One Score and Seven Policy Iterations Ago…

I just read what might be one of the best articles I’ve read in a long time on using test scores to measure teacher effectiveness, and why this is such a bad idea. Not surprisingly, unfortunately, this article was written 20 years ago (i.e., 1986) by – Edward Haertel, National Academy of Education member and recently retired Professor at Stanford University. If the name sounds familiar, it should as Professor Emeritus Haertel is one of the best on the topic of, and history behind VAMs (see prior posts about his related scholarship here, here, and here). To access the full article, please scroll to the reference at the bottom of this post.

Heartel wrote this article when at the time policymakers were, like they still are now, trying to hold teachers accountable for their students’ learning as measured on states’ standardized test scores. Although this article deals with minimum competency tests, which were in policy fashion at the time, about seven policy iterations ago, the contents of the article still have much relevance given where we are today — investing in “new and improved” Common Core tests and still riding on unsinkable beliefs that this is the way to reform the schools that have been in despair and (still) in need of major repair since 20+ years ago.

Here are some of the points I found of most “value:”

  • On isolating teacher effects: “Inferring teacher competence from test scores requires the isolation of teaching effects from other major influences on student test performance,” while “the task is to support an interpretation of student test performance as reflecting teacher competence by providing evidence against plausible rival hypotheses or interpretation.” While “student achievement depends on multiple factors, many of which are out of the teacher’s control,” and many of which cannot and likely never will be able to be “controlled.” In terms of home supports, “students enjoy varying levels of out-of-school support for learning. Not only may parental support and expectations influence student motivation and effort, but some parents may share directly in the task of instruction itself, reading with children, for example, or assisting them with homework.” In terms of school supports, “[s]choolwide learning climate refers to the host of factors that make a school more than a collection of self-contained classrooms. Where the principal is a strong instructional leader; where schoolwide policies on attendance, drug use, and discipline are consistently enforced; where the dominant peer culture is achievement-oriented; and where the school is actively supported by parents and the community.” This, all, makes isolating the teacher effect nearly if not wholly impossible.
  • On the difficulties with defining the teacher effect: “Does it include homework? Does it include self-directed study initiated by the student? How about tutoring by a parent or an older sister or brother? For present purposes, instruction logically refers to whatever the teacher being evaluated is responsible for, but there are degrees of responsibility, and it is often shared. If a teacher informs parents of a student’s learning difficulties and they arrange for private tutoring, is the teacher responsible for the student’s improvement? Suppose the teacher merely gives the student low marks, the student informs her parents, and they arrange for a tutor? Should teachers be credited with inspiring a student’s independent study of school subjects? There is no time to dwell on these difficulties; others lie ahead. Recognizing that some ambiguity remains, it may suffice to define instruction as any learning activity directed by the teacher, including homework….The question also must be confronted of what knowledge counts as achievement. The math teacher who digresses into lectures on beekeeping may be effective in communicating information, but for purposes of teacher evaluation the learning outcomes will not match those of a colleague who sticks to quadratic equations.” Much if not all of this cannot and likely never will be able to be “controlled” or “factored” in or our, as well.
  • On standardized tests: The best of standardized tests will (likely) always be too imperfect and not up to the teacher evaluation task, no matter the extent to which they are pitched as “new and improved.” While it might appear that these “problem[s] could be solved with better tests,” they cannot. Ultimately, all that these tests provide is “a sample of student performance. The inference that this performance reflects educational achievement [not to mention teacher effectiveness] is probabilistic [emphasis added], and is only justified under certain conditions.” Likewise, these tests “measure only a subset of important learning objectives, and if teachers are rated on their students’ attainment of just those outcomes, instruction of unmeasured objectives [is also] slighted.” Like it was then as it still is today, “it has become a commonplace that standardized student achievement tests are ill-suited for teacher evaluation.”
  • On the multiple choice formats of such tests: “[A] multiple-choice item remains a recognition task, in which the problem is to find the best of a small number of predetermined alternatives and the cri- teria for comparing the alternatives are well defined. The nonacademic situations where school learning is ultimately ap- plied rarely present problems in this neat, closed form. Discovery and definition of the problem itself and production of a variety of solutions are called for, not selection among a set of fixed alternatives.”
  • On students and the scores they are to contribute to the teacher evaluation formula: “Students varying in their readiness to profit from instruction are said to differ in aptitude. Not only general cognitive abilities, but relevant prior instruction, motivation, and specific inter- actions of these and other learner characteristics with features of the curriculum and instruction will affect academic growth.” In other words, one cannot simply assume all students will learn or grow at the same rate with the same teacher. Rather, they will learn at different rates given their aptitudes, their “readiness to profit from instruction,” the teachers’ instruction, and sometimes despite the teachers’ instruction or what the teacher teaches.
  • And on the formative nature of such tests, as it was then: “Teachers rarely consult standardized test results except, perhaps, for initial grouping or placement of students, and they believe that the tests are of more value to school or district administrators than to themselves.”

