Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers. EPI Briefing Paper #278.

By Eva L. Baker, Paul E. Barton, linDa Darling-HammonD, Edward H. Haertel, Helen F. Ladd, Robert L. Linn, Diane Ravitch, Richard Rothstein, R. Shavelson, L. Shepard. 2010

152 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/08e0ec5c375f51d589f8a74fd0764d088527ee72

Citations in the corpus

• Leaving the teaching profession: The role of teacher stress and educational accountability policies on turnover intent (2017, unknown): “The practice of measuring teaching quality through student performance on standardized assessments has become standard practice in school districts across the United States (Baker et al., 2010).”
• The New Educational Accountability: Understanding the Landscape of Teacher Evaluation in the Post-NCLB Era (2016, unknown): “The drawbacks of such measures, including their instability and limited usefulness for new teachers, have also been documented (see, e.g., Baker et al. 2010; Papay 2011).”
• Classroom observation for evaluating and improving teaching: An international perspective (2016, unknown): “…effectiveness, a great deal of attention and discussion among educators, statisticians, and policymakers has focused on the use of aggregates of student achievement to evaluate teachers, typically through so-called Value Added Models, or VAMs (for reviews see e.g. Baker et al., 2010; Braun, 2005).”
• Teacher stress, teaching-efficacy, and job satisfaction in response to test-based educational accountability policies (2016, unknown): “However, teaching effectiveness may not be accurately reflected in student test performance (Baker et al., 2010) given susceptibility to outside variables such as student attendance and psychosocial variables (Corcoran, 2010).”
• Value-added modeling: A review (2015, unknown): “…prominent are (1) value-added estimates may be biased (Baker et al., 2010; Paufler & Amrein-Beardsley, 2014; Rothstein, 2009, 2010), and (2) value-added estimates seem too unstable to be used for high-stakes personnel decisions (Baker et al., 2010; Newton, Darling-Hammond, Haertel, & Thomas, 2010).”
• Teacher Evaluation Policy and Conflicting Theories of Motivation (2014, unknown): “The literature on measuring teacher quality is growing substantially (Baker et al., 2010; Bell, 2012; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2013; Curtis, 2012; Hill et al., 2011).”