individual teachers without changing the context [as per VAMs] might not [work nearly as well] (Lohr, 2012)” (p. 120). Teachers learning from their peers, working in teams, teaching in teams, co-planning, collaborating, learning via mentoring by more experienced teachers, learning by mentoring, and the like should be much more valued, as warranted via the research, yet they are not valued given the very nature of VAM use.

Hence, there are also unintended consequences that can also come along with the (hyper)use of individual-level VAMs. These include, but are not limited to: (1) Teachers who are more likely to “literally or figuratively ‘close their classroom door’ and revert to working alone…[This]…affect[s] current collaboration and shared responsibility for school improvement, thus reinforcing the walls of the egg-crate school” (p. 120); (2) Due to bias, or that teachers might be unfairly evaluated given the types of students non-randomly assigned into their classrooms, teachers might avoid teaching high-needs students if teachers perceive themselves to be “at greater risk” of teaching students they cannot grow; (3) This can perpetuate isolative behaviors, as well as behaviors that encourage teachers to protect themselves first, and above all else; (4) “Therefore, heavy reliance on VAMS may lead effective teachers in high-need subjects and schools to seek safer assignments, where they can avoid the risk of low VAMS scores[; (5) M]eanwhile, some of the most challenging teaching assignments would remain difficult to fill and likely be subject to repeated turnover, bringing steep costs for students” (p. 120); While (6) “using VAMS to determine a substantial part of the teacher’s evaluation or pay [also] threatens to sidetrack the teachers’ collaboration and redirect the effective teacher’s attention to the students on his or her roster” (p. 120-121) versus students, for example, on other teachers’ rosters who might also benefit from other teachers’ content area or other expertise. Likewise (7) “Using VAMS to make high-stakes decisions about teachers also may have the unintended effect of driving skillful and committed teachers away from the schools that need them most and, in the extreme, causing them to leave the profession” in the end (p. 121).

I should add, though, and in all fairness given the Review of Paper #3 – on VAMs’ potentials here, many of these aforementioned assertions are somewhat hypothetical in the sense that they are based on the grander literature surrounding teachers’ working conditions, versus the direct, unintended effects of VAMs, given no research yet exists to examine the above, or other unintended effects, empirically. “There is as yet no evidence that the intensified use of VAMS interferes with collaborative, reciprocal work among teachers and principals or sets back efforts to move beyond the traditional egg-crate structure. However, the fact that we lack evidence about the organizational consequences of using VAMS does not mean that such consequences do not exist” (p. 123).

The bottom line is that we do not want to prevent the school organization from becoming “greater than the sum of its parts…[so that]…the social capital that transforms human capital through collegial activities in schools [might increase] the school’s overall instructional capacity and, arguably, its success” (p. 118). Hence, as Moore Johnson argues, we must adjust the focus “from the individual back to the organization, from the teacher to the school” (p. 118), and from the egg-crate back to a much more holistic and realistic model capturing what it means to be an effective school, and what it means to be an effective teacher as an educational professional within one. “[A] school would do better to invest in promoting collaboration, learning, and professional accountability among teachers and administrators than to rely on VAMS scores in an effort to reward or penalize a relatively small number of teachers” (p. 122).

*****

If interested, see the Review of Article #1 – the introduction to the special issue here; see the Review of Article #2 – on VAMs’ measurement errors, issues with retroactive revisions, and (more) problems with using standardized tests in VAMs here; see the Review of Article #3 – on VAMs’ potentials here; see the Review of Article #4 – on observational systems’ potentials here; and see the Review of Article #5 – on teachers’ perceptions of observations and student growth here.

Article #6 Reference: Moore Johnson, S. (2015). Will VAMS reinforce the walls of the egg-crate school? Educational Researcher, 44(2), 117-126. doi:10.3102/0013189X15573351

Special Issue of “Educational Researcher” (Paper #5 of 9): Teachers’ Perceptions of Observations and Student Growth

Recall that the peer-reviewed journal Educational Researcher (ER) – recently published a “Special Issue” including nine articles examining value-added measures (VAMs). I have reviewed the next of nine articles (#5 of 9) here, titled “Teacher Perspectives on Evaluation Reform: Chicago’s REACH [Recognizing Educators Advancing Chicago Students] Students.” This one is authored by Jennie Jiang, Susan Sporte, and Stuart Luppescu, all of whom are associated with The University of Chicago’s Consortium on Chicago School Research, and all of whom conducted survey- and interview-based research on teachers’ perceptions of the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) teacher evaluation system, twice since it was implemented in 2012–2013. They did this across CPS’s almost 600 schools and its more than 12,000 teachers, with high-stakes being recently attached to teacher evaluations (e.g., professional development plans, remediation, tenure attainment, teacher dismissal/contract non-renewal; p. 108).

