About a month ago, I wrote a long post on the topic of “value-added” measures of teacher effectiveness. With such measures getting a high-profile endorsement from the Aspen Commission on NCLB, I wrote, it was a safe bet that opponents of tying teacher evaluation to student tests scores would be mischaracterizing the conclusions of a book published by the RAND Corporation on the topic. Sure enough, in the paid “What Matters Most” column published in yesterday’s New York Times, UFT President Randi Weingarten wrote:
“..most experts, including the well regarded RAND Corporation, recommend against using “value-added” analysis for evaluating teachers.”
This is just wrong, an example of simplifying conclusions and recommendations in a way that distorts their meaning to the point of inversion. Taken at face value, Weingarten’s characterization suggests that RAND has rejected value-added methodologies as a whole. This is absolutely not true, as the previous post explains.


Kevin Carey appeared on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" to talk about the education proposals put forth during Wednesday’s State of the Union speech, including endowments, student loans, college prices and No Child Left Behind. He also responded to telephone calls and electronic communications.
Andrew Rotherham is featured in CBS's "Where America Stands," a news special on the current state of the nation's schools.
College and Career-Ready: Using Outcomes Data to Hold High Schools Accountable for Student Success
Teachers at Work: Improving Teacher Quality Through School Design 