Sound familiar?

Reference: Haertel, E. (1986). The valid use of student performance measures for teacher evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 8(1), 45-60.

The Late Stephen Jay Gould on IQ Testing (with Implications for Testing Today)

One of my doctoral students sent me a YouTube video I feel compelled to share with you all. It is an interview with one of my all time favorite and most admired academics — Stephen Jay Gould. Gould, who passed away at age 60 from cancer, was a paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and scientist who spent most of his academic career at Harvard. He was “one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation,” and he was also the author of one of my favorite books of all time: The Mismeasure of Man (1981).

In The Mismeasure of Man Gould examined the history of psychometrics and the history of intelligence testing (e.g., the methods of nineteenth century craniometry, or the physical measures of peoples’ skulls to “objectively” capture their intelligence). Gould examined psychological testing and the uses of all sorts of tests and measurements to inform decisions (which is still, as we know, uber-relevant today) as well as “inform” biological determinism (i.e., “the view that “social and economic differences between human groups—primarily races, classes, and sexes—arise from inherited, inborn distinctions and that society, in this sense, is an accurate reflection of biology). Gould also examined in this book the general use of mathematics and “objective” numbers writ large to measure pretty much anything, as well as to measure and evidence predetermined sets of conclusions. This book is, as I mentioned, one of the best. I highly recommend it to all.

In this seven-minute video, you can get a sense of what this book is all about, as also so relevant to that which we continue to believe or not believe about tests and what they really are or are not worth. Thanks, again, to my doctoral student for finding this as this is a treasure not to be buried, especially given Gould’s 2002 passing.

Another Oldie but Still Very Relevant Goodie, by McCaffrey et al.

I recently re-read an article in full that is now 10 years old, or 10 years out, as published in 2004 and, as per the words of the authors, before VAM approaches were “widely adopted in formal state or district accountability systems.” Unfortunately, I consistently find it interesting, particularly in terms of the research on VAMs, to re-explore/re-discover what we actually knew 10 years ago about VAMs, as most of the time, this serves as a reminder of how things, most of the time, have not changed.

The article, “Models for Value-Added Modeling of Teacher Effects,” is authored by Daniel McCaffrey (Educational Testing Service [ETS] Scientist, and still a “big name” in VAM research), J. R. Lockwood (RAND Corporation Scientists),  Daniel Koretz (Professor at Harvard), Thomas Louis (Professor at Johns Hopkins), and Laura Hamilton (RAND Corporation Scientist).

At the point at which the authors wrote this article, besides the aforementioned data and data base issues, were issues with “multiple measures on the same student and multiple teachers instructing each student” as “[c]lass groupings of students change annually, and students are taught by a different teacher each year.” Authors, more specifically, questioned “whether VAM really does remove the effects of factors such as prior performance and [students’] socio-economic status, and thereby provide[s] a more accurate indicator of teacher effectiveness.”

The assertions they advanced, accordingly and as relevant to these questions, follow:

  • Across different types of VAMs, given different types of approaches to control for some of the above (e.g., bias), teachers’ contribution to total variability in test scores (as per value-added gains) ranged from 3% to 20%. That is, teachers can realistically only be held accountable for 3% to 20% of the variance in test scores using VAMs, while the other 80% to 97% of the variance (stil) comes from influences outside of the teacher’s control. A similar statistic (i.e., 1% to 14%) was similarly and recently highlighted in the recent position statement on VAMs released by the American Statistical Association.
  • Most VAMs focus exclusively on scores from standardized assessments, although I will take this one-step further now, noting that all VAMs now focus exclusively on large-scale standardized tests. This I evidenced in a recent paper I published here: Putting growth and value-added models on the map: A national overview).
  • VAMs introduce bias when missing test scores are not missing completely at random. The missing at random assumption, however, runs across most VAMs because without it, data missingness would be pragmatically insolvable, especially “given the large proportion of missing data in many achievement databases and known differences between students with complete and incomplete test data.” The really only solution here is to use “implicit imputation of values for unobserved gains using the observed scores” which is “followed by estimation of teacher effect[s] using the means of both the imputed and observe gains [together].”
  • Bias “[still] is one of the most difficult issues arising from the use of VAMs to estimate school or teacher effects…[and]…the inclusion of student level covariates is not necessarily the solution to [this] bias.” In other words, “Controlling for student-level covariates alone is not sufficient to remove the effects of [students’] background [or demographic] characteristics.” There is a reason why bias is still such a highly contested issue when it comes to VAMs (see a recent post about this here).
  • All (or now most) commonly-used VAMs assume that teachers’ (and prior teachers’) effects persist undiminished over time. This assumption “is not empirically or theoretically justified,” either, yet it persists.