Directly related to the Review of Article #4 prior (i.e., #4 of 9 on observational systems’ potentials here), these researchers found that Chicago teachers are, in general, positive about the evaluation system, primarily given the system’s observational component (i.e., the Charlotte Danielson Framework for Teaching, used twice per year for tenured teachers and that counts for 75% of teachers’ evaluation scores), and not given the inclusion of student growth in this evaluation system (that counts for the other 25%). Although researchers also found that overall satisfaction levels with the REACH system at large is declining at a statistically significant rate over time, as teachers get to know the system, perhaps, better.

This system, like the strong majority of others across the nation, is based on only these two components, although the growth measure includes a combination of two different metrics (i.e., value-added scores and growth on “performance tasks” as per the grades and subject areas taught). See more information about how these measures are broken down by teacher type in Table 1 (p. 107), and see also (p. 107) for the different types of measures used (e.g., the Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress assessment (NWEA-MAP), a Web-based, computer-adaptive, multiple-choice assessment, that is used to measure value-added scores for teachers in grades 3-8).

As for the student growth component, more specifically, when researchers asked teachers “if their evaluation relies too heavily on student growth, 65% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed” (p. 112); “Fifty percent of teachers disagreed or strongly disagreed that NWEA-MAP [and other off-the-shelf tests used to measure growth in CPS offered] a fair assessment of their student’s learning” (p. 112); “teachers expressed concerns about the narrow representation of student learning that is measured by standardized tests and the increase in the already heavy testing burden on teachers and students” (p. 112); and “Several teachers also expressed concerns that measures of student growth were unfair to teachers in more challenging schools [i.e., bias], because student growth is related to the supports that students may or may not receive outside of the classroom” (p. 112). “One teacher explained this concern [writing]: “I think the part that I find unfair is that so much of what goes on in these kids’ lives is affecting their academics, and those are things that a
teacher cannot possibly control” (p. 112).

As for the performance tasks meant to compliment (or serve as) the student growth or VAM measure, teachers were discouraged with this being so subjective, and susceptible to distortion because teachers “score their own students’ performance tasks at both the beginning and end of the year. Teachers noted that if they wanted to maximize their student growth score, they could simply give all students a low score on the beginning-of-year task and a higher score at the end of the year” (p. 113).

As for the observational component, however, researchers found that “almost 90% of teachers agreed that the feedback they were provided in post-observation conferences” (p. 111) was of highest value; the observational processes but more importantly the post-observational processes made them and their supervisors more accountable for their effectiveness, and more importantly their improvement. While in the conclusions section of this article authors stretch this finding out a bit, writing that “Overall, this study finds that there is promise in teacher evaluation reform in Chicago,” (p. 114) as primarily based on their findings about “the new observation process” (p. 114) being used in CPS, recall from the Review of Article #4 prior (i.e., #4 of 9 on observational systems’ potentials here), these observational systems are not “new and improved.” Rather, these are the same observational systems that, given their levels of subjectivity featured and highlighted in reports like “The Widget Effect” (here), brought us to our now (over)reliance on VAMs.

Researchers also found that teachers were generally confused about the REACH system, and what actually “counted” and for how much in their evaluations. The most confusion surrounded the student growth or value-added component, as (based on prior research) would be expected. Beginning teachers reported more clarity, than did relatively more experienced teachers, high school teachers, and teachers of special education students, and all of this was related to the extent to which a measure of student growth directly impacted teachers’ evaluations. Teachers receiving school-wide value-added scores were also relatively more critical.

