## Another Study Showing that VAM is Bogus and Unstable

Here is another study that shows that Value-Added measurements for teachers are extremely unstable over time. It’s by one Mercedes K. Schneider, and it was done for Louisiana. You can read all of the details yourself. Here I am going to reproduce a couple of the key tables:

and I also quote some of her explanation:

“Each number in the table is a percentage of teachers in the study/actual number of teachers who were first ranked one way using 2008-09 student test scores (reading to the left) then ranked either the same way (bolded diagonal) or a different way (all numbers not bolded) using 2009-10 student test scores (reading at the top). For example, the percentage 4.5% (23 teachers) in Table 6 (immediately above this text) represents the percentage of ELA teachers originally ranked in 2008-09 in the top 91-99% (reading to the left) but reranked in 2009-10 in the bottom 1-10% (reading at the top of the column) given that the teachers changed nothing in their teaching.
.
“Thus, these two tables represent how poorly the standardized tests classify teachers (2008-09) then reclassify teachers (2009-10) into their original rankings. Tables 5 and 6 are a test of the consistency of using standardized tests to classify teachers. It is like standing on a bathroom scale; reading your weight; stepping off (no change in your weight); then, stepping on the scale again to determine how consistent the scale is at measuring your weight. Thus, if the standardized tests are stable (consistent) measures, they will reclassify teachers into their original rankings with a high level of accuracy. This high level of accuracy is critical if school systems are told they must use standardized tests to determine employment and merit pay decisions. I have bolded the cells on the diagonals of both tables to show just how unstable these two standardized tests are at classifying then correctly reclassifying teachers. If the iLEAP and LEAP-21 were stable, then the bolded percentages on the diagonals of both tables would be very high, almost perfect (99%).
.
“Here is what we see from the diagonal in Table 5:
.
“If a math teacher is originally ranked as the lowest, without altering his or her teaching, the teacher will likely be re-ranked in the lowest category only 26.8% of the time. Conversely, without altering his/her teaching, a math teacher ranked as the highest would likely be re-ranked in the highest group only 45.8% of the time even if she/he continued to teach the same way. (…)
“A math teacher originally ranked in the highest category will be re-ranked in the middle category 35.1% of the time and re-ranked in the lowest category 1.8% of the time. These alterations in ranking are out of the teacher’s control and do not reflect any change in teaching. Even though 1.8% might seem low, notice that in the study alone, this represented 8 math teachers, 8 real human beings, who could potentially lose their jobs and face the stigma of being labeled “low
performers.”
.
“As we did for Table 5, let’s consider the diagonal for Table 6:
.
“If an ELA teacher is originally ranked as the lowest, without altering his or her teaching, the teacher will likely be re-ranked in the lowest category only 22.3% of the time. Conversely, without altering his/her teaching, an ELA teacher ranked as the highest would likely be re-ranked in the highest group only 37.5% of the time even if she/he continued to teach the same way.  (…)
.
“An ELA teacher originally ranked in the highest category will be re-ranked in the middle category 37.1% of the time and re-ranked in the lowest category 4.5% of the time. These alterations in ranking are out of the teacher’s control and do not reflect any change in teaching.
.
“Even though 4.5% might seem low, notice that in the study alone, this represented 23 ELA teachers who could potentially lose their jobs and face the stigma of being labeled “low performers.” “
———–