Resolving Some Issues in Using Value-Added Measures of Productivity for School and Teacher Incentives: Ideas from Technical Assistance and TIF Grantee Experience. The Harvesting Project

Autor/in	Milanowski, Anthony
Institution	Center for Educator Compensation Reform (CECR)
Titel	Resolving Some Issues in Using Value-Added Measures of Productivity for School and Teacher Incentives: Ideas from Technical Assistance and TIF Grantee Experience. The Harvesting Project
Quelle	(2011), (20 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Teaching (Occupation); Teacher Evaluation; Teacher Effectiveness; Incentives; Measures (Individuals); Productivity; Models; Program Effectiveness; Educational Testing; Achievement Gains; Educational Improvement; Compensation (Remuneration); Educational Change; Technical Assistance; Teacher Student Relationship; Scores; Research Methodology + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Teaching; Lehrberuf; Teacher appraisal; Lehrerbeurteilung; Effectiveness of teaching; Instructional effectiveness; Lehrerleistung; Unterrichtserfolg; Anreiz; Messdaten; Produktivität; Analogiemodell; Achievement gain; Leistungssteigerung; Teaching improvement; Unterrichtsentwicklung; Abfindung; Kompensation; Lohnausgleich; Bildungsreform; Technische Hilfe; Teacher student relationships; Lehrer-Schüler-Beziehung; Research method; Forschungsmethode
Abstract	Although many researchers and policy analysts (e.g., Harris, Glazerman et al., 2011; 2010) consider value-added to be the state of the art in school and teacher productivity measurement, only a minority of Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Round 1 and 2 grantees used value-added as a measure of school or teacher performance. Fourteen of the 34 grantees proposed to use school-level value-added and were using this for the 2009-10 school year. Thirteen proposed to use classroom value-added, but in the 2009-10 school year, only 10 did so. Why did more grantees not use value added? The author and his colleagues found in their initial harvesting work that one of the main reasons for this was lack of appropriate administrative databases with links between teachers and students (Milanowski, Witham, Schuermann, Kimball, & Pietryka, 2010). Watson, Witham, and St. Louis (2010) discuss this issue in the companion Harvesting Project paper (2010). But there were other difficulties as well, including limited grantee capacity to develop and run complex value-added models, low buy-in from some stakeholders, schools or districts too small to develop meaningful value-added estimates, perceived lack of compatibility with state Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) models or accountability systems, and simply a lack of comfort with the complexity of the technology needed to operate a performance-based compensation system (PBCS). In order to assist those who might be thinking about using value-added productivity measures as part of a PBCS, this harvesting paper discusses four barriers TIF 1 and 2 grantees have encountered and how they were addressed: (1) Concerns about the "right" value-added model; (2) Uncertainty of value-added estimates for smaller schools and classrooms; (3) Applying value-added when there are very few schools or classrooms to compare; and (4) Setting appropriate cutoffs for bonus payments. (Contains 2 tables and 13 footnotes.) (ERIC).
Anmerkungen	Center for Educator Compensation Reform. Tel: 888-202-1513; e-mail: cecr@westat.com; Web site: http://cecr.ed.gov
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10