Of all of the methods to track students’ academic growth, the “value added” approach is probably the most appealing.
Growth models, and possibly the value added method, will certainly play an important role in NCLB’s future. But statisticians and education researchers are starting to question the value-added model’s accuracy and utility for making decisions on teacher pay and other important policies.
“If anybody’s going to be using these things for high-stakes policy decisions, we want to add a large grain of caution here,” Tim R. Sass, a Florida State University professor, tells my colleague Debra Viadero in Scrutiny Heightens for ‘Value Added’ Research Methods.
In ‘Value Added’ Pioneer Says Stinging Critique of Method Is Off-Base, William L. Sanders defends his method against the criticism.
Other NCLB stories in the May 7, 2008, issue of Education Week:
Reading First Doesn’t Help Pupils ‘Get It’ with my blog item and Sherman Dorn’s extended remarks saying I quoted him “slightly out of context”
Debate Emerges Over Proposed Rules on SES, Choice
Full Appeals Court to Reconsider Ruling That Revived NCLB Suit