These authors’ overall conclusion, again from 10 years ago but one that in many ways still stands? VAMs “will often be too imprecise to support some of [its] desired inferences” and uses including, for example, making low- and high-stakes decisions about teacher effects as produced via VAMs. “[O]btaining sufficiently precise estimates of teacher effects to support ranking [and such decisions] is likely to [forever] be a challenge.”

VAMs Are Never “Accurate, Reliable, and Valid”

The Educational Researcher (ER) journal is the highly esteemed, flagship journal of the American Educational Research Association. It may sound familiar in that what I view to be many of the best research articles published about value-added models (VAMs) were published in ER (see my full reading list on this topic here), but as more specific to this post, the recent “AERA Statement on Use of Value-Added Models (VAM) for the Evaluation of Educators and Educator Preparation Programs” was also published in this journal (see also a prior post about this position statement here).

After this position statement was published, however, many critiqued AERA and the authors of this piece for going too easy on VAMs, as well as VAM proponents and users, and for not taking a firmer stance against VAMs given the current research. The lightest of the critiques, for example, as authored by Brookings Institution affiliate Michael Hansen and University of Washington Bothell’s Dan Goldhaber was highlighted here, after which Boston College’s Dr. Henry Braun responded also here. Some even believed this response to also be too, let’s say, collegial or symbiotic.

Just this month, however, ER released a critique of this same position statement, as authored by Steven Klees, a Professor at the University of Maryland. Klees wrote, essentially, that the AERA Statement “only alludes to the principal problem with [VAMs]…misspecification.” To isolate the contributions of teachers to student learning is not only “very difficult,” but “it is impossible—even if all the technical requirements in the [AERA] Statement [see here] are met.”

Rather, Klees wrote, “[f]or proper specification of any form of regression analysis…All confounding variables must be in the equation, all must be measured correctly, and the correct functional form must be used. As the 40-year literature on input-output functions that use student test scores as the dependent variable make clear, we never even come close to meeting these conditions…[Hence, simply] adding relevant variables to the model, changing how you measure them, or using alternative functional forms will always yield significant differences in the rank ordering of teachers’…contributions.”

Therefore, Klees argues “that with any VAM process that made its data available to competent researchers, those researchers would find that reasonable alternative specifications would yield major differences in rank ordering. Misclassification is not simply a ‘significant risk’— major misclassification is rampant and inherent in the use of VAM.”
Klees concludes: “The bottom line is that regardless of technical sophistication, the use of VAM is never [and, perhaps never will be] ‘accurate, reliable, and valid’ and will never yield ‘rigorously supported inferences” as expected and desired.
***
Citation: Klees, S. J. (2016). VAMs Are Never “Accurate, Reliable, and Valid.” Educational Researcher, 45(4), 267. doi: 10.3102/0013189X16651081

Special Issue of “Educational Researcher” (Paper #8 of 9, Part I): A More Research-Based Assessment of VAMs’ Potentials

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 (#8 of 9), which is actually a commentary titled “Can Value-Added Add Value to Teacher Evaluation?” This commentary is authored by Linda Darling-Hammond – Professor of Education, Emeritus, at Stanford University.

Like with the last commentary reviewed here, Darling-Hammond reviews some of the key points taken from the five feature articles in the aforementioned “Special Issue.” More specifically, though, Darling-Hammond “reflect[s] on [these five] articles’ findings in light of other work in this field, and [she] offer[s her own] thoughts about whether and how VAMs may add value to teacher evaluation” (p. 132).

She starts her commentary with VAMs “in theory,” in that VAMs COULD accurately identify teachers’ contributions to student learning and achievement IF (and this is a big IF) the following three conditions were met: (1) “student learning is well-measured by tests that reflect valuable learning and the actual achievement of individual students along a vertical scale representing the full range of possible achievement measures in equal interval units” (2) “students are randomly assigned to teachers within and across schools—or, conceptualized another way, the learning conditions and traits of the group of students assigned to one teacher do not vary substantially from those assigned to another;” and (3) “individual teachers are the only contributors to students’ learning over the period of time used for measuring gains” (p. 132).

None of things are actual true (or near to true, nor will they likely ever be true) in educational practice, however. Hence, the errors we continue to observe that continue to prevent VAM use for their intended utilities, even with the sophisticated statistics meant to mitigate errors and account for the above-mentioned, let’s call them, “less than ideal” conditions.

Other pervasive and perpetual issues surrounding VAMs as highlighted by Darling-Hammond, per each of the three categories above, pertain to (1) the tests used to measure value-added is that the tests are very narrow, focus on lower level skills, and are manipulable. These tests in their current form cannot effectively measure the learning gains of a large share of students who are above or below grade level given a lack of sufficient coverage and stretch. As per Haertel (2013, as cited in Darling-Hammond’s commentary), this “translates into bias against those teachers working with the lowest-performing or the highest-performing classes’…and “those who teach in tracked school settings.” It is also important to note here that the new tests created by the Partnership for Assessing Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced, multistate consortia “will not remedy this problem…Even though they will report students’ scores on a vertical scale, they will not be able to measure accurately the achievement or learning of students who started out below or above grade level” (p.133).

