Value-added Model (VAM) of Teaching Evaluations and Its Implications - Research Paper Example

? Value-added model (VAM) of teaching evaluations and its implications The issue of value-added model of teaching evaluations has been a heated debate especially on its effects on teachers. However, although the model is intended to improve academic performance of students, concerns have been raised in relation to its effectiveness, and more so, on the accuracy of data used for evaluation. This paper will assess what value-added model entails and is importance. It will also articulate on different concerns of the negative effects associated with the model. Value-added model (VAM) of teaching evaluations and its implications Introduction In not more than a decade, there has been a heated debate about the best value-added model of teaching. However, as much as this debate is vital in the effort to offer quality education, less people have an idea of what it entails. The key players in this discussion are people working in the education sector and who in one way or another tend to benefit or lose from value-added teacher evaluation (Early, Imig & Michelli, 2010). With these deliberations, it would be necessary first to understand what value-added model of teaching evaluations entails. The context of value- added model in teaching evaluations The most and obvious meaning of value-added model of teaching is a method of teacher evaluation that gives an account of teacher’s contribution in terms of evaluating current school year test performances of students to performances of the same students in the previous year (Raudenbush, 2004). This also includes comparison of performances of other students in the same level. Value added model also tends to evaluate each teacher’s performance in comparison with performances of other teachers. Nevertheless, this model has not come without criticism. Opponents of this model argue that the use of tests to measure teachers contribution is not scientific and has not been proved by and scientific study (Raudenbush, 2004). Additionally, they argue that some students results and performances are beyond teacher’s reach since some of the factors that determine students performance include behaviors of the students, and, which they claim most of these behaviors are acquired outside tutoring (Cater, 2004). However, it is paramount to focus on issues other than generalizing notions. For example, it is of considerable importance to articulate on possible likelihood of using VAM. Studies have indicated that use of this model will create accountability to teachers and administrators (Schwab, 1991). They tend to shape their behaviors, and work hard to producing top scores in their subjects. The overall intention of this model is to encourage teachers work extra harder by incorporating different teaching strategies to improve achievement of both the students and the school (Nolan & Hoover, 2010). Value added results may also be helpful to teachers in terms of self improvement and setting target (Lissitz, 2005). It has also been argued that results obtained from value- added can be used at school level to improve on different subjects and group of students depending on the level of weakness or strength (Ballou, Sanders & Wright, 2004). With results of value- added from different schools, an evaluation can be done to come up with the best teaching strategy to be adopted in order to streamline all schools performance. It has also been argued that value-added results can help create projections of the level of school performance, which can be used to determine required resources, decision making and planning (Xiaoxia, Darling-Hammond, Haertel, & Ewart, 2010). In the context of accountability, value-added model is argued to act as an awakening call for schools in order for them to improve on weak areas to avoid sanctions (Lissitz, 2005). The model also ensures that schools that perform well are rewarded in order to keep the fire burning. The tax money paid to run the school is required to be utilized accordingly. Therefore, schools that incorporate value-added model in their accountability systems are better placed in terms of providing value for tax payer’s money (Raudenbush, 2004). In the recent years, new researches have elucidated that teachers do actually exert influence on student performance (Nolan & Hoover, 2010). Nevertheless, other studies have indicated that teachers vary in their effects on students learning process. Additionally, it has also been documented that most parents who enroll their children to school have recognized the effects of teachers on their children’s performance (Lissitz, 2005). In relation to academic performance, these studies have cited that effects of teachers play a greater role than effects emanating from socioeconomic status among other student’s background factors (Ballou, Sanders & Wright, 2004). Teacher’s effects are considered to be those differences between student’s achievements after being with the teacher in comparison with their achievements before being with the teacher or in another reasonable setting. VAM has also been viewed as a tool to progress teacher’s professionalism (Lissitz, 2005). In fact, for teachers who wish to advance their profession in the teaching practice, it has been argued that this model lays a solid foundation for them to test their capabilities. Since VAM requires