Wednesday, May 14, 2014


In principle I'm in favor of evaluating teachers based on "value-added" parameters, but not if the American Statistical Assn is correct:
Last month, the American Statistical Association warned against used VAMS, saying that “recent studies have found that teachers account for a maximum of about 14 percent of a student’s test score.”

“We need to slow down or ease off completely for the stakes for teachers, at least in the first few years, so we can get a sense of what do these things measure, what does it mean,” said Morgan S. Polikoff, a USC assistant professor of education and co-author of the study. “We’re moving these systems forward way ahead of the science in terms of the quality of the measures.”
I'd be curious about what makes up the other 86% of students' test scores, and what the proportions for each of those components are.


Anonymous said...

16% studying
10% diet,exercise,sleeping habits
10% genetics
50% sheer luck

Darren said...

Luck? In what way?

Anonymous said...

I remember reading an article on the "top ten indicators for student success" and none of them included teaching quality. I believe all of them had nothing to do with the school itself. Sleep, nutrition, amount of age appropriate reading material in the house, being read to, ect...

maxutils said...

I can't really speak for anonymous ... but I'll try anyway. Much of a teacher's value added is dependent on prior knowledge and parental involvement. If I'm lucky enough to get Algebra 2 students who know their Algebra 1 well, and whose parents make them do their homework, I'll be very successful. But if they haven't ... they are destined not to do well. Since I don't have control over that, there is an element of luck. I'm not sure it's as large as 50%, but it's certainly relevant.

Darren said...

I interpreted the comment to mean that 50% of a *student's* grade comes from luck.

Isn't it odd, though, that certain kids get *lucky* a lot and keep scoring all those A's?