John Ewing wrote a classic 2011 journal article, titled “Mathematical Intimidation,” that lamented the growing use of value-added models to evaluate schools and teachers. Three years later, he sees little evidence that education policy makers understand or care about the flaws in the approach.
Yes, he said, critics of value-added have grown more vocal. But lots of people with power and influence are still wedded to the idea that we can use test scores to identify bad teachers – and either weed them out of the profession or make them improve.
“People just can’t let it go,” Ewing told me this week. “Policy makers bought in, in a big way, and they can’t let go of it.”
Ewing, a mathematician, is president of Math for America, a New York-based organization that promotes mathematics education. He previously spent 14 years as executive director of the American Mathematical Society. Before that, he was an Indiana University math professor for two decades.
“Mathematical Intimidation” was directed at his fellow mathematicians, urging them to stand against policies that make bad use of their discipline. But it’s a concise, easy read. You don’t need to be a mathematician, or even know a lot of math, to follow its clear and persuasive argument.
Ewing wrote that that proponents of value-added use the supposed objectivity of the models – they’re based on mathematics, after all – to close off discussion of what the goals of education should be. But the models rest on a shaky foundation: The idea that standardized tests in math and English provide a valid and complete measure of what schools and teachers should accomplish. Continue reading