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