Asked any teacher their opinion on VAM (value-added model) evaluation scores lately? If so, you’re likely to have seen the dubious eye-roll that precedes a long-winded explanation of why theirs can’t possibly be accurate.

So why do so many teachers not put any stock in a vetted statistical model that attempts to identify a teacher’s positive or negative effect on student learning? The answer boils down to the obvious reason that there are numerous factors that impact student learning, many of which the teacher of record cannot control.   While researchers point back to the teacher as the single most powerful effect on a student’s learning, one cannot ignore the overwhelming evidence proving that one’s home, school and community environment, taken together, pose a credible barrier to achieving a positive teacher effect on a student’s learning gains.

There are countless factors that impact a student’s ability to make gains from year to year. For children who struggle, the single most detrimental factor can be traced back to poverty. Students of poverty suffer any range of learning setbacks due to their want of adequate healthcare, a safe living environment, sufficient food and clothing, exposure to literacy rich settings, housing stability, English language proficiency, and the list goes on. The National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) estimates nearly one in every four American children is living below the poverty level. Another 45 percent are from low-income families; therefore, over half of the children attending public schools are experiencing any degree of learning struggle caused by disadvantage.

Studies are also replete with evidence that economically disadvantaged children are less likely to become proficient readers by third grade. If their income status remains the same, these same children experience a greater likelihood of dropping out of school. While learning standards should never be lowered for any class of student, there is no doubt we are facing a national achievement crisis as a direct result of the negative impact poverty has on a child’s ability to make learning gains.

At this point, one is inclined to empathize with any teacher charged with producing a pedagogical formula strong enough to ward off the effects of poverty on their children; nonetheless, the degree to which one can achieve this is exactly what the VAM calculates. In some states where VAM is part of the teacher evaluation system, the VAM formula has been designed to give a teacher “credit” for some of these aforementioned factors related to poverty. This is an attempt at leveling the playing field for all teachers. This whole concept is best related to the game of golf.   If any one of us had to play a round with Tiger Woods, we would be granted a handsome “handicap,” that is, at least 20 extra strokes for every one stroke Tiger makes at the ball. So the teacher teaching in an urban Philadelphia school district whose class roster comprises children from multiple language backgrounds, are frequently truant, possess a learning disability, or were retained at least once, gets that 20-stroke assistance. Noticeably missing from the handicap are “strokes” awarded for poverty. It is against the law to directly factor in a child’s economic status when determining a teacher’s VAM score. The teacher in suburban Philadelphia whose class roster comprises children from middle-class to upper class income families, experience summer vacations filled with travel, camps and other learning experiences, engage in after-school enrichment and athletics, exposed to literacy rich home and community settings, and aspire to college – this is the Tiger Woods you’re competing against with VAM that includes calculation of gains based on proficiency shown on statewide standardized tests. So even if you possess a 20-stroke helper, will that ever be enough to catch up to the children who from year to year continue to stride ahead, while yours struggle during the year not to mention the setbacks they suffer during summer?

Not an impossible task, but a very improbable one for most teachers in America. In fact, so improbable, that after 3 years of longitudinal VAM data in Florida alone, approximately 65 teachers consistently scored positive VAMs out of an estimated 176,000 certified teachers in the state. The state commissioner has set out on a road tour to observe these teachers in their classroom settings to determine trends and behaviors impacting their positive scores. The study will have limited, short sighted results if only classroom behaviors are observed.  Then again, the results may surprise us. Perhaps these same teachers with consistently high VAM scores will not have highly effective instructional practice scores at all.   It could trump the entire instructional practice framework upon which we gauge pedagogical competency. If other outside factors are examined, perhaps they’ll find that all teachers whose students ate Wheaties for breakfast four out of five times a week score higher VAMs. In that case, step aside Marzano, hello General Mills!

The more any educator simmers with the far-reaching implications of VAM, it becomes evident that it does nothing but undermine teacher morale. VAM policy makers did not project the fall-out that would occur by time stamping one’s performance based on a single statewide assessment, not to mention the wrangling over student rosters and reluctance to “share” students for providing interventions. It also seems to fly in the face of professional learning communities – a proven, high-effect instructional design strategy for teachers. While student assessment performance is a viable way to determine a teacher’s impact, it is arguably best indicative when a series of assessments are considered over time, and provide a balance of gains and proficiency calculations measures. Until then, the VAM wrangling shall continue.

National Center for Children in Poverty: http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html