With respect to (2) above, on the equivalence (or rather non-equivalence) of groups of student across teachers classrooms who are the ones whose VAM scores are relativistically compared, the main issue here is that “the U.S. education system is the one of most segregated and unequal in the industrialized world…[likewise]…[t]he country’s extraordinarily high rates of childhood poverty, homelessness, and food insecurity are not randomly distributed across communities…[Add] the extensive practice of tracking to the mix, and it is clear that the assumption of equivalence among classrooms is far from reality” (p. 133). Whether sophisticated statistics can control for all of this variation is one of most debated issues surrounding VAMs and their levels of outcome bias, accordingly.

And as per (3) above, “we know from decades of educational research that many things matter for student achievement aside from the individual teacher a student has at a moment in time for a given subject area. A partial list includes the following [that are also supposed to be statistically controlled for in most VAMs, but are also clearly not controlled for effectively enough, if even possible]: (a) school factors such as class sizes, curriculum choices, instructional time, availability of specialists, tutors, books, computers, science labs, and other resources; (b) prior teachers and schooling, as well as other current teachers—and the opportunities for professional learning and collaborative planning among them; (c) peer culture and achievement; (d) differential summer learning gains and losses; (e) home factors, such as parents’ ability to help with homework, food and housing security, and physical and mental support or abuse; and (e) individual student needs, health, and attendance” (p. 133).

“Given all of these influences on [student] learning [and achievement], it is not surprising that variation among teachers accounts for only a tiny share of variation in achievement, typically estimated at under 10%” (see, for example, highlights from the American Statistical Association’s (ASA’s) Position Statement on VAMs here). “Suffice it to say [these issues]…pose considerable challenges to deriving accurate estimates of teacher effects…[A]s the ASA suggests, these challenges may have unintended negative effects on overall educational quality” (p. 133). “Most worrisome [for example] are [the] studies suggesting that teachers’ ratings are heavily influenced [i.e., biased] by the students they teach even after statistical models have tried to control for these influences” (p. 135).

Other “considerable challenges” include: VAM output are grossly unstable given the swings and variations observed in teacher classifications across time, and VAM output are “notoriously imprecise” (p. 133) given the other errors observed as caused, for example, by varying class sizes (e.g., Sean Corcoran (2010) documented with New York City data that the “true” effectiveness of a teacher ranked in the 43rd percentile could have had a range of possible scores from the 15th to the 71st percentile, qualifying as “below average,” “average,” or close to “above average). In addition, practitioners including administrators and teachers are skeptical of these systems, and their (appropriate) skepticisms are impacting the extent to which they use and value their value-added data, noting that they value their observational data (and the professional discussions surrounding them) much more. Also important is that another likely unintended effect exists (i.e., citing Susan Moore Johnson’s essay here) when statisticians’ efforts to parse out learning to calculate individual teachers’ value-added causes “teachers to hunker down and focus only on their own students, rather than working collegially to address student needs and solve collective problems” (p. 134). Related, “the technology of VAM ranks teachers against each other relative to the gains they appear to produce for students, [hence] one teacher’s gain is another’s loss, thus creating disincentives for collaborative work” (p. 135). This is what Susan Moore Johnson termed the egg-crate model, or rather the egg-crate effects.

Darling-Hammond’s conclusions are that VAMs have “been prematurely thrust into policy contexts that have made it more the subject of advocacy than of careful analysis that shapes its use. There is [good] reason to be skeptical that the current prescriptions for using VAMs can ever succeed in measuring teaching contributions well (p. 135).

Darling-Hammond also “adds value” in one whole section (highlighted in another post forthcoming here), offering a very sound set of solutions, using VAMs for teacher evaluations or not. Given it’s rare in this area of research we can focus on actual solutions, this section is a must read. If you don’t want to wait for the next post, read Darling-Hammond’s “Modest Proposal” (p. 135-136) within her larger article here.

In the end, Darling-Hammond writes that, “Trying to fix VAMs is rather like pushing on a balloon: The effort to correct one problem often creates another one that pops out somewhere else” (p. 135).

*****

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; see the Review of Article (Essay) #6 – on VAMs as tools for “egg-crate” schools here; and see the Review of Article (Commentary) #7 – on VAMs situated in their appropriate ecologies here.

Article #8, Part I Reference: Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Can value-added add value to teacher evaluation? Educational Researcher, 44(2), 132-137. doi:10.3102/0013189X15575346

In Schools, Teacher Quality Matters Most

Education Next — a non peer-reviewed journal with a mission to “steer a steady course, presenting the facts as best they can be determined…[while]…partak[ing] of no program, campaign, or ideology,” although these last claims are certainly of controversy (see, for example, here and here) — just published an article titled “In Schools, Teacher Quality Matters Most” as part of the journal’s series commemorating the 50th anniversary of James Coleman’s (and colleagues’) groundbreaking 1966 report, “Equality of Educational Opportunity.”

