Does value-added modeling (VAM) demonstrate the importance of teachers to student outcomes? The authors clarify the primary questions raised by VAM for measuring teacher effects, review the most important recent applications of VAM, and discuss a variety of statistical and measurement issues that might affect the validity of VAM inferences. The authors identify numerous possible sources of error and bias in teacher effects and recommend a number of steps for future research into these potential errors.

In recent years, consumers, professional organizations, government officials, and third-party payers have become increasingly concerned about how to assess the quality of the services provided by organizations in both the private and the public sectors. One new approach is the organizational report card, which compares the performance of organizations such as public schools, colleges, hospitals, and HMOs. This book offers the first comprehensive study of such instruments. It discusses the circumstances under which they are desirable alternatives to other policy instruments, such as regulation; how they should be designed; who is likely to use them and for what purpose; and what role, if any, government should have in their creation. Informed by cases drawn from education, health, and other policy areas, this book develops a conceptual framework for analyzing these issues. It explores the tradeoffs in measuring performance, the methods of communicating results effectively to mass and elite audiences, and the ways in which organizations respond to the data gathered.

This book explores the key characteristics that make a school effective.

This book examines the cause of the student achievement gap, suggesting that the prevailing emphasis on socioeconomic factors, sociocultural influences, and teacher quality is misplaced. The cause of the achievement gap is not differences in parenting styles, or the economic advantages of middle-class parents, or differences in the quality of teachers. Instead, schools present learning tasks and award grades in ways that inadvertently undermine the self-efficacy, engagement, and effort of low-performing students, causing demoralization and exacerbating differences in achievement that are seen to exist as early as kindergarten. This process systematically maintains and widens initial gaps in achievement that might otherwise be expected to disappear over the K-12 years. Misdiagnosis of the nature of the achievement gap has led to misguided solutions. The author draws upon a range of research studies to support this view and to offer recommendations for improvement. “/div>div