|
|
|
Chetty, et al. on the American Statistical Association’s Recent Position Statement on Value-Added Models (VAMs): Five Points of Contention by Margarita Pivovarova, Jennifer Broatch & Audrey Amrein-Beardsley - August 01, 2014Over the last decade, teacher evaluation based on value-added models (VAMs) has become central to the public debate over education policy. In this commentary, we critique and deconstruct the arguments proposed by the authors of a highly publicized study that linked teacher value-added models to students’ long-run outcomes, Chetty et al. (2014, forthcoming), in their response to the American Statistical Association statement on VAMs. We draw on recent academic literature to support our counter-arguments along main points of contention: causality of VAM estimates, transparency of VAMs, effect of non-random sorting of students on VAM estimates and sensitivity of VAMs to model specification.To view the full-text for this article you must be signed-in with the appropriate membership. Please review your options below:
|
|
|
- Margarita Pivovarova
Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, ASU
E-mail Author
Assistant Professor
- Jennifer Broatch
School of Mathematical and Natural Sciences, ASU
E-mail Author
Assistant Professor
- Audrey Amrein-Beardsley
Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, ASU
E-mail Author
Associate Professor
|
|
|
|
|
Email this article
Print this article
Post a Comment
