A fairer way to evaluate teachers?

March 23, 2010

Laura Taylor, a schoolteacher in Houston, argues that equating teacher quality with test scores harms students' education and undermines teachers and their unions.

TEACHER ACCOUNTABILITY is a hot topic in the media these days, with Newsweek and the New York Times both publishing articles on the need to raise teacher quality. Evaluating teachers based on students' standardized test scores is often suggested as a reform to improve our schools.

Many in education have long spoken against using these standardized test scores to assess teachers, contending that they're not a good measure of student achievement or teacher quality. This case is particularly strong in schools that serve poor and working-class communities, where many students start the school year grade levels behind their peers in higher-income areas. It's unfair to expect students who come in a year or more behind to be on grade level by May, the critics say.

Now, a new type of measure is gaining traction among education reforms: the so-called value-added analysis. This type of evaluation proposes to measure student's intellectual growth from year to year, rather than comparing student scores to a fixed achievement level.

A teacher in a San Francisco elementary school
A teacher in a San Francisco elementary school

Supporters of this approach say that it levels the playing field for educators in low-income schools, because teachers are measured by how much "value" they add to each student, rather than by how many students meet a certain level of achievement.

On the surface, the Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS)--a statistical method designed to measure a student's progress against themselves over the course of their education--seems like a fairer and more effective way to evaluate teachers. Many districts have already implemented such methods.

However, when you scratch below the surface, it becomes clear that EVAAS remains a deeply flawed way to measure teacher quality.

Audrey Amrein-Breadsley, an assistant professor at Arizona State University (ASU) who has studied the value-added approach, cautions against its use. She told theASU News that the model is "promising way more than it can deliver." She added: "Are the claims made by the developers of EVAAS, in fact, true, and does the assessment method work in the ways purported? The answer is no, and yet the model continues to be oversold without the strong validation studies needed and being called for."

Amrein-Beardsley's findings are backed up by the National Research Council, which released a report last year stating that school systems, "should not prematurely promote the use of value-added approaches--which evaluate teachers based on gains in their students' performance--to reward or punish teachers. Too little is known about the accuracy of these methods to base high-stakes decisions on them right now."

The report concludes that there has been insufficient research on the validity of these methods, and notes that value-added approaches don't account for outside factors like student motivation or parental support.


DESPITE THESE cautions from educational researchers, school districts are plowing ahead with the use of value-added approaches to teacher evaluation. The Houston Independent School District (HISD), the seventh-largest school system in the country and the largest in Texas, is at the forefront of this movement.

HISD was one of the first districts to implement the use of EVAAS data for teacher merit pay, awarding bonuses to teachers based on student test scores. Despite the program's unpopularity among teachers--the majority of whom do not like the system--the HISD school board has gone further. In February, the school board voted 7-0 to add low EVAAS scores as an official reason for teacher termination and include EVAAS scores on formal teacher evaluation.

School Superintendent Terry Grier claims that this program will be good for teachers and even says that American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten supports the method. Yet Weingarten told the Houston Chronicle her words were twisted. "Houston is a perfect example of what not to do," she said. "The plan has all the wrong components, and it's one of the reasons why teachers and parents are opposed to standardized testing."

More than 400 teachers could be on the chopping block when this plan is implemented next year. At the board meeting where the measure was approved, 750 teachers flooded the building to show their opposition to the measure. Many teachers spoke publicly at the meeting about how the measure will hurt their students and their schools.

Much of the concern, along with questions about the validity of value-added measures, is the effect that this decision will have on teaching and learning. Teachers voiced concerns that this decision will force them to focus on "teaching to the test"--that is, instructing students to focus on discreet facts and numbers to answer multiple-choice questions, rather than encouraging them to analyze and think critically about a range of topics.

There's also a concern that the EVAAS decision will narrow the curriculum in HISD. Subjects that aren't tested will get far less instructional time or perhaps will be lost all together. This includes not only subjects like music and art, but also formerly core subjects like science, social studies and writing.

The decision also pits teachers against each other, with each teacher being judged only on the test results in their classrooms. This forces teachers to focus only on their own students and actually creates a disincentive for teachers to share ideas and best practices--the very way that teachers perfect their craft.

Elena Saner-Greer, a science teacher who spoke at one of the HISD school board meetings, summed up the concerns of many teachers, telling the board, "We've changed from 'It takes a village' to 'Every man for himself."

EVAAS is not what genuine education reformers should be striving for. Full funding for schools and support for teachers should be the starting point of renewing public education.

Further Reading

From the archives