The Problem with Value-Added Measurement

Measuring student learning through standardized tests is a lot harder than modern education reformers would have you believe.

Alternative Strategies for Identifying High-Performing Charter Schools in Texas

The Obama administration's recurring policy emphasis on high-performing charter schools begs the obvious question: how do you identify a high-performing charter school? That is a crucially important policy question because any evaluation strategy that incorrectly identifies charter school performance could have negative effects on the economically and/or academically disadvantaged students who frequently attend charter schools. If low-performing schools are mislabeled and allowed to persist or encouraged to expand, then students may be harmed directly. If high-performing schools are driven from the market by misinformation, then students will lose access to programs and services that can make a difference in their lives. Most of the scholarly analysis to date has focused on comparing the performance of students in charter schools to that of similar students in traditional public schools (TPS). By design, that research measures charter school performance only in relative terms. Charter schools that outperform similarly situated, but low performing, TPSs have positive effects, even if the charter schools are mediocre in an absolute sense. This analysis describes strategies for identifying high-performing charter schools by comparing charter schools with one another. We begin by describing salient characteristics of Texas charter schools. We follow that discussion with a look at how other researchers across the country have compared charter school effectiveness with TPS effectiveness. We then present several metrics that can be used to identify high-performing charter schools. Those metrics are not mutually exclusive—one could easily justify using multiple measures to evaluate school effectiveness—but they are also not equally informative. If the goal is to measure the contributions that schools are making to student knowledge and skills, then a value-added approach like the ones highlighted in this report is clearly superior to a levels-based approach like that taken under the current accountability system.

Commentary on "Alternative Strategies for Identifying High-Performing Charter Schools in Texas"

In the last few years policy makers and practitioners nationally have shown much interest in identifying, recognizing, and replicating successful charter schools, many of which are showing that they can educate low-income and otherwise at-risk students remarkably well. However past efforts to identify high performing schools have been problematic. Using these systematic, rigorous value-added methods, the authors identify 44 Open Enrollment charter schools that merit a “high-performer” rating. Nearly all of those campuses identified serve a disadvantaged student population. The article also finds that most of those high performers are highly cost-effective, earning high ratings on the cost-efficiency measures. The authors argue for more widespread use of value-added modeling in the state accountability system. The approach taken to identifying high-performers is sensible and fair, but any formulaic approach to school labels comes with some limitations.

Measuring value in cancer-related health care: A case study in head and neck cancer

In the current climate of escalating health care costs, defining value and accurately measuring it are two critical issues affecting not only the future of cancer care in particular but also the future of health care in general. Specifically, measuring and improving value in cancer-related health care are critical for continued advancements in research, management, and overall delivery of care. However, in oncology, most of this research has focused on value as it relates to insurance industry and payment reform, with little attention paid to value as the output of clinical interventions that encompass integrated clinical teams focusing on the entire cycle of care and measuring objective outcomes that are most relevant to patients. ^ In this study, patient-centered value was defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent, and calculated using objective functional outcomes and total care costs. The analytic sample comprised patients diagnosed with three common head and neck cancers—cancer of the larynx, oral cavity, and oropharynx—who were treated in an integrated tertiary care center over an approximately 10-year period. The results of this study provide initial empirical data that can be used to assess and ultimately to help improve the quality and value of head and neck cancer care, and more importantly they can be used by patients and clinicians to make better-informed decisions about care, particularly what therapeutic services and outcomes matter the most to patients.^