that teachers exercise highest level of discipline and hard work, it is more likely that students would emulate teachers. They will not only improve their academic performance, but also improve their behaviors (Ballou, Sanders & Wright, 2004). In a broader sense, VAM tends to make teachers and school administrators accountable for their deeds, and this goes a long way to ensuring that school resources are utilized as required and that the administrators do not embezzle school funds (Schwab, 1991). As a result, studies indicates that a society with well educated persons experience immense developments ranging from both aspects of social and economic. Major concerns of value added model Nevertheless, a clear stipulation of the goal of the model is needed in order to differentiate the goal of improving student’s performance and to kick out underperforming teachers (Peterson, 2000). Another significant concern involves the issue of validity and amount of sampling error encountered during the estimates and rankings of teachers and schools. In any research, there is a need to consider consequences of the omitted variables that could end up affecting questions under investigation. Another major concern about the use of VAM is that it is possible that combining both teacher’s accountability and student’s performance on a single teacher poses formidable, difficult challenges (Lissitz, 2005). When it comes to performances, opponents of VAM argue that VAM would only work if teachers are subjected to advanced trainings and other developmental strategies. It is also argued that when teachers are confronted with evaluations that tend to jeopardize their career and salary, they may fail to reveal some of their weak areas that might require improvement (Nolan & Hoover, 2010). There are also deliberations that every teacher has his or her own self evaluation strategy, which is argued to be compromised when other evaluations are employed. For example, VAM results that tend to indicate that a teacher is underperforming would lead to a conflict between improving performance and weakness focus (Darmawan & Keeves, 2006). Such a teacher would tend to view himself as a failure, and this may disrupt efforts to improve. Besides, efforts to achieve improvements by use of accountability may cause tensions (Rubin, Stuart & Zanutto, 2004). Stressing on evaluation might also lead to teachers feeling insecure, and this may reduce their morale to improve on their weak areas. In contrast, teachers are ambitious about receiving social appreciation and recognition in their professional. Basically, it has been argued that any model of evaluation to be introduced to teachers should consist of the following characteristics: A non-threatening evaluation context- just like any other professional, teachers find it hard to perform as required if they are subjected to any form of evaluation that intimidate them (Rubin, Stuart & Zanutto, 2004). In most cases, this ends up creating more problems than the intended purpose. Such an evaluation creates a notion that if a teacher is evaluated and the results indicate he or she is not performing, the teacher is worthless. Collective objectives- teachers prefer an evaluation that would lead to cooperation among themselves. This should be an evaluation that calls for mutual culture where communication and feedback is used as a way of collectively improving each teacher’s performance (Rubin, Stuart & Zanutto, 2004). Simple evaluation models and instruments- evaluation that focuses on general performance of teachers and their way of carrying out teaching activities is more endorsed. This is arguably opted for because it involves evaluating teachers on issues limited to their capacities (Rubin, Stuart & Zanutto, 2004). A supportive school leadership- any other person feels comfortable working in an environment where there exists collaboration among workers and between workers and administrators. The same case applies to teachers. Opponents of VAM argue that using VAM as an evaluation model diminishes collaboration between teachers and the administrators (Rubin, Stuart & Zanutto, 2004). In this regard, opponents of VAM suggest that establishing effective teacher evaluation requires accuracy of measure of performance (Early, Imig & Michelli, 2010). Since no single study has elucidates a perfect evaluation model, they propose the use of self evaluation strategy. However, they argue that if VAM has to be applied, a proper definition of what is acceptable or critical needs to be spelled out (Lissitz, 2005). The fact that this model involves evaluating teachers on the student’s results creates an expansive concern on the grounds that student’s performance is as a result of the multitude of factors, which among them include socio-economic status of their families (Early, Imig & Michelli, 2010). They also argue that since teachers have their own needs that need feedback; therefore, any evaluation model should be developed in a manner that it would cater for those needs. There is also a concern about how VAD would evaluate teachers with contract and tenured ones. Given that VAM evaluates teacher’s performance based on what students had performed in other stages of learning before, this model may create a bias evaluation to such teachers. In fact, they argue that since academic performance has been found to be highly influenced by teachers’ leadership