Value-Added Measurement of Teachers Has a Significant Downside
Published in Opinions
Scholarly experts have drawn the distinction between the merits of using value-added models to shape standards and curricula and the flaws and dangers of applying the same formulae to evaluate individual teacher performances. They point out that many other factors—poverty, school resources, support from parents and outside sources such as tutoring, even health status—affect standardized test scores.
In an April 6 opinion piece in EducationWeek, “Tying Teacher Evaluation to Student Achievement,” President Susan H. Fuhrman cautioned policymakers to move slowly in using value-added measures to make high-stakes decisions, such as compensation, tenure and firing, affecting teachers.
Aaron M. Pallas, Professor of Sociology and Education, has posted several pieces on his blog, “A Sociological Eye on Education,” in which he questions whether the tests themselves accurately measure students’ command of the curriculum.
The views expressed in the previous article are solely those of the speakers to whom they are attributed. They do not reflect the views of the faculty, administration or staff of Teachers College or Columbia University.
The views expressed in the previous article are solely those of the speakers to whom they are attributed. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the faculty, administration, or staff either of Teachers College or of Columbia University.previous page