Federal policy requirements drove growth modeling and teacher value-added evaluation under NCLB and RTTP¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoreticalr?·q1
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2020: baselines and conditions change
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.
q1 i? Modeling student growth was a federal policy requirement under NCLB, and RTTP stipulated evaluating teacher effectiveness from the perspective of added value teachers contribute to student learning and growth. → The effective use of student and school descriptive indicators of learning progress: From the conditional growth index to the learning productivity measurement system 2015
Evidence¶
The effective use of student and school descriptive indicators of learning progress: From the conditional growth index to the learning productivity measurement system 2015¶
The effective use of student and school descriptive indicators of learning progress: From the conditional growth index to the learning productivity measurement system. (2015). Value Added Modeling and Growth Modeling with Particular Application to Teacher and School Effectiveness, 237–269. https://www.nwea.org/research/publication/the-effective-use-of-student-and-school-descriptive-indicators-of-learning-progress-from-the-conditional-growth-index-to-the-learning-productivity-measurement-system/ doi:10.1108/978-1-62396-776-5
q1 · i? · theoretical · r?
The abstract states this policy context as background: NCLB required modeling student growth, and RTTP added evaluation of teacher effectiveness based on added value to student learning and growth. This is a policy statement, not an empirical finding.
"Modeling student growth has been a federal policy requirement under No Child Left Behind (NCLB). In addition to tracking student growth, the latest Race To The Top (RTTP) federal education policy stipulates the evaluation of teacher effectiveness from the perspective of added value that teachers contribute to student learning and growth."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Phase 1 of the Pennsylvania evaluation pilot produced value-added estimates of teacher and principal contributions to student achievement growth — related
- Mathematica developed and estimated VAMs for use in Phase 1 of the Pennsylvania evaluation pilot — related
- Most differences in evaluation scores between the Colorado Growth Model and value added are not related to the characteristics of students' teachers — related
- FFL evaluation scores are significantly and positively correlated with principals' contributions to student achievement (value-added) — related
- Teachers with higher Framework for Teaching scores tended to make larger contributions to student achievement (value added) — related
- Phase 1 of the Pennsylvania pilot examined whether teachers with higher classroom observation scores on specific professional practices tended to have greater value-added impacts on student achievement — related
- Using Colorado Growth Model growth percentiles in place of value added would have altered evaluation consequences for 14% of DCPS teachers — related
- There is little prior evidence on the validity of principal evaluation measures, and this is the first study linking practice ratings to credible value-added measures — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
federal-policy-growth-modeling-requirements-nclb-rttp |
title |
Federal policy requirements drove growth modeling and teacher value-added evaluation under NCLB and RTTP |
description |
Federal policy requirements drove growth modeling and teacher value-added evaluation under NCLB and RTTP |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
recheck_by |
2020 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-09 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — the-effective-use-of-student-and-school-descriptive-indicators-of-learning-progress-from-the-conditional-growth-index-to-the-learning-productivity-measurement-system-2015 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.