NEPC Resources on Measurement
An NEPC Review Worth Sharing identifies methodological concerns about an experimental study that found that Teach for America math teachers outperformed their colleagues.
NEPC Fellow John Yun responds to a Mackinac Center critique of his review of their report, The Michigan Context and Performance Report Card: High Schools 2018.
State-Level Assessments and Teacher Evaluation Systems after the Passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act: Some Steps in the Right Direction
Federally mandated standardized testing (i.e., in core subject areas and certain grade levels), as an element of educational accountability, began in 2002 with the No Child Left Behind Act.
This sixth NEPC Annual Report on Virtual Education provides a detailed overview and inventory of full-time virtual schools and blended learning, or hybrid, schools.
Measures of socioeconomic status (SES) are widely used in educational research and policy applications, in large part due to overwhelming evidence linking SES to student achievement.
This brief examines policies and practices concerning the use of data to inform school improvement strategies and to provide information for accountability. This twin-pronged movement, termed Data-Driven Improvement and Accountability (DDIA), can lead either to greater quality, equity and integrity, or to deterioration of services and distraction from core purposes. The question addressed by this brief is what factors and forces can lead DDIA to generate more positive and fewer negative outcomes in relation to both improvement and accountability.
This piece was originally published in the peer-reviewed journal, Teachers College Record. It explains that when tests are used as drivers of policy, their validity depends on whether the measure as a policy tool is accomplishing what it is intended to accomplish. More pointedly, the article argues that the recent use of student test scores as tools to evaluate teacher effectiveness has not been validated.
The research on which the Los Angeles Times relied for its August 2010 teacher effectiveness reporting was demonstrably inadequate to support the published rankings. Using the same L.A. Unified School District data and the same methods as the Times, this study probes deeper and finds the earlier research to have serious weaknesses.