For background, the purpose of The Coleman Report was to assess the equal educational opportunities provided to children of different race, color, religion, and national origin. The main finding was that what we know today as students of color (although African American students were of primary focus in this study), who are (still) often denied equal educational opportunities due to a variety of factors, are largely and unequally segregated across America’s public schools, especially as segregated from their white and wealthier peers. These disparities were most notable via achievement measures, and what we know today as “the achievement gap.” Accordingly, Coleman et al. argued that equal opportunities for students in said schools mattered (and continue to matter) much more for these traditionally marginalized and segregated students than for those who were/are whiter and more economically fortunate. In addition, Coleman argued that out-of-school influences also mattered much more than in-school influences on said achievement. On this point, though, The Coleman Report was of great controversy, and (mis)interpreted as (still) supporting arguments that students’ teachers and schools do/don’t matter as much as students’ families and backgrounds do.

Hence, the Education Next article of focus in this post takes this up, 50 years later, and post the advent of value-added models (VAMs) as better measures than those to which Coleman and his colleagues had access. The article is authored by Dan Goldhaber — a Professor at the University of Washington Bothell, Director of the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER), and a Vice-President at the American Institutes of Research (AIR). AIR is one of our largest VAM consulting/contract firms, and Goldabher is, accordingly, perhaps one of the field’s most vocal proponents of VAMs and their capacities to both measure and increase teachers’ noteworthy effects (see, for example here); hence, it makes sense he writes about said teacher effects in this article, and in this particular journal (see, for example, Education Next’s Editorial and Editorial Advisory Board members here).

Here is his key claim.

Goldhaber argues that The Coleman Report’s “conclusions about the importance of teacher quality, in particular, have stood the test of time, which is noteworthy, [especially] given that today’s studies of the impacts of teachers [now] use more-sophisticated statistical methods and employ far better data” (i.e., VAMs). Accordingly, Goldhaber’s primary conclusion is that “the main way that schools affect student outcomes is through the quality of their teachers.”

Note that Goldhaber does not offer in this article much evidence, other than evidence not cited or provided by some of his econometric friends (e.g., Raj Chetty). Likewise, Goldhaber cites none of the literature coming from educational statistics, even though recent estimates [1] suggest that approximately 83% of articles written since 1893 (the year in which the first article about VAMs was ever published, in the Journal of Political Economy) on this topic have been published in educational journals, and 14% have been published in economics journals (3% have been published in education finance journals). Hence, what we are clearly observing as per the literature on this topic are severe slants in perspective, especially when articles such as these are written by econometricians, versus educational researchers and statisticians, who often marginalize the research of their education, discipline-based colleagues.

Likewise, Goldhaber does not cite or situate any of his claims within the recent report released by the American Statistical Association (ASA), in which it is written that “teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores.” While teacher effects do matter, they do not matter nearly as much as many, including many/most VAM proponents including Goldhaber, would like us to naively accept and believe. The truth of the matter is is that teachers do indeed matter, in many ways including their impacts on students’ affects, motivations, desires, aspirations, senses of efficacy, and the like, all of which are not estimated on the large-scale standardized tests that continue to matter and that are always the key dependent variables across these and all VAM-based studies today. As Coleman argued 50 years ago, as recently verified by the ASA, students’ out-of-school and out-of-classroom environments matter more, as per these dependent variables or measures.

I think I’ll take ASA’s “word” on this, also as per Coleman’s research 50 years prior.

*****

[1] Reference removed as the manuscript is currently under blind peer-review. Email me if you have any questions at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu

New York Teacher Sheri Lederman’s Lawsuit Update

Recall the New York lawsuit pertaining to Long Island teacher Sheri Lederman? The teacher who by all accounts other than her recent (2013-2014) 1 out of 20 growth score is a terrific 4th grade, 18 year veteran teacher. She, along with her attorney and husband Bruce Lederman, are suing the state of New York to challenge the state’s growth-based teacher evaluation system. See prior posts about Sheri’s case herehere and here. I, along with Linda Darling-Hammond (Stanford), Aaron Pallas (Columbia University Teachers College), Carol Burris (Executive Director of the Network for Public Education Foundation), Brad Lindell (Long Island Research Consultant), Sean Corcoran (New York University) and Jesse Rothstein (University of California – Berkeley) are serving as part of Sheri’s team.

Bruce Lederman just emailed me with an update, and some links re: this update (below), and he gave me permission to share all of this with you.

The judge hearing this case recently asked the lawyers on both sides of Sheri’s case to brief the court by the end of this month (February 29, 2016) on a new issue, positioned and pushed back into the court by the New York State Education Department (NYSED). The issue to be heard pertains to the state’s new “moratorium” or “emergency regulations” related to the state’s high-stakes use of its growth scores, all of which is likely related to the political reaction to the opt-out movement throughout the state of New York, the publicity pertaining to the Lederman lawsuit in and of itself, and the federal government’s adoption of the recent Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) given its specific provision that now permits states to decide whether (and if so how) to use teachers’ students’ test scores to hold teachers accountable for their levels of growth (in New York) or value-added.

