Value-Added Estimates of Teacher Effectiveness: Measurement, Uses, and Limitations

Since the turn of the 21st century, an abundant body of research has demonstrated that teachers meaningfully contribute to their students’ learning but that teachers vary widely in their effectiveness. Measures of teachers’ “value added” to student achievement have become common, and sometimes controversial, tools for researchers and policymakers hoping to identify and differentiate teachers’ individual contributions to student learning. Value-added measures aim to identify how much more a given teacher’s students learn than what would be expected based on how much other, similar students learn with other teachers. The question of how to measure value added without substantial measurement error and without incorrectly capturing other factors outside of teachers’ control is complex and sometime illusory, and the advantages and drawbacks to any particular method of estimating teachers’ value added depend on the specific context and purpose for their use. Traditionally, researchers have calculated value-added scores only for the subset of teachers with students in tested grades and subjects—a relatively small proportion of the teaching force, in a narrow set of the many domains on which teachers may influence their students. More recently, researchers have created value-added estimates for a range of other student outcomes, including measures of students’ engagement and social-emotional learning such as attendance and behavioral incidences, which may be available for more teachers. Overall, teacher value-added measures can be useful tools for understanding and improving teaching and learning, but they have substantial limitations for many uses and contexts.

Executive Women and Firm Economic Value

This study analyses the relationship between gender diversity on the board of directors' executive roles and the firm economic value. Based on a sample of Portuguese non-financial listed firms, between 2010 and 2018, results show that executive female contribute to decrease the firm economic value-added, and CEO gender diversity to decrease market value added, while no impact is found to traditional performance measures. Since the presence of women on the board of Portuguese firms is still scarce, female presence is not seen as relevant to add value to firms. These results are pioneer since previous studies found no impact of female presence on boards on value added measures. Moreover, findings show the relevance of value-added measures to analyze performance and singularities compared to profitability measures.

BEYOND CONVENTIONAL TRADE: TRADE OPENNESS IMPLICATIONS OF TRADE IN VALUE ADDED

This study compares the impacts of gross trade openness measures with trade openness in value-added measures on economic growth for the years 1995–2014 by employing a dynamic panel data estimation. Our findings suggest that although gross trade shares promote growth, using value-added trade shares magnifies this positive effect. Compared with gross terms, estimates also imply that while exports in value-added terms have much larger growth effect, imports in value-added terms have no significant impact. We then evaluate the impacts of tariffs on growth in terms of gross trade and trade in value added separately. Although our results imply the negative growth effects of gross import tariffs, this negative impact disappears for tariffs in value-added terms. These results reaffirm that trade protectionism has potential to lower global growth through reducing exports because it is clear that export shares regardless of their measurements and disaggregation levels promote growth. Our results indicate that countries should support not only exports of final products but also exports of intermediates. However, given the necessity of imports for exports, our results do not lend any evidence to discourage overall imports.

The Sensitivity of Teacher Value-Added Scores to the Use of Fall or Spring Test Scores

Papay (2011) noticed that teacher value-added measures (VAMs) from a statistical model using the most common pre/post testing timeframe–current-year spring relative to previous spring (SS)–are essentially unrelated to those same teachers’ VAMs when instead using next-fall relative to current-fall (FF). This is concerning since this choice–made solely as an artifact of the timing of statewide testing–produces an entirely different ranking of teachers’ effectiveness. Since subsequent studies (grades K/1) have not replicated these findings, we revisit and extend Papay’s analyses in another Grade 3–8 setting. We find similarly low correlations (.13–.15) that persist across value-added specifications. We delineate and apply a literature-based framework for considering the role of summer learning loss in producing these low correlations.

Student Assessment Opt Out and the Impact on Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality

Student assessment nonparticipation (or opt out) has increased substantially in K-12 schools in states across the country. This increase in opt out has the potential to impact achievement and growth (or value-added) measures used for educator and institutional accountability. In this simulation study, we investigated the extent to which value-added measures of teacher quality are affected as a result of varying degrees of opt out, as well as a result of various types of nonrandom opt out. Results show that the magnitude of opt out and choice of classification scheme has a greater impact on value-added estimates than the type of opt-out patterns simulated in this study. Specifically, root mean square differences in value-added estimates increased as magnitude of opt out increased. In addition, teacher effectiveness classification agreement decreased as opt out magnitude increased. One type of opt out, where the highest achieving students in the highest achieving classrooms opted out, had the largest impact on stability than the other types of opt outs.

Learning from what doesn’t work in teacher evaluation

Recent lawsuits reveal common mistakes plaguing current teacher evaluation systems. Drawing on arguments in court documents for prominent cases, the authors find that evaluation systems using value-added measures (VAM) suffer from a) inconsistent and unreliable teacher ratings, b) bias toward and against teachers of certain types of students, c) easy opportunities for administrators to game the system, and d) a lack of transparency. They urge others to engage with these (and other) arguments to design better, more valid, more useful, and ultimately more defensible teacher evaluation systems.