Teresa Watanabe
'Value-Added' Teacher Evaluations: L.A. Unified Tackles a Tough Formula (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-adv-value-add-20110328,0,3903343.story?page=1)
LA Times
March 28th, 2011
Summary: An in depth look at the ins and outs, criticisms and arguments in support, and the math behind the value-added analysis we have discussed a few times in passing. It turns out, fun fact, that the formula used is PhD level math.
Audience: Those interested in standardized testing on either side of the argument
Key Points: 1) There are issues with value-added analysis, including inconsistencies, and apparent racial biases; 2) Supporters insist that it is the most objective method of evaluating teachers.
Relevance: It was very interesting to hear some debate on the issue. It was even more interesting to look at a formula and spend 20 minutes on google trying to figure out exactly what all the variables and numbers actually mean.The fact is that we WILL have to deal with testing as a part of our evaluation as teachers. It will be good to have a more in depth understanding of the issues regarding the specifics of how we will be evaluated.
The first page of this article put me off balance-- that formula is so long that I started feeling like it was all more tongue-in-cheek than serious journalism, like something you'd find on The Onion. Sure enough, though, administrators are arguing for the usefulness of a formula that they can't decipher...
ReplyDeleteOne quote in particular drove me nuts, mainly because I see the efforts to objectify teachers' performance in such a (literally?) impossibly complicated way as an enormous waste of resources that could be directed towards evaluations based on direct observation, or even "preventative" and supporting measures like mentoring programs and genuinely useful continuing education workshops and classes. The quote is: "Deasy and many others argue that value-added analysis is far more useful than the common practice of dispatching administrators to classrooms, where they often make pro-forma observations. These reviews overwhelmingly result in "satisfactory' ratings, which may or may not be deserved."
They throw that out there and then don't give any other reason other than this one guy who loves the formulas suggesting that the reviews don't work, based on... nothing, apparently, other than the fact that many teachers are rated "satisfactory"? Arrrghhhhhhhh.
You're right, this junk will definitely affect us in the future-- although hopefully it will be in the imminently more reasonable way in which the Washington union rep suggested, accounting for no more than 1/5th of the total package of VAA of teachers. I'd really like to see what the other 4/5ths are, too! Something to be on the watch for I guess.
Thanks for another interesting article in this continuing saga.