-
Value-‐Added Assessments in Educa1on
1
Assess Actual Achievement
Determine Average Achievement for
Students with Similar Prior Test
Scores
and Key Factors
Compare Actual Achievement to
Average Results for Students with
Similar
Scores and Factors
Provide the Informa1on to Responsible
Educators and Leadership
-
400 350 300
250 200
Current Year Score
How would you evaluate these
scores?
Who had the “beQer” year?
-
400 350 300
250 200
Current Year Score
How would you evaluate these
scores?
Who had the “beQer” year?
Scores for students like these
students
-
200
250
300
350
400
3rd 4th 5th 6th -‐ predicted
Scores
Grade
Two Students’ Data
This is how things typically turn
out.
4
-
400 350 300
250 200
Current Score this
year
Which student had the “beQer” year
this school year?
Prior Score 3 years
Prior Score 2 years
Prior Score 1 year
-
Average Outcome
This is an example of outcomes
for a student, not actual
data.
Student & Teacher Achievement Result
Actual Achievement
Mathema1cs ELA Science Social
Studies
Mathema1cs
300
Average Outcome 315
300
285
Prior Year Scores Above Average
Outcome
Below Average Outcome
An Illustra1on of Value-‐Added
Assessment
6
300 285 305 310
-
250
300
350
Predicted Actual
Test Scores
Test Outcomes
Part of One Class’ Outcomes
What Does This Look Like for
a Class?
7
-
v Prior achievement on State
Assessments (ELA, Reading, MathemaGcs,
Science, Social Studies)
v Student AIendance v Disability Status
(EmoGonal Disturbance, Speech and
Language, Mild
Mental Disability, Specific Learning
Disability, Other Health Impairment,
Other)
v GiPed Status v SecGon 504 Status
v Free Lunch Status v Reduced
Lunch Status v Discipline Record
from prior school year v Limited
English Proficiency
Note: Value-‐Added Assessment is
Based on a Mathema=cal Model
that Determines How Much Each
Factor Contributes to Es=ma=ng
Expected Student Achievement. By Far,
the Strongest Predictor is Prior
Achievement.
Variables in Louisiana’s Model:
What Informa1on is Used to
Evaluate Achievement?
8
-
q Class composiGon can make a
difference in how challenging a
group of students is to teach
q This is accounted for by
including the variables below:
v Percentage of students receiving free
lunch v Students’ mean prior
achievement in that content area
v Percentage of students in special
educaGon v Average number of days
students were suspended
What Classroom Informa1on is Used?
9
-
10
Students are Included in the
Assessment if……
v Prior Achievement Data are
Available
v AIended School for a Full
Year or
Course in the case or EOCs
v Take the Regular State
Assessment v If a Teacher
Agrees They Taught that Student
Students are Excluded from the
Assessment if…….
v No Prior Achievement Data is
Available
v Moved During the School Year
(from
teacher’s class)
v Take an AlternaGve State
Assessment
v Having excessive absences
Which Students are Included in
Louisiana’s Value-‐Added Assessments?
-
Value-‐Added ConsideraGons
11
Are teachers of students with high
or low prior achievement
disadvantaged in value added
assessment?
2013-‐14 Data.
• Bias would be evident if there
is a significant correlaGon between
prior achievement and VAM results
There is essen)ally no rela)onship
between students’ prior achievement
and teacher VAM results. This
test shows no bias. Note:
A posiGve relaGonship would indicate
a bias towards teachers with
low performing students, a negaGve
relaGonship would indicate a bias
towards teachers with high performing
students, and a zero relaGonship
would indicate no bias.
Content Area for Teachers Correla1on
ELA -‐0.016
Math -‐.001
-
Value-‐Added ConsideraGons
12
Are teachers with high percentages
students who scored Mastery or
Advanced rated differently than other
teachers?
In 2012-‐13 and 2013-‐14, the
percentage of teachers rated “highly
effecGve” and “effecGve: proficient,”
who had at least 75% of
students at Advanced or Mastery
on state assessments, was comparable
to the state average.
8% 10% 9% 9%
40% 44%
41% 42%
34% 30% 32% 29%
19% 16% 18%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
State Average (VAM) (2012-‐13)
75% of students Advanced or
Mastery (VAM) (2012-‐13)
State Average (TSG) (2013-‐14)
75% of students Advanced or
Mastery
(TSG) (2013-‐14)
IneffecGve
EffecGve: Emerging
EffecGve: Proficient
Highly EffecGve
-
Value-‐Added ConsideraGons
13
To what degree do teacher ra1ngs
on value-‐added “bounce around”?
The majority of teacher raGngs
were the same or within one
level (91%) on value-‐added/transiGonal
student growth between 2012-‐13 and
2013-‐14.
• Teachers rated “ineffecGve” or
“highly effecGve”: Less than 1%
of all teachers with transiGonal
student growth data moved from
“highly effecGve” to “ineffecGve” and
vise versa.
47%
44%
9%
>1% Value-‐added/Transi1onal Student
Growth Ra1ng Changes (2012-‐13 to
2013-‐14)
Same RaGng
One Level Change
Two Level Change
Three Level Change