While the federal government did not abolish such practices via its ESSA, the federal government did hand back to the states all power and authority over this matter. Accordingly, this does not mean growth models/VAMs are going to simply disappear, as states do still have the power and authority to move forward with their prior and/or their new teacher evaluation systems, based in small or large part, on growth models/VAMs. As also quite evident since President Obama’s signing of the ESSA, some states are continuing to move forward in this regard, and regardless of the ESSA, in some cases at even higher speeds than before, in support of what some state policymakers still apparently believe (despite the research) are the accountability measures that will still help them to (symbolically) support educational reform in their states. See, for example, prior posts about the state of Alabama, here, New Mexico, here, and Texas, here, which is still moving forward with its plans introduced pre-ESSA. See prior posts about New York here, here, and here, the state in which also just one year ago Governor Cuomo was promoting increased use of New York’s growth model and publicly proclaiming that it was “baloney” that more teachers were not being found “ineffective,” after which Cuomo pushed through the New York budget process amendments to the law increasing the weight of teachers’ growth scores to an approximate 50% weight in many cases.

Nonetheless, as per this case in New York, state Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, on behalf of the NYSED, offered to settle this lawsuit out of court by giving Sheri some accommodation on her aforementioned 2013-2014 score of 1 out of 20, if Sheri and Bruce dropped the challenge to the state’s VAM-based teacher evaluation system. Sheri and Bruce declined, for a number or reasons, including that under the state’s recent “moratorium,” the state’s growth model is still set to be used throughout the state of New York for the next four years, with teachers’ annual performance reviews based in part on growth scores reported to parents, newspapers (on an aggregate basis), and the like. While, again, high-stakes are not to be attached to the growth output for four years, the scores will still “count.”

Hence, Sheri and Bruce believe that because they have already “convincingly” shown that the state’s growth model does not “rationally” work for teacher evaluation purposes, and that teacher evaluations as based on the state’s growth model actually violate state law since teachers like Sheri are not capable of getting perfect scores (which is “irrational”), they will continue with this case, also on behalf of New York teachers and principals who are “demoralized” by the system, as well as New York taxpayers who are paying (millions “if not tens of millions of dollars” for the system’s (highly) unreliable and inaccurate results.

As per Bruce’s email: “Spending the next 4 years studying a broken system is a terrible idea and terrible waste of taxpayer $$s. Also, if [NYSED] recognizes that Sheri’s 2013-14 score of 1 out of 20 is wrong [which they apparently recognize given their offer to settle this suit out of court], it’s sad and frustrating that [NYSED] still wants to fight her score unless she drops her challenge to the evaluation system in general.”

“We believe our case is already responsible for the new administrative appeal process in NY, and also partly responsible for Governor Cuomos’ apparent reversal on his stand about teacher evaluations. However, at this point we will not settle and allow important issues to be brushed under the carpet. Sheri and I are committed to pressing ahead with our case.”

To read more about this case via a Politico New York article click here (registration required). To hear more from Bruce Lederman about this case via WCNY-TV, Syracuse, click here. The pertinent section of this interview starts at 22:00 minutes and ends at 36:21. It’s well worth listening!

Report on the Stability of Student Growth Percentile (SGP) “Value-Added” Estimates

The Student Growth Percentiles (SGPs) model, which is loosely defined by value-added model (VAM) purists as a VAM, uses students’ level(s) of past performance to determine students’ normative growth over time, as compared to his/her peers. “SGPs describe the relative location of a student’s current score compared to the current scores of students with similar score histories” (Castellano & Ho, p. 89). Students are compared to themselves (i.e., students serve as their own controls) over time; therefore, the need to control for other variables (e.g., student demographics) is less necessary, although this is of debate. Nonetheless, the SGP model was developed as a “better” alternative to existing models, with the goal of providing clearer, more accessible, and more understandable results to both internal and external education stakeholders and consumers. For more information about the SGP please see prior posts here and here. See also an original source about the SGP here.

Related, in a study released last week, WestEd researchers conducted an “Analysis of the stability of teacher-level growth scores [derived] from the student growth percentile [SGP] model” in one, large school district in Nevada (n=370 teachers). The key finding they present is that “half or more of the variance in teacher scores from the [SGP] model is due to random or otherwise unstable sources rather than to reliable information that could predict future performance. Even when derived by averaging several years of teacher scores, effectiveness estimates are unlikely to provide a level of reliability desired in scores used for high-stakes decisions, such as tenure or dismissal. Thus, states may want to be cautious in using student growth percentile [SGP] scores for teacher evaluation.”