Lastly, researchers found that in 2014, “79% of teachers reported that the evaluation process had increased their levels of stress and anxiety, and almost 60% of teachers
agreed or strongly agreed the evaluation process takes more effort than the results are worth.” Again, beginning teachers were “consistently more positive on all…measures than veteran teachers; elementary teachers were consistently more positive than high
school teachers, special education teachers were significantly more negative about student growth than general teachers,” and the like (p. 113). And all of this was positively and significantly related to teachers’ perceptions of their school’s leadership, perceptions of the professional communities at their schools, and teachers’ perceptions of evaluation writ large.

*****

If interested, see the Review of Article #1 – the introduction to the special issue here; see the Review of Article #2 – on VAMs’ measurement errors, issues with retroactive revisions, and (more) problems with using standardized tests in VAMs here; see the Review of Article #3 – on VAMs’ potentials here; and see the Review of Article #4 – on observational systems’ potentials here.

Article #5 Reference: Jiang, J. Y., Sporte, S. E., & Luppescu, S. (2015). Teacher perspectives on evaluation reform: Chicago’s REACH students. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 105-116. doi:10.3102/0013189X15575517

Victory in Court: Consequences Attached to VAMs Suspended Throughout New Mexico

Great news for New Mexico and New Mexico’s approximately 23,000 teachers, and great news for states and teachers potentially elsewhere, in terms of setting precedent!

Late yesterday, state District Judge David K. Thomson, who presided over the ongoing teacher-evaluation lawsuit in New Mexico, granted a preliminary injunction preventing consequences from being attached to the state’s teacher evaluation data. More specifically, Judge Thomson ruled that the state can proceed with “developing” and “improving” its teacher evaluation system, but the state is not to make any consequential decisions about New Mexico’s teachers using the data the state collects until the state (and/or others external to the state) can evidence to the court during another trial (set for now, for April) that the system is reliable, valid, fair, uniform, and the like.

As you all likely recall, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), joined by the Albuquerque Teachers Federation (ATF), last year, filed a “Lawsuit in New Mexico Challenging [the] State’s Teacher Evaluation System.” Plaintiffs charged that the state’s teacher evaluation system, imposed on the state in 2012 by the state’s current Public Education Department (PED) Secretary Hanna Skandera (with value-added counting for 50% of teachers’ evaluation scores), is unfair, error-ridden, spurious, harming teachers, and depriving students of high-quality educators, among other claims (see the actual lawsuit here).

Thereafter, one scheduled day of testimonies turned into five in Santa Fe, that ran from the end of September through the beginning of October (each of which I covered here, here, here, here, and here). I served as the expert witness for the plaintiff’s side, along with other witnesses including lawmakers (e.g., a state senator) and educators (e.g., teachers, superintendents) who made various (and very articulate) claims about the state’s teacher evaluation system on the stand. Thomas Kane served as the expert witness for the defendant’s side, along with other witnesses including lawmakers and educators who made counter claims about the system, some of which backfired, unfortunately for the defense, primarily during cross-examination.

See articles released about this ruling this morning in the Santa Fe New Mexican (“Judge suspends penalties linked to state’s teacher eval system”) and the Albuquerque Journal (“Judge curbs PED teacher evaluations).” See also the AFT’s press release, written by AFT President Randi Weingarten, here. Click here for the full 77-page Order written by Judge Thomson (see also, below, five highlights I pulled from this Order).

The journalist of the Santa Fe New Mexican, though, provided the most detailed information about Judge Thomson’s Order, writing, for example, that the “ruling by state District Judge David Thomson focused primarily on the complicated combination of student test scores used to judge teachers. The ruling [therefore] prevents the Public Education Department [PED] from denying teachers licensure advancement or renewal, and it strikes down a requirement that poorly performing teachers be placed on growth plans.” In addition, the Judge noted that “the teacher evaluation system varies from district to district, which goes against a state law calling for a consistent evaluation plan for all educators.”

The PED continues to stand by its teacher evaluation system, calling the court challenge “frivolous” and “a legal PR stunt,” all the while noting that Judge Thomson’s decision “won’t affect how the state conducts its teacher evaluations.” Indeed it will, for now and until the state’s teacher evaluation system is vetted, and validated, and “the court” is “assured” that the system can actually be used to take the “consequential actions” against teachers, “required” by the state’s PED.

