Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Complementary Research Methods for Educational Leadership and Policy Studies pp 213–230Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Value-Added and Growth Models in Education Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1691 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter describes commonly used value-added and growth models and discusses their strengths and weaknesses. Two basic types of value-added models and a basic type of growth model are discussed in relation to their ability to produce fair and error-free measures. There are several challenges to estimating these models, and the chapter covers key sources of bias and noise, as well as steps that can be taken to address both these potential problems. No one model is perfect, though some are clearly better than others for particular purposes. The chapter, through its discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, concludes with recommendations for modeling choices for various research objectives and policy goals, such as the evaluation of teachers or schools for accountability purposes or the evaluation of particular programs or other types of inputs for school improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    OLS regression estimates the conditional mean of a distribution. Quantile regression estimates conditional quantiles, such as the median or any other specific percentile.

  2. 2.

    Simulations represented in Table 11.2 assume geometric decay with λ = 0.50, as well as specific teacher effect sizes at 0.25 standard deviations in gain scores (see paper for details). 100 replications per scenario are used.

References

  • Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amerin-Beardsley, A. (2008). Methodological concerns about the education value-added assessment system (EVAAS). Educational Researcher, 37(2), 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballou, D., & Springer, M. G. (2015). Using student test scores to measure teacher performance: Some problems in the implementation of evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballou, D., Sanders, W., & Wright, P. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 37–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betebenner, D. W. (2011). A technical overview of the student growth percentile methodology: Student growth percentiles and percentile growth projections/trajectories. Technical report, The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, H. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models. Princeton: ETS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, D. C., & Weeks, J. P. (2009). The sensitivity of value-added modeling to the creation of a vertical score scale. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 384–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. The American Economic Review, 9, 2593–2632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Amrein-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. The Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieterle, S., Guarino, C., Reckase, M., & Wooldridge, J. (2015). How do principals assign students to teachers? Finding evidence in administrative data and the implications for value-added. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(1), 32–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehlert, M., Koedel, C., Parsons, E., & Podgursky, M. (2014). The sensitivity of value-added estimates to specification adjustments: Evidence from school- and teacher-level models in Missouri. Statistics and Public Policy, 1(1), 19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2013). Is it just a bad class? Assessing the long-term stability of estimated teacher performance. Economica, 80(319), 589–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D., Walch, J., & Gabele, B. (2014). Does the model matter? Exploring the relationship between different student achievement-based teacher assessments. Statistics and Public Policy, 1(1), 28–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, C., Maxfield, M., Reckase, M., Thompson, P., & Wooldridge, J. (2015). An evaluation of empirical Bayes’ estimation of value-added teacher performance measures. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40, 190–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, C., Reckase, M., Stacy, B., & Wooldridge, J. (2015). A comparison of growth percentile and value-added models of teacher performance. Statistics and Public Policy, 2(1), e1034820. https://doi.org/10.1080/2330443X.2015.1034820.

  • Guarino, C., Reckase, M., Stacy, B., & Wooldridge, J. (2015). Evaluating specification tests in the context of value-added models of teacher performance. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(1), 35–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarino, C., Reckase, M., & Wooldridge, J. (2015). Can value-added measures of teacher performance be trusted? Education Finance and Policy, 10(1), 117–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. The American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 100(2), 267–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isenberg, E., & Walsh, E. (2015). Accounting for co-teaching: A guide for policymakers and developers of value-added models. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(1), 112–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. T., Lipscomb, S., & Gill, B. (2015). Sensitivity of teacher value-added estimates to student and peer control variables. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(1), 60–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedel, C., & Betts, J. (2009). Value-added to what? How a ceiling in the testing instrument influences value-added estimation, Working Paper 14778, National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koedel, C., & Betts, J. R. (2011). Does student sorting invalidate value-added models of teacher efectiveness? An extended analysis of the Rothstein critique. Education, 6(1), 18–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martineau, J. (2006). Distorting value added: The use of longitudinal, vertically scaled student achievement data for growth-based, value-added accountability. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(1), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffrey, D. F., Sass, T. R., Lockwood, J., & Mihaly, K. (2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 572–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, R. (2000). Value-added indicators: A powerful tool for evaluating science and mathematics programs and policies. NISE Brief, 3(3), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monk, D. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary math and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papay, J. P. (2011). Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 163–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, S., & Raudenbush, S. (2009). Key issues in value-added modeling. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 492–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sass, T., Semykina, A., & Harris, D. (2014). Value-added models and the measurement of teacher productivity. Economics of Education Review, 38, 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schochet, P. Z., & Chiang, H. S. (2013). What are error rates for classifying teacher and school performance using value-added models? Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38(2), 142–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stacy, B., Guarino, C., & Wooldridge, J. (2018). Does the precision and stability of value-added estimates of teacher performance depend on the types of students they serve? Economics of Education Review, 64, 50–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, M. P., & Donaldson, M. L. (2016). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and Policy, 11, 340–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, P. E., & Wolpin, K. I. (2003). On the specification and estimation of the production function for cognitive achievement. The Economic Journal, 113(485), F3–F33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Education and School of Public Policy, University of California Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA

    Cassandra M. Guarino

Authors
  1. Cassandra M. Guarino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cassandra M. Guarino .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Chad R. Lochmiller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Guarino, C.M. (2018). Value-Added and Growth Models in Education Research. In: Lochmiller, C. (eds) Complementary Research Methods for Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93539-3_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93539-3_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93538-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93539-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation