Abstract
Student growth measures (SGMs) were introduced as a remedy for the technical problems and fairness issues linked to status measures such as percent proficient. However, extensive research and painful experience has yielded insights and evidence that call into question the promise of greater fairness. This chapter provides a critical discussion of—and elaboration on—four chapters in the present volume that apply different perspectives on the use of SGM in high-stakes settings. In addition to the expected technical and validity concerns, they also introduce ethical and legal considerations that, heretofore, have not been accorded adequate attention. The four chapters, together with the discussion, offer a sobering analysis of how SGM can undermine—rather than enhance—fairness in school and educator evaluations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Baker, E. L., & Linn, R. L. (2004). Validity issues for accountability systems. In S. H. Fuhrman & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bennett, R. E. (2010). Cognitively based assessment of, for, and as learning: A preliminary theory of action for summative and formative assessment. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 8, 70–91.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2013, January 8). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET project’s three-year study. Seattle, WA.
Bird, S., Cox, D., Farewell, V., Goldstein, H., Holt, T., & Smith, P. (2005). Performance indicators: Good, bad, ugly. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 168(1), 1–27.
Braun, H., & Kanjee, A. (2006). Using assessment to improve education in developing nations. In J. E. Cohen, D. E. Bloom, & M. B. Malin (Eds.), Educating all children: A global agenda. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Educational Researcher. (March, 2015). Special issue: Value-added meets the schools: The effects of using test-based teacher evaluation on the work of teachers and leaders. 44(2), 71–141.
Hargreaves, A., & Braun, H. (2013). Data-driven improvement and accountability policy brief. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
Harris, D. (2007). The promises and pitfalls of alternative teacher compensation approaches. East Lansing, MI: The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Retrieved from http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Harris_Merit%20Pay.pdf
Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L, & Umlan, K. (2011, June). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794-831. doi:10.3102/0002831210387916
Holland, P. (1986). Statistics and causal inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81(396), 945–960.
Hu, J. (2015). Teacher evaluation based on an aspect of classroom practice and on student achievement: A relational analysis between student learning objectives and value-added modeling (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Boston College Dissertation Database. (Accession No. 201511128).
Johnson, S. M. (2015). Will VAMS reinforce the walls of the egg-crate school? [Special issue]. Educational Researcher, 44, 117–126.
Keegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Marion, S., & Buckley, K. (2015). Design and implementation considerations of performance-based and authentic assessments for use in accountability systems. In H. Braun (Ed.), The challenges to measurement in an era of accountability. NewYork, NY: Routledge.
McElroy, M. (2011, October 7). Babies show sense of fairness, altruism as early as 15 months. UW Today. Retrieved August 7, 2015 from http://www.washington.edu/news/2011/10/07/babies-show-sense-of-fairness-altruism-as-early-as-15-months/
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–104). New York, NY: American Council on Education/Macmillan.
National Research Council. (2010). Getting value out of value-added: Report of a workshop. Braun, H., Chudowsky, N. & Koenig, J. (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://216.78.200.159/Documents/RandD/Other/Getting%20Value%20out%20of%20Value-Added.pdfhttp://216.78.200.159/
National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education. Hout, M. & Elliott, S. (Eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Rothstein, J. (2009). Student sorting and bias in value-added estimation: Selection on observables and unobservables. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 537–571.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Braun, H. (2016). Section II Discussion: Student Growth Measures in Evaluation: Illusions of Fairness?. In: Kappler Hewitt, K., Amrein-Beardsley, A. (eds) Student Growth Measures in Policy and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53901-4_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53901-4_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-53900-7
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53901-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)