Teachers’ Perspectives on the Utility of Value-Added Measures for Formative and Summative Evaluation Purposes

• In Event: Value-Added Use: Applied Research to Inform Educational Practice and Policy

Abstract

Purpose

A group of high-needs school districts in one state have implemented the use of Student Growth Percentiles (SGP; Betebenner, 2011) for teacher evaluation purposes. For this study, researchers working alongside these districts collected feedback from the teachers regarding their perceptions of the use of these value-added measures.

Perspectives

Little is known about how teachers interpret and experience the implementation of value-added models for teacher evaluations. Scholars have warned against the unknown reliability and validity of value-added models for evaluating teachers (Martineau, 2006), but scant prior work has been done to examine teachers’ perspectives about using value-added data for teacher evaluation purposes (Collins, 2012). Given the goals (e.g., accountability) of the State Framework for Measuring Educator Effectiveness (State Department of Education, 2011), it is essential to understand teachers’ positions on using value-added data in such ways.

Methods

Researchers gathered feedback from 484 public school teachers (across 32 schools within 10 districts throughout the state) using an anonymous survey. Respondents reported a wide range of teaching experience and grade levels and content areas taught. Researchers employed descriptive statistics and methods of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to explore the survey data.

Results

Overall, teachers reported enthusiasm about the potential benefits of using value-added data for both formative and summative purposes (see Table 1).

However, given that participants had been exposed to the use of value-added for different periods of time, subgroups were analyzed based on year of implementation. Teachers who had been working with value-added data for longer periods of time expressed less agreement with the potential for value-added to help teachers improve their effectiveness than those less familiar with the data (see Table 2).

Given prior work illuminating the potential for resistance to organizational change among educators (Zimmerman, 2006), particularly more experienced educators (Greenberg & Baron, 2000; Robbins, 2000), the researchers investigated whether years of teaching experience were related to teachers’ opinions on value-added. A decomposition of subgroups based on teachers’ years of experience (Day & Gu, 2010) indicated that the least experienced teachers responded most favorably to both statements, while moderately and highly experienced teachers expressed less agreement (see Table 3).

Qualitative analyses suggested that teachers are in favor of using growth data, expressing statements like, “We see that students are growing and even if they don't gain in status they are learning…” However, there was a shared concern about the inability for many teachers to receive classroom-level value-added (i.e., K-2 teachers and non-tested content area teachers), which is consistent with a common critique of value-added models in general (Corcoran, 2010).

Significance

As policymakers push for the use of student growth data in teacher evaluations, it will benefit them to understand the ways in which teachers are reacting to the policy expectations. School administrators can also gain from such understandings to inform local decisions about and implementation strategies for such models. This study adds to the growing body of research on K-12 evaluation policy by offering an important insight into the controversial issue of value-added evaluation.

Authors

• Jessica Holloway, Kansas State University

• Sarah A. Polasky, Arizona State University