Indicator: Teachers’ contributions to student learning growth
Definition
Teachers contribute to students’ learning growth.
RECOMMENDED METRIC(S)
Percentage of instructors demonstrating above average contributions to student learning, as measured by student growth on state standardized tests or other outcomes (for example, using value-added models or student growth percentiles)
Type(s) of Data Needed
Administrative data; assessment dataWhy it matters
As noted earlier, teachers are viewed as one of the most important contributors to student learning and social-emotional development. One approach to measuring their contributions to student learning relies on measuring their students’ growth on learning outcomes (sometimes called “value-added”). Relative to status measures like proficiency rates, which conflate who instructors teach with how well they teach them, value-added models measure contributions to student outcomes by considering students’ initial performance levels (for example, using prior test scores) or other background characteristics.
When teaching effectiveness is measured as instructors’ contributions to student learning, evidence of disparities in access to highly effective instructors is mixed. Some studies find no differences in the average value-added of teachers of students from low- versus high-income households. Others do find disparities along student household income, race, and ethnicity, though they are usually small. One study of more than 11,000 teachers in 10 school districts found that the highest performing teachers (in value-added to student achievement) were underrepresented in the most disadvantaged middle schools, but not in elementary schools, though these patterns varied across districts. At the postsecondary level, less research has been done on college instructors’ contributions to student learning, though existing studies have found substantial differences in instructors’ value-added on student outcomes such as course grades and subsequent course-taking patterns. However, these studies have not examined whether students from low-income households and students of color have equal access to effective college instructors.
What to know about measurement
Value-added and other growth models require linking instructors to student outcome data (such as test scores from two or more academic years, so growth can be measured). As of 2019, 15 states use value-added or other growth models in a formal capacity to measure teacher effectiveness in K–12, with another two states using them formatively, and 10 states reporting local control over the decision to use value-added. At the postsecondary level, measurement of college instructor value-added is challenging because instructors often design and administer their own assessments. One way to address this shortcoming is to measure instructor impacts on subsequent grades and student course-taking patterns, though this method would not produce effectiveness measures for instructors who teach advanced-level courses. In places that do not already calculate value-added or similar measures, framework users should consult with experts to implement this indicator, as there are different approaches to computing value-added having different technical and practical considerations. (For a review of research on measuring value-added, see Koedel et al.) These approaches may result in differences in measures of instructors’ effectiveness. For example, using student growth percentiles instead of value-added scores would have resulted in 14 percent of teachers in one district being placed in a different performance category.
We caution against using value-added data as the only measure of teaching effectiveness (our recommendations also include measures based on classroom observation and student survey data—see classroom observations of instructional practice and student perceptions of teaching). When used for high-stakes accountability, measures of teachers’ contributions to student learning may have unintended consequences (for example, leading to practices such as “teaching to the test”). These three measures have been shown to be valid and complementary measures of teaching effectiveness. Evaluation systems based on multiple measures may be more reliable than those based on a single measure.
Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), some states have moved away from value-added models as an approach to teacher evaluation and toward a measure of student growth based on student learning objectives. This change resulted in part from concerns (including lawsuits and protests) regarding the uses of test scores for teacher evaluation purposes. Student learning objectives are included in teacher evaluation plans in 28 states. Accepted measures of student learning objectives can include state tests, district benchmarks, school-based assessments, and teacher and classroom-based measures. These differences would make it difficult to compare data across contexts on whether students are meeting student learning objectives. In addition, there is limited evidence on the validity or reliability of student learning objectives.
Source frameworks
This indicator, or a version of measuring teacher effectiveness, appeared in five source frameworks reviewed for this report. Our recommendation to measure teacher effectiveness through student growth on standardized assessments draws from the National Research Council’s Key National Education Indicators.
References
The framework's recommendations are based on syntheses of existing research. Please see the framework report for a list of works cited.