Value-Added...is that like a coupon or something?

Umm, no, it's a pretty, packaged name for a 'model' that uses student performance on standardized tests as a means to evaluate a teacher's effectiveness...pardon my Wayne's World lingo, "Assphincter says what?" Sigh. It's out there and it's being researched. I had to subject my eyes and mind to some text about it as part of my graduate coursework in educational supervision.  Here's what I choked down:

The concept of making student learning (as evidenced by standardized test performance gain) is also referred to as “Value-Added Models”. It is meant to be a tool to evaluate student performance in correlation to teacher effectiveness using statistics to observe the changes in student performance over time. Anyone in education can quickly and succinctly tell you what a student can gain over years cannot be attributed to a test or even one teacher, for that matter. Here are some drawbacks and pitfalls to the concept as noted through various studies:

-there is a myriad of other factors that cannot be measured including a student's home life, culture and peers, school size and facilities, past teachers and in some cases, schools, and the test itself.

-the data is incredibly varied and depends on the statistical model used

-tying test scores to teacher evaluation can result in harmful effects; teaching to the test, compromising other learning

-teachers cannot control what students are placed in their classroom ( ELLs, SpecEd, GT, etc)and often the “better” teachers are given these students whose success might not be genuinely reflected in test scores!

-one teacher can hardly be responsible for all of a student's learning- there are effects from years and teachers before.

-tying monetary bonuses to teacher evaluation in VAMs , only produces good test takers

-when a test score becomes the objective, how can hey be used to measure a teacher's overall effectiveness?

With all these factors, there is simply not enough to support that supervisors and administrators that a Value-Added Model should be used for crucial decisions regarding teachers; it should not be the basis for whether or not a teacher is effective.

While I wholeheartedly agree with all of the above, and do not wish to be judged by how well my students do on their tests, the fact remains that the state and federal government do rate our schools by such and really, really think those scores are the bee's knees.  I work in a small district. When I taught 6^th grade reading, I was the ONLY person, aside from the resource teacher who serviced less than five students, who taught 6^th grade reading. I knew I would be judged at least informally, by how well those 6^th graders performed. While it was incredibly stressful, it DID drive me to achieve success with my students. I took pride and ownership in how well they did and felt responsibility and guilt when they did not. Now I work with all three grade levels and while my "name" may not be on the line, my job is. I'd rather chew on tinfoil and roll around in a bathtub full of thumbtacks than be told that we did not meet AYP in reading yet again. I know the scant ELAR team with whom I share a campus are busting their behinds to ensure success. 

And as bad as I cringe to say it, the test, at least in Texas should drive instruction because it IS testing the STANDARDS set forth by the state to be taught. But-- success on a test lies NOT with a single teacher! It has to be a campus-wide, aligned, collaborative, meeting of the minds, “Let's-do-this” task! Everyone has to contribute to student success in the areas of literacy and logic. Reading is not a skill confined to one class period. Math is applied across disciplines. How do we evaluate those efforts towards a campus goal?