Sensitivity of Teacher Value-Added Estimates to Student and Peer Control Variables

1. Sensitivity of Teacher Value-Added Estimates to Student and Peer Control Variables March 2012 Presentation to the Association of Education Finance and Policy Conference Matt Johnson  Stephen Lipscomb Brian Gill

2. VAMs Used Today Differ in Their Specifications

3. Research Questions • How sensitive are teacher value-added model (VAM) estimates to changes in the model specification? • Student characteristics • Classroom characteristics • Multiple years of prior scores • How sensitive are estimates to loss of students from sample due to missing prior scores?

4. Preview of Main Results • Teacher value-added estimates are not highly sensitive to inclusion of: • Student characteristics (correlation ≥ 0.990) • Multiple years of prior scores (correlation ≥ 0.987) • Estimates are more sensitive to inclusion of classroom characteristics (correlation = 0.915 to .955) • Estimates are not very sensitive to loss of students with missing prior test scores from sample (correlation = 0.992) • Precision increases when two prior scores are used but fewer teacher VAM estimates are produced

5. Baseline Model • Explore sensitivity to several specifications: • Exclude score from two prior years (Yi,t-2) • Exclude student characteristics (Xi,t) • Include class average characteristics • Student data from a medium-sized urban district for 2008–2009 to 2010–2011 school years • All models run using the same set of student observations • Instrument using opposite subject prior score to control for measurement error

6. Student and Class Characteristics

7. Correlation of 6th-Grade Teacher Estimates Relative to Baseline VAM Specification Baseline: Student Characteristics and Prior Scores from t-1 and t-2 Findings are based on VAM estimates from 2008–2009 to 2010–2011 on the same sample of students.

8. Percentage of 6th-Grade Reading Teachers in Effectiveness Quintiles, by VAM Specification Findings are based on VAM estimates for 99 reading teachers in grade 6 from 2008–2009 to 2010–2011 for a medium-sized, urban district. Correlation with baseline = 0.996.

9. Percentage of 6th-Grade Reading Teachers in Effectiveness Quintiles, by VAM Specification Findings are based on VAM estimates for 99 reading teachers in grade 6 from 2008–2009 to 2010–2011 for a medium-sized, urban district. Correlation with baseline = 0.915.

10. One or Two Years of Prior Scores? • Benefits of including two prior years: • More accurate measure of student ability • Increase in precision of estimates • Costs of using two prior years: • Students with missing prior scores dropped • Some teachers dropped from sample • Relative magnitude of costs/benefits?

11. One or Two Years of Prior Scores? • Estimate two VAMs using one year of prior scores • First VAM includes all students • Second VAM restricts sample to students with nonmissing second prior year of scores • Correlation between teacher estimates: 0.992 • Percentage of students dropped: 6.2 • Percentage of teachers dropped: 3.9 • Net increase in precision from using two prior years • Increase in average standard error of estimates: 2.3% when students with missing scores are dropped • Decrease in average standard error of estimates: 7.6% when second year of prior scores added

12. For More Information • Please contact • Matt Johnson • MJohnson@mathematica-mpr.com • Stephen Lipscomb • SLipscomb@mathematica-mpr.com • Brian Gill • BGill@mathematica-mpr.com