… much of the debate about using value-added for teacher evaluation is framed around the potential consequences for teachers rather than focusing on the known or potential consequences for students.
Dan Goldhaber, The Standard of Evidence for Change, [guest column in] Rick Hess Straight Up.
Goldhaber's a smart man, which is why this tangential argument puzzles me. The problem with relying on fragile value-added measures for teacher evaluation is the false identification of good teachers as bad and bad teachers as good, and more generally the confusion of teachers who need more scrutiny with those who don't. Yes, that's unfair to teachers, but inaccurate evaluation of teachers is primarily a bad thing for students.