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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r? · 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¶

q2 i? Using data from District of Columbia Public Schools, the authors find very small empirical differences between the Full Roster Method and the Full Roster-Plus Method value-added estimates. → 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?

An empirical comparison of FRM and FRP value-added estimates using District of Columbia Public Schools data; the article reports "very small empirical differences between the two methods" but prints no effect size or test statistic in the available text.

"To investigate how the application of this method empirically changes value-added estimates, we use data from District of Columbia Public Schools. We find that there are very small empirical differences between the two methods."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• The Full Roster Method effectively counts co-taught students more than once in value-added calculations — related
• 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
• The full roster and full roster-plus methods are empirically similar — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• 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