A Case For Value-Added In Low-Stakes Contexts

Matthew DiCarlo:

Most of the controversy surrounding value-added and other test-based models of teacher productivity centers on the high-stakes use of these estimates. This is unfortunate - no matter what you think about these methods in the high-stakes context, they have a great deal of potential to improve instruction.

When supporters of value-added and other growth models talk about low-stakes applications, they tend to assert that the data will inspire and motivate teachers who are completely unaware that they're not raising test scores. In other words, confronted with the value-added evidence that their performance is subpar (at least as far as tests are an indication), teachers will rethink their approach. I don't find this very compelling. Value-added data will not help teachers - even those who believe in its utility - unless they know why their students' performance appears to be comparatively low. It's rather like telling a baseball player they're not getting hits, or telling a chef that the food is bad - it's not constructive.

Posted by Jim Zellmer at February 15, 2012 1:52 AM
Subscribe to this site via RSS/Atom: Newsletter signup | Send us your ideas