Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ed L's avatar

I completely agree that relying on VAM for teacher evaluation was a huge mistake. It was a very complicated, black-box model that very few people truly understood, and, as you mention, it could only be used in certain content areas and grade levels. It also failed to provide teachers with any useful data to act upon in terms of improving their practice. I also think some of the researchers using VAM made some questionable interpretations of their results or failed to consider the limitations of the data. For instance, a consensus arose among some researchers and reformers that teacher effectiveness plateaus very quickly and almost all of the improvement in teachers' ability to raise test scores happens in the first two years. Thus, perhaps policy should focus on weeding out ineffective novice teachers (and perhaps even loosening entry requirements to increase the supply, as long as you used VAM to weed out the ineffective ones and keep the effective ones). What researchers didn't consider enough was that their data reflected the existing (and historical) quality of professional development and support for teachers and teaching in schools and districts. If the average quality of PD was pretty bad (which is often was) and most schools and districts weren't organized to adequately support and develop novice teachers (which they mostly weren't), then of course many novices' teaching skills would plateau early after all the benefits of individual trial and error was exhausted. And this would be reflected in the data researchers analyzed. What researchers and reformers failed to consider was the role organizational context played in teacher's student outcomes, often attributing VAM scores solely to individual ability. And years later, John Papay and Matt Kraft at Brown have shown that this consensus was off. Teachers can continue to improve for many years, and this improvement varies according to how supportive their school contexts are. I use this extended example to make the larger point that while reformers often based their proposals on research, they sometimes did not think critically enough about the findings (or their assumptions) and were quick to brush off many of the issues and concerns raised by teachers and other practitioners. This idea that teachers only improve in the first two years or so did not pass the smell test for anyone who had ever taught.

Expand full comment
Adam's avatar

What a great read! I've long heard those behind this movement have talked about its shortcoming. Two things:

One, at my first school, I made the rookie mistake of questioning how we prepared students for the state test. I pointed out failings in administrative policy and tried suggesting better methods. The result? I was observed with the worst students and a single evaluation became fuel to push me out the door.

(There's so much more to tell here, but as they say, sometimes it's best to keep your behind in the past.)

Two, at my current school (which I love), there was a rumor that too many teachers were getting "highly effective." And that costs money, you know. The result? I've been less than 0.10 under the line for *YEARS*. And I really don't care. Like "Office Space," I just don't want to be fired. But this year, despite filling a room at a national teaching conference, I doubt I'll get that magical "highly effective" rating.

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts