human capital

Wide margins of error, instability on city's value-added reports

Some English Language Arts teachers received high "value-added" scores in 2007 but much lower scores in 2008.

The value-added reports meant to measure city teachers’ effectiveness have wide margins of error and give judgments that fluctuate — sometimes wildly — from one year to the next, a new analysis finds.

Schools Chancellor Joel Klein has instructed principals to use the Teacher Data Reports as one way to decide which teachers should receive tenure. Teachers who teach English or math to students in grades three through eight receive the reports.

The NYU economist Sean Corcoran found that 31 percent of English teachers who ranked in the bottom quintile of teachers in 2007 had jumped to one of the top two quintile by 2008. About 23 percent of math teachers made the same jump.

There was an overall correlation between how a teacher scored from one year to the next, and for some teachers, the measurement was more stable. Of the math teachers who ranked in the top quintile in 2007, 40 percent retained that crown in 2008.

The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, which has a history of criticizing the Bloomberg administration, published Corcoran’s findings, which were part of a wider look at the practice of assigning “value-added” scores to teachers based on their students’ test scores.

The analysis explains the difference between what value-added scores of teachers aim to do and what value-added measurements actually do in practice. The dream is to isolate the effect of a teacher on students’ performance from the effect of everything else; the reality is that the measures approximate that isolated effect with statistics, weak tests, and small sample sizes.

Corcoran offers some praise. “The simple fact that teachers and principals are receiving regular and timely feedback on their students’ achievement is an accomplishment in and of itself, and it is hard to argue that stimulating conversation around improving student achievement is not a positive thing,” he writes. “But,” he writes,

teachers, policymakers, and school leaders should not be seduced by the elegant simplicity of “value-added.”

The weaknesses of value-added detailed in the report include:

  • the fact that value-added scores are inherently relative, grading teachers on a curve — and thereby rendering the goal of having only high value-added teachers “a technical impossibility,” as Corcoran writes
  • the interference of imperfect state tests, which, when swapped with other assessments, can make a teacher who had looked stellar suddenly look subpar
  • and the challenge of truly eliminating the influence of everything else that happens in a school and a classroom from that “unique contribution” by the teacher

Another challenge for the teachers and principals charged with using value-added scores for self-improvement is the uncertainty about what each individual teacher’s score actually is. On each teacher’s report, the city pinpoints the percentile ranking that represents how she compares to other teachers of the same subject and grade.

But while this is the ranking that the teacher most likely holds, it’s far from 100 percent certain. Indeed, the economists who make value-added scores can only be very certain that the teacher falls somewhere on a range of percentiles (and even getting that cautious, they’re still only 95 percent certain). This range, as you might remember from statistics, is called the “confidence interval.”

For most teachers, the confidence interval is at least 30 percentage points long. For math and English teachers with only one year’s worth of data, the average length is over 60 percentage points. That’s a range of, for instance, between the 10th and 70th percentile of teachers.

The average confidence intervals that Corcoran reports are in the chart below. You can see that, because the confidence intervals shrink as the sample size grows, they are longest when only a year’s worth of data is available.

Teachers in the Bronx face the least certainty. Corcoran guesses that this is because their students are the most likely not to be measured, thereby lowering the data pool — either because the students are classified as special ed or English language learners, and don’t take the state test, or because the students move from year to year, making data about their growth over time harder to come by.

picture-311

The full report is here and below.
The Use of Value-Added Measures of Teacher Effectiveness in Policy and Practice

early dismissals

Top Newark school officials ousted in leadership shake-up as new superintendent prepares to take over

PHOTO: Patrick Wall
Incoming Newark Public Schools Superintendent Roger León

Several top Newark school officials were given the option Friday to resign or face termination, in what appeared to be an early move by incoming Superintendent Roger León to overhaul the district’s leadership.

The shake-up includes top officials such as the chief academic officer and the head of the district’s controversial enrollment system, as well as lower-level administrators — 31 people in total, according to documents and district employees briefed on the overhaul. Most of the officials were hired or promoted by the previous two state-appointed superintendents, Cami Anderson and Christopher Cerf, a sign that León wants to steer the district in a new direction now that it has returned to local control.

The officials were given the option to resign by Tuesday and accept buyouts or face the prospect of being fired by the school board at its meeting that evening. The buyouts offer a financial incentive to those who resign voluntarily on top of any severance included in their contracts. In exchange for accepting the buyouts, the officials must sign confidentiality agreements and waive their right to sue the district.

