MISCONCEPTION #4

Misconception #1 Misconception #2 Misconception #3 Misconception #4 Misconception #5

Using a value-added methodology (VAM) for assessing the growth in student achievement is a relatively easy and accurate way to measure teacher and/or teacher preparation program effectiveness.

Many policymakers believe that VAM analyses can be conducted quite easily and can assess accurately the true effectiveness of teachers and teacher preparation programs in terms of increasing student achievement. Although using VAM to assess the effectiveness of teachers and teacher preparation programs has great intuitive appeal and certainly holds promise implementing such a strategy has serious problems.

Perhaps one of the most serious problems is creating data sets that are necessary to conduct such analyses. Only a few states actually have matched student scores to the students’ teachers—Utah, Louisiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. A few other states have some capacity to create such data, but not on a statewide basis—Texas, North Carolina, and New York. As Dan Goldhaber pointed out in his review of the technical aspects of creating such data sets, there are many serious obstacles to creating such data sets. Consequently, creating such data sets requires a serious investment of time and money.

Moreover, as pointed out by researchers Ballou, Braun, and Kupermintz, implementing a VAM has serious methodological considerations. Most researchers agree that VAM should be explored, but that the statistical methodology is not sophisticated enough to be used as the sole means to make accurate judgments about the effectiveness of teachers in increasing student achievement. Thus, most researchers recommend caution regarding the use of VAM in making high-stakes decisions about teachers or teacher preparation programs.

Last updated: February 6, 2006