For years, schools and students have been judged on raw standardized test scores. Experts say this approach is flawed because they tend to reflect socioeconomic levels more than learning.
The “value-added” approach attempts to level the playing field by focusing on growth rather than achievement. Using a statistical analysis of test scores, it tracks an individual student’s improvement year to year, and uses that progress to estimate the effectiveness of teachers, principals and schools.
Academics have also used the approach to test many assumptions about what matters in schools. Scholars are still puzzling over what makes for a great teacher or school, but their results challenge orthodox assumptions like these:
All teachers are equal. For decades, schools have treated teachers like interchangeable parts. Value-added results suggest there are sharp differences in teachers’ effectiveness.
One thought on “Class size, student background and schools’ funding appear to be less critical than has long been believed.”
Comments are closed.
This is irresponsible reportage. The sources cited in a related article are mostly reports released by school reform advocacy organizations. If one looks for the most credible source within the list provided, it is letter to the Obama Administration from National Academy of Sciences Board of Testing and Assessment.
The letter cautions against the the broad use of high-stakes standardized tests for assessing teacher quality by the value-added approach. This letter is written by a National Academhy of Sciences Board.