IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mpr/mprres/93f34c834817419a9efccecdf9c28e0c.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the "Rothstein Falsification Test": Does It Really Show Teacher Value-Added Models Are Biased?

Author

Listed:
  • Dan Goldhaber
  • Duncan Dunbar Chaplin

Abstract

In an influential paper, Jesse Rothstein (2010) shows that standard value-added models (VAMs) suggest implausible and large future teacher effects on past student achievement.

Suggested Citation

  • Dan Goldhaber & Duncan Dunbar Chaplin, "undated". "Assessing the "Rothstein Falsification Test": Does It Really Show Teacher Value-Added Models Are Biased?," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 93f34c834817419a9efccecdf, Mathematica Policy Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:93f34c834817419a9efccecdf9c28e0c
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19345747.2014.978059#.VLgo43Yo7q4
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stacy, Brian & Guarino, Cassandra & Wooldridge, Jeffrey, 2018. "Does the precision and stability of value-added estimates of teacher performance depend on the types of students they serve?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 50-74.
    2. Goldhaber, Dan & Cowan, James & Walch, Joe, 2013. "Is a good elementary teacher always good? Assessing teacher performance estimates across subjects," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 216-228.
    3. Cory Koedel & Jiaxi Li, 2016. "The Efficiency Implications Of Using Proportional Evaluations To Shape The Teaching Workforce," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 34(1), pages 47-62, January.
    4. Koedel Cory & Leatherman Rebecca & Parsons Eric, 2012. "Test Measurement Error and Inference from Value-Added Models," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-37, November.
    5. Stacy, Brian, 2014. "Ranking Teachers when Teacher Value-Added is Heterogeneous Across Students," EconStor Preprints 104743, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    6. Cook, Jason B. & Mansfield, Richard K., 2016. "Task-specific experience and task-specific talent: Decomposing the productivity of high school teachers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 51-72.
    7. Elias Walsh & Stephen Lipscomb, "undated". "Classroom Observations from Phase 2 of the Pennsylvania Teacher Evaluation Pilot: Assessing Internal Consistency, Score Variation, and Relationships with Value Added," Mathematica Policy Research Reports a6b29a4a217f42a09d5206cfe, Mathematica Policy Research.
    8. repec:mpr:mprres:7896 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. repec:mpr:mprres:7482 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Brian Gill & Julie Bruch & Kevin Booker, 2013. "Using Alternative Student Growth Measures for Evaluating Teacher Performance: What the Literature Says," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 85b7a88ce0cf4597a7efd7a21, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Heinrich Hock & Eric Isenberg, "undated". "Methods for Accounting for Co-Teaching in Value-Added Models," Mathematica Policy Research Reports e53ebf9f792e48dca345a4bba, Mathematica Policy Research.
    12. Koedel, Cory & Mihaly, Kata & Rockoff, Jonah E., 2015. "Value-added modeling: A review," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 180-195.
    13. repec:mpr:mprres:7817 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Heikki Pursiainen & Mika Kortelainen & Jenni Pääkkönen, 2014. "Impact of School Quality on Educational Attainment - Evidence from Finnish High Schools," ERSA conference papers ersa14p711, European Regional Science Association.
    15. Harris, Douglas N. & Sass, Tim R., 2014. "Skills, productivity and the evaluation of teacher performance," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 183-204.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Value added ; falsification tests ; teacher evaluation;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mpr:mprres:93f34c834817419a9efccecdf9c28e0c. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joanne Pfleiderer or Cindy George (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mathius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.