Most differences in evaluation scores between the Colorado Growth Model and value added are not related to the characteristics of students' teachers¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr?·q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2018: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Differences in evaluation scores between the two methods are mostly unrelated to teacher characteristics. → Elias Walsh 2015
Evidence¶
Elias Walsh 2015¶
Elias Walsh, Eric Isenberg. (2015). How Does Value Added Compare to Student Growth Percentiles? Statistics and Public Policy, vol. 2, issue 1. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/how-does-value-added-compare-to-student-growth-percentiles doi:10.1080/2330443x.2015.1034390
q2 · i? · associational · r?
Analysis of DCPS evaluation scores across the two methods for all teachers and teacher subgroups finds that "Most differences in evaluation scores based on the two methods are not related to the characteristics of students’ teachers."
"Most differences in evaluation scores based on the two methods are not related to the characteristics of students’ teachers."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Using the Colorado Growth Model in place of a value-added model increases evaluation scores for teachers of low-achieving students — related
- Using the Colorado Growth Model in place of a value-added model depresses evaluation scores for teachers with more English language learner students — related
- The paper tests two previously unevaluated VAM model variations: teacher-year level average peer characteristics and demographic variation in the lagged-achievement relationship — related
- Using Colorado Growth Model growth percentiles in place of value added would have altered evaluation consequences for 14% of DCPS teachers — related
- The working paper examines the sensitivity and precision of teacher value-added estimates under specifications differing in student-level, peer-level, and double-lagged achievement controls — related
- Federal policy requirements drove growth modeling and teacher value-added evaluation under NCLB and RTTP — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
cgm-value-added-differences-unrelated-to-teacher-characteristics |
title |
Most differences in evaluation scores between the Colorado Growth Model and value added are not related to the characteristics of students' teachers |
description |
Most differences in evaluation scores between the Colorado Growth Model and value added are not related to the characteristics of students' teachers |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
recheck_by |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — elias-walsh-2015 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.