Here are some other highlights that I took directly from Judge Thomson’s ruling, capturing what I viewed as his major areas of concern about the state’s system (click here, again, to read Judge Thomson’s full Order):

  • Validation Needed: “The American Statistical Association says ‘estimates from VAM should always be accompanied by measures of precision and a discussion of the assumptions and possible limitations of the model. These limitations are particularly relevant if VAM are used for high stake[s] purposes” (p. 1). These are the measures, assumptions, limitations, and the like that are to be made transparent in this state.
  • Uniformity Required: “New Mexico’s evaluation system is less like a [sound] model than a cafeteria-style evaluation system where the combination of factors, data, and elements are not easily determined and the variance from school district to school district creates conflicts with the [state] statutory mandate” (p. 2)…with the existing statutory framework for teacher evaluations for licensure purposes requiring “that the teacher be evaluated for ‘competency’ against a ‘highly objective uniform statewide standard of evaluation’ to be developed by PED” (p. 4). “It is the term ‘highly objective uniform’ that is the subject matter of this suit” (p. 4), whereby the state and no other “party provided [or could provide] the Court a total calculation of the number of available district-specific plans possible given all the variables” (p. 54). See also the Judge’s points #78-#80 (starting on page 70) for some of the factors that helped to “establish a clear lack of statewide uniformity among teachers” (p. 70).
  • Transparency Missing: “The problem is that it is not easy to pull back the curtain, and the inner workings of the model are not easily understood, translated or made accessible” (p. 2). “Teachers do not find the information transparent or accurate” and “there is no evidence or citation that enables a teacher to verify the data that is the content of their evaluation” (p. 42). In addition, “[g]iven the model’s infancy, there are no real studies to explain or define the [s]tate’s value-added system…[hence, the consequences and decisions]…that are to be made using such system data should be examined and validated prior to making such decisions” (p. 12).
  • Consequences Halted: “Most significant to this Order, [VAMs], in this [s]tate and others, are being used to make consequential decisions…This is where the rubber hits the road [as per]…teacher employment impacts. It is also where, for purposes of this proceeding, the PED departs from the statutory mandate of uniformity requiring an injunction” (p. 9). In addition, it should be noted that indeed “[t]here are adverse consequences to teachers short of termination” (p. 33) including, for example, “a finding of ‘minimally effective’ [that] has an impact on teacher licenses” (p. 41). These, too, are to be halted under this injunction Order.
  • Clarification Required: “[H]ere is what this [O]rder is not: This [O]rder does not stop the PED’s operation, development and improvement of the VAM in this [s]tate, it simply restrains the PED’s ability to take consequential actions…until a trial on the merits is held” (p. 2). In addition, “[a] preliminary injunction differs from a permanent injunction, as does the factors for its issuance…’ The objective of the preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo [minus the consequences] pending the litigation of the merits. This is quite different from finally determining the cause itself” (p. 74). Hence, “[t]he court is simply enjoining the portion of the evaluation system that has adverse consequences on teachers” (p. 75).

The PED also argued that “an injunction would hurt students because it could leave in place bad teachers.” As per Judge Thomson, “That is also a faulty argument. There is no evidence that temporarily halting consequences due to the errors outlined in this lengthy Opinion more likely results in retention of bad teachers than in the firing of good teachers” (p. 75).

Finally, given my involvement in this lawsuit and given the team with whom I was/am still so fortunate to work (see picture below), including all of those who testified as part of the team and whose testimonies clearly proved critical in Judge Thomson’s final Order, I want to thank everyone for all of their time, energy, and efforts in this case, thus far, on behalf of the educators attempting to (still) do what they love to do — teach and serve students in New Mexico’s public schools.

IMG_0123

Left to right: (1) Stephanie Ly, President of AFT New Mexico; (2) Dan McNeil, AFT Legal Department; (3) Ellen Bernstein, ATF President; (4) Shane Youtz, Attorney at Law; and (5) me 😉

Including Summers “Adds Considerable Measurement Error” to Value-Added Estimates

A new article titled “The Effect of Summer on Value-added Assessments of Teacher and School Performance” was recently released in the peer-reviewed journal Education Policy Analysis Archives. The article is authored by Gregory Palardy and Luyao Peng from the University of California, Riverside. 

