|
|
|
Teacher Evaluation and Value-Added: Do Different Models Give Us the Same Answer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guodong Liang
|
|
|
|
1Community Training & Assistance Center
|
1Community Training & Assistance Center, 30 Winter St, Boston, MA, 02108, USA
|
|
glp4@mail.missouri.edu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teacher evaluation plays a key role in enhancing teachers’ effectiveness, promoting professional learning, and making personnel decisions in the United States and around the world (e.g., Liang, 2013). In addition to Student Learning Objectives (SLOs), an effective tool in evaluating teachers who do not teach subjects or grades that are assessed with state assessments (Slotnik & Smith, 2004, 2013), in recent years, value-added models (VAMs) have become a leading candidate for estimating individual teachers’ contribution to student achievement and growth on state standardized tests. However, there are concerns on such key issues as the reliability and validity of VAMs. Empirical studies have shown that teacher ratings with VAMs are highly instable and can vary significantly across time, classes, and even tests (Lockwood et al., 2007; Loeb & Candelaria, 2013; Newton, Darling-Hammond, Haertel, & Thomas, 2010).....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|