You are here
Selecting Growth Models for School and Teacher Evaluations: Should Proportionality Matter?
The specifics of how growth models should be constructed and used to evaluate schools and teachers is a topic of lively policy debate in states and school districts nationwide. In this paper we take up the question of model choice and examine three competing approaches. The first approach, reflected in the popular student growth percentiles (SGPs) framework, eschews all controls for student covariates and schooling environments. The second approach, typically associated with value-added models (VAMs), controls for student background characteristics and under some conditions can be used to identify the causal effects of schools and teachers. The third approach, also VAM-based, fully levels the playing field so that the correlation between school- and teacher-level growth measures and student demographics is essentially zero. We argue that the third approach is the most desirable for use in educational evaluation systems. Our case rests on personnel economics, incentive-design theory, and the potential role that growth measures can play in improving instruction in K-12 schools.
Keywords: Accountability, Evaluation and Assessment, Educational Policy
Citation: Mark Ehlert, Cory Koedel, Eric Parsons, Michael Podgursky (2013). Selecting Growth Models for School and Teacher Evaluations: Should Proportionality Matter?. CALDER Working Paper No. 80
You May Also Be Interested In
How Did It Get This Way? Disentangling the Sources of Teacher Quality Gaps Through Agent-Based Modeling
Dan Goldhaber, Matt Kasman, Vanessa Quince, Roddy Theobald, Malcolm Wolff
Teachers and School Climate: Effects on Student Outcomes and Academic Disparities
Benjamin Backes, James Cowan, Dan Goldhaber, Roddy Theobald
How Well Do Professional Reference Ratings Predict Teacher Performance?
Dan Goldhaber, Cyrus Grout, Malcolm Wolff