Earlier this week, León submitted a list of his choices to replace the ousted cabinet-level officials, which the board must approve at its Tuesday meeting. It’s not clear whether he has people lined up to fill the less-senior positions.

It’s customary for incoming superintendents to appoint new cabinet members and reorganize the district’s leadership structure, which usually entails replacing some personnel. However, many staffers were caught off guard by Friday’s dismissals since León has given little indication of how he plans to restructure the central office — and he does not officially take the reins of the district until July 1.

A district spokeswoman and the school board chair did not immediately respond to emails on Friday about the shake-up.

Some staffers speculated Friday that the buyout offers were a way for León to replace the district’s leadership without securing the school board’s approval because, unlike with terminations, the board does not need to sign off on resignations. However, it’s possible the board may have to okay any buyout payments. And it could also be the case that the buyouts were primarily intended to help shield the district from legal challenges to the dismissals.

León was not present when the staffers learned Friday afternoon that they were being let go, the employees said. Instead, the interim superintendent, Robert Gregory, and other top officials broke the news, which left some stunned personnel crying and packing their belongings into boxes. They received official separation letters by email later that day.

The people being ousted include Chief Academic Officer Brad Haggerty and Gabrielle Ramos-Solomon, who oversees enrollment. Also included are top officials in the curriculum, early childhood, and finance divisions, among others, according to a list obtained by Chalkbeat.

In addition to the 31 being pushed out, several assistant superintendents are being demoted but will remain in the district, according to the district employees.

There was concern among some officials Friday about whether the turnover would disrupt planning for the coming school year.

“I don’t know how we’re going to open smoothly with cuts this deep,” one of the employees said. “Little to no communication was provided to the teams about what these cuts mean for the many employees who remain in their roles and need leadership guidance and direction Monday morning.”

D.C.

What you should know about the White House’s proposal to merge the education department into a new agency

PHOTO: Gabriel Scarlett/The Denver Post

The White House is proposing the federal education department merge with the labor department to form the Department of Education and the Workforce, officials announced Thursday.

It’s an eye-catching plan, given how relatively rare changes to the Cabinet are and the current prominence of Betsy DeVos, the current head of the education department who has proven deeply unpopular with educators since her confirmation hearings last year. Education Week first reported the proposed merger on Wednesday.

Here’s what we know so far about what’s going on and why it matters.

The news

The Trump administration announced a big-picture government reorganization Thursday, and the education-labor merger is one part of that.

The new department will have four main sub-agencies: K-12; higher education and workforce development; enforcement; and research, evaluation and administration.

It comes after DeVos proposed acquiring programs from the labor department that have to do with educational programs for unemployed adult workers, reintegrating ex-prisoners, and “out-of-school” youth, according to the New York Times.

The two departments already work together on some adult education and vocational training programs, according to the the Wall Street Journal. In an interview with the Associated Press, director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney said that there are currently 40 different job training programs spread over 16 agencies. This merger would be one attempt to change that.

DeVos said she supports the plan.

“This proposal will make the federal government more responsive to the full range of needs faced by American students, workers, and schools. I urge Congress to work with the Administration to make this proposal a reality,” DeVos said in a statement.

The implications for K-12 education

Today, the department distributes K-12 education money and enforces civil rights laws. It’s small for a federal agency, at 3,900 employees. On a symbolic level, a merged department would be de-emphasizing education.

The existing set of offices overseeing K-12 education would move into the new agency, according to the document, which says those offices will be “improved” but not how.

The education department’s Office of Civil Rights will become a part of the new department’s “enforcement” sub-agency.

The plan doesn’t mention any cuts to the agency or its offices, though Secretary DeVos has proposed cuts in the past.

Why this might not happen

The proposal would require congressional approval, which will likely be a difficult battle. Past attempts to eliminate the Department of Education in the 1980s and 1990s didn’t gain any traction, and both lawmakers and unions have expressed skepticism toward the new plan.

Sen. Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat on the Senate labor and education committee, quickly put out a statement criticizing the plan.

“Democrats and Republicans in Congress have rejected President Trump’s proposals to drastically gut investments in education, health care, and workers — and he should expect the same result for this latest attempt to make government work worse for the people it serves,” she said