to their students, the best way to evaluate teachers is by focusing on their leadership style and traits, which is copied by students (Peterson, 2000). In this regard, any evaluation that tends to link student’s results and teacher’s evaluation should not be adopted and that the only evaluation that focuses on teacher’s leadership traits should be encouraged (Lissitz, 2005). It has also been argued that the surroundings in which students live in strongly determine their academic performance. Studies have researched and documented that Students from well up families performs better in academics than students from poor backgrounds (Ballou, Sanders & Wright, 2004). Therefore, teacher’s efforts to improve students from poor backgrounds may be fruitless unless something is done to improve their living standards. For example, students from poor backgrounds may find it difficult to concentrate in class especially if they are hungry. Others have health problems, which affects their learning process. In this regard, it is argued that VAM would be misjudging teacher’s contribution in the learning of such students (Schwab, 1991). It has been argued that subjecting teachers to VAM is a plot to violate their teaching policies. Opponents of VAM cite that student different intellectual capacities and that not all students can perform equally. It is also argued that new teachers may be assigned to schools with poor conditions, and changing the student’s culture may take quite a long time before students can catch up with other performing schools (Stronge & Tucker, 2003). VAM is argued not to take into considerations such circumstances, and as a consequence, teachers may end up being misevaluated in such situations (Schwab, 1991). Another issue concerns the so-called context effects. Although teachers play a part in influencing the performance of students, it is also apparent that student’s interaction with their peers considerably influences their academic performance (Peterson, 2000). Therefore, this means that student’s performance does not wholly depend on teacher’s contribution in the learning process. There are also evidenced research concerning the relationship between availability of resources in school and the academic performance of their students (Cater, 2004). Therefore, even with teacher’s hard work to improve performance of students, it would be impossible for students learning in a school with shortage or poor resources to perform well. School policies and the way schools are treated by the district also determine the outcomes of student’s results (Lissitz, 2005). Therefore, one would be correct to contend that it is not easy to separate the contribution of these factors in the performance of students in order to determine the contribution of teachers. There is also a concern about comparing teachers in a particular grade on the basis of their estimated effects. The assumption drawn by VAM is that all teachers have been assigned equivalent learning materials in the class and that student’s performance should not be different in any way. However, different teachers have different teaching strategies, which vary with the understanding capacity of students (Raudenbush & Willms, 1995). It has, however, been argued that since VAM system evaluates teacher’s performance by comparing their performance comparative to the other, it is possible that this may affect cooperation among teachers (Peterson, 2000). It has also been argued that when value-added model rewards school, this may create a “free rider” conflict, whereby teachers who have worked better than others feel that other teachers benefit from their hard work (Lissitz, 2005). Policymakers see VAM as a tool through which education can be improved by making teachers accountable for their work. However, questions have been asked concerning the effectiveness of VAM in relation to findings of VAM studies (Nolan & Hoover, 2010). Although VAM seems to carry prominent promises, if findings of their study are not well articulated upon, there is a likelihood of VAM misjudging the effectiveness of teachers, and this could create generalized teachers characteristics, thus hindering the primary effort to improve the quality of education. Unluckily, discussions regarding the use of VAM have been scraped by the fact that much of the progress of VAM discussions is hardly published. How has Race to the Top and FL Sente Bill 736 influenced policy on teacher evaluations? The state of Florida has adopted the VAM in the effort to evaluate its teachers as stipulated by the student success act (Senate Bill 736) and it’s Race to the Top proposal (RTTT) (Hayes, 2010). The state incorporated stakeholders known as Student Growth Implementation Committee (SGIC), to act as an evaluation committee, and whose mandate is to make a final recommendation regarding a specific VAM that go well with the needs of students and teachers (Moe, 2011). SGIC is composed of principals, teachers and parents, members of the school board, union representatives, and district administrators. The committee evaluated different models of evaluating teacher’s contribution to student’s performance. The committee recommended application of a specific model to the state commissioner of education (Hayes, 2010). The model adopted involves the process of statistically analyzing the scores of students score over a given period of time. The modeling