Observation scores have a stronger relationship with school poverty than value-added scores¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 associational r2 · q2–q3
Currency · newest study 2016 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2019: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Differences in observation scores by school poverty level are more pronounced than differences in value-added scores, with a moderate negative correlation between observation scores and school economic disadvantage. → Jiang 2016

q2 i? 30 percent of the lowest-scoring teachers on observations are in the highest-poverty schools, while only 9 percent are in the lowest-poverty schools, a more pronounced imbalance than for value-added scores. → Jennie Y. Jiang 2016

Evidence¶

Jiang 2016¶

Jiang, J. Y., & Sporte, S. E. (2016). Teacher Evaluation in Chicago: Differences in Observation and Value-Added Scores by Teacher, Student, and School Characteristics. UChicago Consortium on School Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562786

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Descriptive correlational analysis of 2013-14 CPS observation scores aggregated to the school level, finding a "moderate negative correlation (-0.33) between observation scores and the concentration of economically disadvantaged students in schools." Value-added differences by poverty are much smaller because value-added controls for student characteristics.

"There is a moderate negative correlation (-0.33) between observation scores and the concentration of economically disadvantaged students in schools."

Jennie Y. Jiang 2016¶

Jiang, J. Y., & Sporte, S. E. (2016, January). Teacher Evaluation in Chicago: Differences in Observation and Value-Added Scores by Teacher, Student, and School Characteristics. University of Chicago Consortium on School Research. http://consortium.uchicago.edu/page/teacher-evaluation

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Same observational analysis of REACH Students data. Observation-score concentration across poverty levels is steeper than for value-added: of the teachers with the lowest observation scores, 30 percent are in the highest-poverty schools and 9 percent in the lowest-poverty schools.

"The differences in observation scores by school poverty level are more pronounced. Of the teachers with the lowest scores on observation ratings, 30 percent are in schools with the highest poverty while only 9 percent are in schools with lowest poverty"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Minority teachers have lower observation scores than white teachers but no significant differences on value added — related
• Observation scores have a stronger relationship with school characteristics such as poverty than value-added scores — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Teachers with the lowest value-added and observation scores are overrepresented in schools serving the most disadvantaged students — related
• Minority teachers' lower observation scores are largely attributable to school characteristics, and no race/ethnicity differences appear on value-added scores — related
• Differences in evaluation scores between high- and low-poverty schools persist after controlling for teacher experience and credentials — related
• Algebra access gaps are tied to school poverty levels, geography, and race/ethnicity — related
• Teachers in schools with better organizational and learning climates have higher value-added and observation scores, even compared with schools serving similar students — related
• Top-scoring teachers in highest-poverty schools have higher value-added scores than their counterparts in lower-poverty schools — related