The Full Roster Method effectively counts co-taught students more than once in value-added calculations¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr?·q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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? Under the Full Roster Method, co-taught students receive a full weight with each of their teachers, so such students receive extra weight when calculating the relationship between student characteristics and achievement. → Eric Isenberg 2015
Evidence¶
Eric Isenberg 2015¶
Eric Isenberg, Elias Walsh. (2015). Accounting for Co-Teaching: A Guide for Policymakers and Developers of Value-Added Models. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, vol. 8, issue 1. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/journal-article-accounting-for-coteachng-a-guide-for-policymakers-and-developers-of-valueadded doi:10.1080/19345747.2014.974232
q2 · i? · associational · r?
The article's description of the Full Roster Method (FRM), attributed to Hock and Isenberg (2012), states that the method is "feasible and practical" but that co-taught students "receive extra weight" because they get full weight with each of their teachers.
"it effectively counts co-taught students more than once—these students receive a full weight with each of their teachers, so such students receive extra weight when calculating the relationship between student characteristics and achievement"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The Full Roster-Plus Method gives co-taught students full weight with their teachers while all students contribute equally to the student-characteristics and achievement relationship — related
- The Teacher Team Method and Full Roster Method produce similar estimates of teacher value added — related
- Applying the Full Roster-Plus Method instead of the Full Roster Method produces very small empirical differences in value-added estimates in District of Columbia Public Schools data — related
- The report documents a value-added method combining nontechnical description of main features with data sources and technical statistical detail — related
- The full roster and full roster-plus methods are empirically similar — related
- The report synthesizes 21 empirical studies on value-added model key issues and findings — related
- The Full Roster Method offers the most promise for robust, practical implementation among the three co-teaching value-added methods considered. — related
- The Teacher Team Method and Full Roster Method provide a more stable approach than the Partial Credit Method for estimating teacher effects when students have multiple teachers for the same subject. — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
frm-counts-cotaught-students-more-than-once |
title |
The Full Roster Method effectively counts co-taught students more than once in value-added calculations |
description |
The Full Roster Method effectively counts co-taught students more than once in value-added calculations |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
recheck_by |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — eric-isenberg-2015 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.