separates unique factors attributed to student’s activities in the classroom (Raudenbush, & Willms, 1995). These factors are associated with teacher’s contribution, and are referred as teacher effect, which is thought to be related to student’s test score. However, all value added models use longitudinal, student-level data (Hayes, 2010). Nevertheless, different models make use of data in dissimilar ways. For example, a variable persistence model makes assumption concerning teacher’s contribution in prior years and compares it with current student’s performance. Such a model generalize that all students hold a set learning path relative to the mean outcomes of the current year. Studies have also shown that although prior year’s student performance can be used to determine teacher’s performance, it is argued that impact of prior year teachers lessens over time (Raudenbush & Willms, 1995). This means that the fact that last years, student’s performance was impacted by teacher’s contribution does not necessarily mean that the current and subsequent year’s performance will be impacted by the same teacher (Moe, 2011). The model implemented in Florida is a covariate adjustment model, whereby the same predictor variables are employed in all scores, both in math and reading (Hayes, 2010). One of these variables includes the number of subject courses in which the student is enrolled. In this variable, it is recognized that some students are enrolled in multiple causes. The other variable is disability status. This variable tends to provide information about the condition of disabled students. The concern is about whether the student have been receiving individual or specific education services as stipulated for specific disability (Raudenbush & Willms, 1995). There is also a variable about English language learner status. This variable indicates whether students have been enrolled in the English learner program for the required time, which in this case is two years (Xiaoxia, Darling-Hammond, Haertel, & Ewart, 2010). Attendance is also used as a variable, which is used to relate the outcomes of student’s results and the number of days present in school. Mobility is used to determine the number of schools students have attended within the same year (Xiaoxia, Darling-Hammond, Haertel, & Ewart, 2010). However, this model can not be able to differentiate factors emanating from school and factors associated with teacher’s contribution. It is also apparent that differentiating and determining the amount of growth for between different schools would not be possible as a result of dissimilarities quantity of growth exhibited by different schools (Hayes, 2010). Although this model has been endorsed in Florida, it has been noted that how school effect accredited back to teachers cannot be establish by use of value-added approach. However, there are school effects, which are also used to determine the score of students, but this is separately done from teacher’s effect (Stronge & Tucker, 2003). This includes school leadership and management and neighborhood effects. The use of teacher effect is referred to because it relates with a weighted mean of student, and this makes it easy to identify teachers with either positive value added effect or negative value added effect (Raudenbush, 2004). Teachers with positive value added effects are determined by the test score of students whose score is above average and teachers with a negative value added effects are determined by the student’s test scores whose score is below the average (Xiaoxia, Darling-Hammond, Haertel, & Ewart, 2010). In general, this model has indicated some fruits in Florida. Teachers who perform well in their subjects are given rewards, which acts as a motivation factor. In any given work place, employee’s motivation is a key asset to the organization (Hayes, 2010). The same case applies to teachers. When teachers and schools receive rewards, they tend to work harder, and this means that student’s performance is improved. However, this is supposed to be tackled with care so that the welfare of other teachers can be protected (Darmawan & Keeves, 2006). In most cases, when such rewards are offered to some teachers and others are left out, there is a risk of hindering advancement of teachers who underperform. It is also vital to be cautious about misuse of the meaning of rewards. Rewards are supposed to be used for a purpose of uplifting morale of teachers, and it should not form the basis of improving performance. Both students and teachers should understand that their performances should not rely on such factors and that it is an individual responsibility to work hard in order to emerge successful. This should also be taken seriously by schools administrators, their efforts to produce outstanding performance should be not related to rewards they receive. Conclusion The key players in the discussion about value-added model in evaluating teachers are people working in the education sector and who in one way or another tend to benefit or lose from value-added teacher evaluation. Value-added model of teaching is a method of teacher evaluation that gives an account of teacher’s contribution in terms of evaluating current school year test performances of students to performances of the same students in the previous year. The overall intention of this model is to encourage teachers work extra harder by