Two scholars take aim at the final results from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Measures of Effective Teaching project in a new report, saying the data offer little insight into how teacher-evaluation systems should be structured.
The massive MET study concluded early this year, with Gates officials recommending that districts use a combination of a “value added” measure, classroom observations, and student surveys to evaluate teachers. Through a random-assignment component, the study also found that indicators based heavily on value-added calculations accurately predicted future teacher performance.
But Jesse Rothstein and William J. Mathis, writing for the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, argue that large rates of noncompliance with that part of the study and problems with the comparison groups mean the results can’t be generalized to teachers at large.