Most importantly, the evidence in this study should make us (continue to) question the extent to which “the learning of a teacher’s students in one year will [consistently] predict the learning of the teacher’s future students.” This is counter to the claims continuously made by VAM proponents, including folks like Thomas Kane — economics professor from Harvard University who directed the $45 million worth of Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) studies for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. While faint signals of what we call predictive validity might be observed across VAMs, what folks like Kane overlook or avoid is that very often these faint signals do not remain constant over time. Accordingly, the extent to which we can make stable predictions is limited.

Worse is when folks falsely assume that said predictions will remain constant over time, and they make high-stakes decisions about teachers unaware of the lack of stability present, in typically 25-59% of teachers’ value-added (or in this case SGP) scores (estimates vary by study and by analyses using one to three years of data — see, for example, the studies detailed in Appendix A of this report; see also other research on this topic here, here, and here). Nonetheless, researchers in this study found that in mathematics, 50% of the variance in teachers’ value-added scores were attributable to differences among teachers, and the other 50% was random or unstable. In reading, 41% of the variance in teachers’ value-added scores were attributable to differences among teachers, and the other 59% was random or unstable.

In addition, using a 95% confidence interval (which is very common in educational statistics) researchers found that in mathematics, a teacher’s true score would span 48 points, “a margin of error that covers nearly half the 100 point score scale,” whereby “one would be 95 percent confident that the true math score of a teacher who received a score of 50 [would actually fall] between 26 and 74.” For reading, a teacher’s true score would span 44 points, whereby one would be 95 percent confident that the true reading score of a teacher who received a score of 50 would actually fall between 38 and 72. The stability of these scores would increase with three years of data, which has also been found by other researchers on this topic. However, they too have found that such error rates persist to an extent that still prohibits high-stakes decision making.

In more practical terms, what this also means is that a teacher who might be considered highly ineffective might be terminated, even though the following year (s)he could have been observed to be highly effective. Inversely, teachers who are awarded tenure might be observed as ineffective one, two, and/or three years following, not because their true level(s) of effectiveness change, but because of the error in the estimates that causes such instabilities to occur. Hence, examinations of the the stability of such estimates over time provides essential evidence of the validity, and in this case predictive validity, of the interpretations and uses of such scores over time. This is particularly pertinent when high-stakes decisions are to be based on (or in large part on) such scores, especially given some researchers are calling for reliability coefficients of .85 or higher to make such decisions (Haertel, 2013; Wasserman & Bracken, 2003).

In the end, researchers’ overall conclusion is that SGP-derived “growth scores alone may not be sufficiently stable to support high-stakes decisions.” Likewise, relying on the extant research on this topic, the overall conclusion can be broadened in that neither SGP- or VAM-based growth scores may be sufficiently stable to support high-stakes decisions. In other words, it is not just the SGP model that is yielding such issues with stability (or a lack thereof). Again, see the other literature in which researchers situated their findings in Appendix A. See also other similar studies here, here, and here.

Accordingly, those who read this report, and consequently seek to find a better or more stable model that yields more stable estimates, will unfortunately but likely fail in their search.

References:

Castellano, K. E., & Ho, A. D. (2013). A practitioner’s guide to growth models. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Haertel, E. H. (2013). Reliability and validity of inferences about teachers based on student test scores (14th William H. Angoff Memorial Lecture). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service (ETS).

Lash, A., Makkonen, R., Tran, L., & Huang, M. (2016). Analysis of the stability of teacher-level growth scores [derived] from the student growth percentile [SGP] model. (16–104). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory West.

Wasserman, J. D., & Bracken, B. A. (2003). Psychometric characteristics of assessment procedures. In I. B. Weiner, J. R. Graham, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology:
Assessment psychology (pp. 43–66). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

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

Why Standardized Tests Should Not Be Used to Evaluate Teachers (and Teacher Education Programs)

David C. Berliner, Regents’ Professor Emeritus here at Arizona State University (ASU), who also just happens to be my former albeit forever mentor, recently took up research on the use of test scores to evaluate teachers, for example, using value-added models (VAMs). While David is world-renowned for his research in educational psychology, and more specific to this case, his expertise on effective teaching behaviors and how to capture and observe them, he has also now ventured into the VAM-related debates.

Accordingly, he recently presented his newest and soon-to-be-forthcoming published research on using standardized tests to evaluate teachers, something he aptly termed in the title of his presentation “A Policy Fiasco.” He delivered his speech to an audience in Melbourne, Australia, and you can click here for the full video-taped presentation; however, given the whole presentation takes about one hour to watch, although I must say watching the full hour is well worth it, I highlight below what are his highlights and key points. These should certainly be of interest to you all as followers of this blog, and hopefully others.

Of main interest are his 14 reasons, “big and small’ for [his] judgment that assessing teacher competence using standardized achievement tests is nearly worthless.”