Before we begin, though, here is some background so that you all understand the importance of the findings in this particular article.

In order to calculate teacher-level value added, all states are currently using (at minimum) the large-scale standardized tests mandated by No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002. These tests were mandated for use in the subject areas of mathematics and reading/language arts. However, because these tests are given only once per year, typically in the spring, to calculate value-added statisticians measure actual versus predicted “growth” (aka “value-added”) from spring-to-spring, over a 12-month span, which includes summers.

While many (including many policymakers) assume that value-added estimations are calculated from fall to spring during time intervals under which students are under the same teachers’ supervision and instruction, this is not true. The reality is that the pre- to post-test occasions actually span 12-month periods, including the summers that often cause the nettlesome summer effects often observed via VAM-based estimates. Different students learn different things over the summer, and this is strongly associated (and correlated) with student’s backgrounds, and this is strongly associated (and correlated) with students’ out-of-school opportunities (e.g., travel, summer camps, summer schools). Likewise, because summers are the time periods over which teachers and schools tend to have little control over what students do, this is also the time period during which research  indicates that achievement gaps maintain or widen. More specifically, research indicates that indicates that students from relatively lower socio-economic backgrounds tend to suffer more from learning decay than their wealthier peers, although they learn at similar rates during the school year.

What these 12-month testing intervals also include are prior teachers’ residual effects, whereas students testing in the spring, for example, finish out every school year (e.g., two months or so) with their prior teachers before entering the classrooms of the teachers for whom value-added is to be calculated the following spring, although teachers’ residual effects were not of focus in this particular study.

Nonetheless, via the research, we have always known that these summer (and prior or adjacent teachers’ residual effects) are difficult if not impossible to statistically control. This in and of itself leads to much of the noise (fluctuations/lack of reliability, imprecision, and potential biases) we observe in the resulting value-added estimates. This is precisely what was of focus in this particular study.

In this study researchers examined “the effects of including the summer period on value-added assessments (VAA) of teacher and school performance at the [1st] grade [level],” as compared to using VAM-based estimates derived from a fall-to-spring test administration within the same grade and same year (i.e., using data derived via a nationally representative sample via the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) with an n=5,034 children).

Researchers found that:

  • Approximately 40-62% of the variance in VAM-based estimates originates from the summer period, depending on the reading or math outcome;
  • When summer is omitted from VAM-based calculations using within year pre/post-tests, approximately 51-61% of the teachers change performance categories. What this means in simpler terms is that including summers in VAM-based estimates is indeed causing some of the errors and misclassification rates being observed across studies.
  • Statistical controls to control for student and classroom/school variables reduces summer effects considerably (e.g., via controlling for students’ prior achievement), yet 36-47% of teachers still fall into different quintiles when summers are included in the VAM-based estimates.
  • Findings also evidence that including summers within VAM-based calculations tends to bias VAM-based estimates against schools with higher relative concentrations of poverty, or rather higher relative concentrations of students who are eligible for the federal free-and-reduced lunch program.
  • Overall, results suggest that removing summer effects from VAM-based estimates may require biannual achievement assessments (i.e., fall and spring). If we want VAM-based estimates to be more accurate, we might have to double the number of tests we administer per year in each subject area for which teachers are to be held accountable using VAMs. However, “if twice-annual assessments are not conducted, controls for prior achievement seem to be the best method for minimizing summer effects.”

This is certainly something to consider in terms of trade-offs, specifically in terms of whether we really want to “double-down” on the number of tests we already require our public students to take (also given the time that testing and test preparation already takes away from students’ learning activities), and whether we also want to “double-down” on the increased costs of doing so. I should also note here, though, that using pre/post-tests within the same year is (also) not as simple as it may seem (either). See another post forthcoming about the potential artificial deflation/inflation of pre/post scores to manufacture artificial levels of growth.

To read the full study, click here.

*I should note that I am an Associate Editor for this journal, and I served as editor for this particular publication, seeing it through the full peer-reviewed process.

Citation: Palardy, G. J., & Peng, L. (2015). The effects of including summer on value-added assessments of teachers and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(92). doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.1997 Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1997