Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
    • Think Again
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
  • Events
  • Scholars Program

Evaluating Value-Added: Findings and Recommendations from the NASBE Study Group on Value-Added Assessments and Using Student Progress to Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added Models

Eric Osberg
11.30.2005

National Association of State Boards of EducationOctober 2005
Henry I. Braun, Educational Testing Service September 2005

Together, these booklets offer useful insights into value-added testing models - how they work, their strengths and weaknesses, and issues to consider before implementation.  NASBE delves into the models' practical tradeoffs, but leaves largely untouched the question of how they actually work. ETS fills this void and offers descriptions of the statistics and processes used to determine which schools and teachers are "adding value" to their students' scores each year. Understanding value-added models is no easy task. NASBE notes that Tennessee's much-discussed program "involves the solving of thousands of equations iteratively," and uses software which "enables a massive multivariate, longitudinal analysis using all achievement data for each student no matter how sparse or complete." This complexity may be value-added analyses' greatest challenge: Will the public accept high stakes accountability based on metrics they must simply trust to be reliable? Perhaps an equal challenge is that the nature of these systems - which can account for "'external' factors such as socioeconomic status, race, parents' educational levels, or innate ability" in assessing a school - might hurt NCLB's no-excuses mentality. As a measurement tool, it may be appropriate to account for students' backgrounds, but as policy it could send a dangerous signal. (William Sanders, father of the Tennessee model, happens to argue against using student characteristics, because while they correlate with current scores, in his view "the correlations... with gains are essentially zero.") States must ask themselves whether models that account for demographics, or those that relate performance to absolute standards (which "growth models" must do under NCLB), better meet their particular needs. Anyone using a value-added system should reflect on both of those policy issues and decide how best to handle them, especially if they want to win approval from Education Secretary Spellings to use a "growth model" as part of their NCLB accountability systems (see here). It's a complex topic, and these booklets are certainly helpful. You can find them online here and here.

Tags: Educational Testing Service National Association of State Boards of Education No Child Left Behind Act Spelling Tennessee

Eric Osberg is the Director of Finance and Operations at the in Bethesda, Maryland, a Catholic, independent college preparatory school for girls, serving students from Pre-K–12.

From 2002 to 2010, Osberg served as the Vice President and Treasurer of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and was also a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was primarily responsible for financial and managerial issues at…

View Full Bio
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]