Here are his fourteen reasons:

  1. “When using standardized achievement tests as the basis for inferences about the quality of teachers, and the institutions from which they came, it is easy to confuse the effects of sociological variables on standardized test scores” and the effects teachers have on those same scores. Sociological variables (e.g., chronic absenteeism) continue to distort others’ even best attempts to disentangle them from the very instructional variables of interest. This, what we also term as biasing variables, are important not to inappropriately dismiss, as purportedly statistically “controlled for.”
  2. In law, we do not hold people accountable for the actions of others, for example, when a child kills another child and the parents are not charged as guilty. Hence, “[t]he logic of holding [teachers and] schools of education responsible for student achievement does not fit into our system of law or into the moral code subscribed to by most western nations.” Related, should medical school or doctors, for that matter, be held accountable for the health of their patients? One of the best parts of his talk, in fact, is about the medical field and the corollaries Berliner draws between doctors and medical schools, and teachers and colleges of education, respectively (around the 19-25 minute mark of his video presentation).
  3. Professionals are often held harmless for their lower success rates with clients who have observable difficulties in meeting the demands and the expectations of the professionals who attend to them. In medicine again, for example, when working with impoverished patients, “[t]here is precedent for holding [doctors] harmless for their lowest success rates with clients who have observable difficulties in meeting the demands and expectations of the [doctors] who attend to them, but the dispensation we offer to physicians is not offered to teachers.”
  4. There are other quite acceptable sources of data, besides tests, for judging the efficacy of teachers and teacher education programs. “People accept the fact that treatment and medicine may not result in the cure of a disease. Practicing good medicine is the goal, whether or not the patient gets better or lives. It is equally true that competent teaching can occur independent of student learning or of the achievement test scores that serve as proxies for said learning. A teacher can literally “save lives” and not move the metrics used to measure teacher effectiveness.
  5. Reliance on standardized achievement test scores as the source of data about teacher quality will inevitably promote confusion between “successful” instruction and “good” instruction. “Successful” instruction gets test scores up. “Good” instruction leaves lasting impressions, fosters further interest by the students, makes them feel competent in the area, etc. Good instruction is hard to measure, but remains the goal of our finest teachers.
  6. Related, teachers affect individual students greatly, but affect standardized achievement test scores very little. All can think of how their own teachers impacted their lives in ways that cannot be captured on a standardized achievement test.  Standardized achievement test scores are much more related to home, neighborhood and cohort than they are to teachers’ instructional capabilities. In more contemporary terms, this is also due the fact that large-scale standardized tests have (still) never been validated to measure student growth over time, nor have they been validated to attribute that growth to teachers. “Teachers have huge effects, it’s just that the tests are not sensitive to them.”
  7. Teacher’s effects on standardized achievement test scores fade quickly, barely discernable after a few years. So we might not want to overly worry about most teachers’ effects on their students—good or bad—as they are hard to detect on tests after two or so years. To use these ephemeral effects to then hold teacher education programs accountable seems even more problematic.
  8. Observational measures of teacher competency and achievement tests of teacher competency do not correlate well. This suggest nothing more than that one or both of these measures, and likely the latter, are malfunctioning in their capacities to measure the teacher effectiveness construct. See other Vamboozled posts about this here, here, and here.
  9. Different standardized achievement tests, both purporting to measure reading, mathematics, or science at the same grade level, will give different estimates of teacher competency. That is because different test developers have different visions of what it means to be competent in each of these subject areas. Thus one achievement test in these subject areas could find a teacher exemplary, but another test of those same subject areas would find the teacher lacking. What then? Have we an unstable teacher or an ill-defined subject area?
  10. Tests can be administered early or late in the fall, early or late in the spring, and the dates they are given influence the judgments about whether a teacher is performing well or poorly. Teacher competency should not be determined by minor differences in the date of testing, but that happens frequently.
  11. No standardized achievement tests have provided proof that their items are instructionally sensitive. If test items do not, because they cannot “react to good instruction,” how can one make a claim that the test items are “tapping good instruction?”
  12. Teacher effects show up more dramatically on teacher made tests than on standardized achievement tests because the former are based on the enacted curriculum, while the latter are based on the desired curriculum. You get seven times more instructionally sensitive tests the closer the test is to the classroom (i.e., teacher made tests).
  13. The opt-out testing movement invalidates inferences about teachers and schools that can be made from standardized achievement test results. Its not bad to remove these kids from taking these tests, and perhaps it is even necessary in our over-tested schools, but the tests and the VAM estimates derived via these tests, are far less valid when that happens. This is because the students who opt out are likely different in significant ways from those who do take the tests. This severely limits the validity claims that are made.
  14. Assessing new teachers with standardized achievement tests is likely to yield many false negatives. That is, the assessments would identify teachers early in their careers as ineffective in improving test scores, which is, in fact, often the case for new teachers. Two or three years later that could change. Perhaps the last thing we want to do in a time of teacher shortage is discourage new teachers while they acquire their skills.