Value-Added Teacher (and School District) Evaluation

There was an interesting article in the Los Angeles Times recently about "value-added" teacher evaluation. Rather than just looking at raw scores, "value-added" tries to correct for things like economic status and other sociological factors.

This makes a lot of sense, particularly when you compare school performance in Rosemead. For example, although Rosemead School District students have a 1 to 4 percentage points higher proficiency rate than Garvey School District students on the standardized math and language tests, popular perception among involved parents is that the Garvey School District is better. And they're right.

Once you consider the higher "English learner" population in Garvey School District K-6 (51% on average, versus 44% in Rosemead School District), and the higher proportion of free or reduced lunch kids (82% in Garvey K-6 and and 85% in Garvey 7-8, versus 78% abd 75%, respectively, in Rosemead), the tiny (1 to 4% advantage) in proficiency scores in Rosemead is actually evidence of ineffective schools. Given the wealthier families and larger English-fluent student populations, Rosemead School District should really have a 7 to 10 percentage point advantage.

I thought the CA state

I thought the CA state assessment tests also took this into account in their scores.

I remember that Macy was doing ok with scores but they got knocked because the population wasn't doing so well compared to others in their income bracket.