A hot button issue in education reform today is that of measuring teacher effectiveness and subsequently connecting this to compensation. This method, called value-added measurement, is a staple in the rhetoric of education discourse. The clear dichotomy of this highly debated topic creates tension and ultimately slows any sort of progress toward a compromise. It is safe to assume that many teachers do not believe that this kind of accountability is effective because it places too much emphasis on standardized test scores, which some argue do not accurately reflect a teacher’s overall impact on students. Value-added measures win few allies from the trenches of education since much of the time the individuals touting the benefits of this method are often far removed from education. Economists are usually associated with supporting value-added measurement and are also the ones who develop the formulas (like the one below) that are used to measure teacher effectiveness or their “value-added”. Few would argue that accountability in education is a bad idea, but it is the method used that is the area of contention for many. Pundits from both sides recognize that there are limitations to strictly using standardized tests for accountability purposes, thus other data is necessary in measuring teacher effectiveness. A recent article in EducationNext describes that using classroom observations is a useful and meaningful method for evaluating teachers. When used with other measurements, such as standardized tests, it is possible to equitably evaluate teacher effectiveness. I take a more progressive approach to this issue and am supportive of teacher accountability. I have no qualms with being assessed, as long as the measurement is equitable and relevant. Value-added measures must incorporate a variety of data sources if accountability is to gain any foothold. This issue will not be resolved soon, but accountability is necessary if the school system is to begin its "road to recovery".