incorporating different teaching strategies to improve achievement of both the students and the school. It has also been argued that results obtained from value- added can be used at school level to improve on different subjects and group of students depending on the level of weakness or strength. It has also been argued that value-added results can help create projections of the level of school performance, which can be used to determine required resources, decision making and planning. Value- added model also ensures that teachers are accountable for their teaching activities. However, a clear stipulation of the goal of the model is needed in order to differentiate the goal of improving student’s performance and to kick out underperforming teachers. One of the greatest concerns is about the validity and amount of sampling error encountered during the estimates and rankings of teachers and schools. It has also been argued that combining both teacher’s accountability and student’s performance on a single teacher poses serious, difficult challenges. Additionally, efforts to achieve improvements by use of accountability may cause tensions. Stressing on evaluation might also lead to teachers feeling insecure, and this may reduce their morale to improve on their weak areas. Opponents of VAM also argue that if VAM has to be applied, a proper definition of what is good or bad needs to be spelled out. There is also a concern about how VAD would evaluate teachers with contract and tenured ones. It has also been noted that the surroundings through which students live in strongly determines their academic performance. Therefore, it would be unrealistic to evaluate the student’s performance focusing only on teacher’s effect only. Evaluating new teachers assigned in poor performing schools may create a bias. Although teachers play a part in influencing the performance of students, it is also apparent that student’s interaction with their peers considerably influences their academic performance. Therefore, this means that student’s performance does not wholly depend on teacher’s contribution in the learning process. Availability of school resources also affects the student’s performance. It has, however, been argued that since VAM system evaluates teacher’s performance by comparing their performance relative to one another, it is possible that this may affect cooperation among teachers. The state of Florida has adopted the VAM in the effort to evaluate its teachers as stipulated by the student success act (Senate Bill 736) and it’s Race to the Top proposal (RTTT). The model adopted involves the process of statistically analyzing the scores of students score over a given period of time. However, opponents of this model argue that impact of prior year teachers lessens over time. The model implemented in Florida is a covariate adjustment model, whereby the same predictor variables are utilized in all grades, in both reading and math. Some of the variables included in this model include: the number of subject courses in which the student is enrolled, disability status, English language learner status, Attendance, and mobility. References: Ballou, D., Sanders, W & Wright, P. (2004). Controlling for Student Background in Value- Added Assessment of Teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics Spring, 29, 1: 37-65. Cater, R. (2004). An emphirical comparison of statistical models for value-added assessment of school performance. Journal of educational and behavioral statistics spring, 29, 1: 11-36. Darmawan, N. & Keeves, J. (2006). Accountability of teachers and schools: A value-added approach. International Education Journal, 7, 2: 174-188. Early, P., Imig, D & Michelli, N. (2010). Teacher education in the United States: Issues and tensions in an era of evolving expectations. New York. Routledge. Hayes, W. (2010). What’s ahead in education? An analysis of the policies of the Obama Administration. London: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Lissitz, R. (2005). Value added models in education: theory and applications. London: JAM Press. Moe, T. (2011). Special interest: teachers union and America’s public schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Nolan, J. & Hoover. (2010). Teacher supervision and evaluation: theory in to practice. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons. Peterson, K. (2000). Teacher evaluation: a comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. California: Corwin Press. Raudenbush, S & Willms, D. (1995). The Estimation of School Effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics Winter, 20, 4: 307-335. Raudenbush, S. (2004). What Are Value-Added Models Estimating and What Does This Imply for Statistical Practice? Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics Spring, 29, 1: 121–129. Rubin, D., Stuart, E. & Zanutto, E. (2004). A Potential Outcomes View of Value-Added Assessment in Education. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics Spring, 103–116. Schwab, R. (1991). Research-based teacher evaluation. Boston. Kluwer Academic. Stronge, J. & Tucker, P. (2003). Handbook on teacher evaluation: assessing and improving performance. New York: Eye on Education. Xiaoxia, N., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., & Ewart, T. (2010). Value-Added Modeling of Teacher Effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 23: 1-20. Read More