Policymakers should choose between the full roster and full roster-plus methods for co-teaching¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

The paper advises policymakers facing co-teaching in value-added systems to rely on the full roster method or the full roster-plus method, since the first two options are impractical and the last two are empirically similar. As the paper frames it, "Policymakers have four options for addressing co-teaching in a value-added model," of which the last two are the workable choices. This gives model developers a concrete decision rule when configuring teacher accountability systems.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A value-added model that must handle jointly taught classrooms

Constraints¶

• Applies to value-added accountability contexts; the two preferred methods are empirically similar, so the paper does not rank them

Target Learners¶

• K-12 students in co-taught classrooms

Target Learning Goals¶

• Fair attribution of achievement credit to teachers in value-added evaluation

Affordances¶

• Four Options Co Teaching Value Added

Related Strategies¶

• Policymakers and model developers should use the Full Roster-Plus Method to account for co-teaching in value-added models

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Eric Isenberg, Elias Walsh. (2013). Accounting for Co-Teaching: A Guide for Policymakers and Developers of Value-Added Models. Working Paper 24, Chicago, IL: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/accounting-for-coteaching-a-guide-for-policymakers-and-developers-of-valueadded-models