Florida Secret VAM Formula Revealed Here!

41 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. Duane Swacker says:

   July 28, 2015 at 10:08 am

   “y_i=μ+∑_(g=1)^M▒〖δ_g x_g 〗+∑_(j=1)^K▒〖β_j x_j+θ_(k)i+ω_(mk)i+ε_i; ”

   Gesundheit!!

   Reply
2. Debbie Rakestraw says:

   July 28, 2015 at 10:11 am

   Huh?

   Reply
   • Duane Swacker says:

     July 28, 2015 at 10:46 am

     YES!

     Reply
3. M says:

   July 28, 2015 at 10:18 am

   Is there a legend for what each of the variables are and how each of those is computed?

   Reply
   • Duane Swacker says:

     July 28, 2015 at 10:45 am

     NO!

     Reply
   • SomeDAM Poet says:

     July 28, 2015 at 10:55 am

     “The Wreck of the Cattle-growth Model”

     The legend lives on from Will Sanders on down
     Of the model they called ‘Value Added”
     The VAM, it is said, never gives up her dead
     When the jobs of the teachers get graded
     With a load of manure twenty-six thousand tons more
     Than the cattle growth model weighed empty.
     That good school and crew was a bone to be chewed
     When the gales of the VAMmer came early.

     BTW, here’s the “ungarbled’ version with a ‘legend”

     Hope that helps.

     Reply
     • GE2L2R says:

       July 28, 2015 at 1:13 pm

       From the link you included:

       “The school and teacher effects were treated as random effects, and the teacher and school-specific values are empirical Bayes estimates”

       Random effects?
       Bayes estimates?

       Huh?

   • Laura H.Chapman says:

     July 28, 2015 at 2:36 pm

     Here is the best annotated version of a VAM formula that I have seen and Peter Green presents two red-lined two versions of it.

     I suggest you down load, trim and print a copy for you wallet or keep a screen shot on your phone to show people how convoluted the metric is and how huge the inferential leaps are to say this metric has any validity.

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-greene/arne-duncans-denial_b_6336960.html?sa=X&ved=0CCQQ9QEwB2oVChMIpZ64orr-xgIVy9SACh2f-Q7a

     Reply
4. Ken Watanabe says:

   July 28, 2015 at 10:18 am

   ??? Is this a language understood by human beings?

   Reply
   • Duane Swacker says:

     July 28, 2015 at 10:45 am

     NO!

     Reply
5. Yertle says:

   July 28, 2015 at 10:19 am

   That looks like the script on the One Ring after Gandalf threw it in Frodos fireplace.

   One ring to rule them all……….

   Reply
   • Ed Detective says:

     July 28, 2015 at 4:01 pm

     And in the darkness humiliate them……

     Reply
6. virginiasgp says:

   July 28, 2015 at 10:26 am

   Diane, you left out her concluding line…. “Long live IGNORANCE!!!”

   Reply
7. FLERP! says:

   July 28, 2015 at 10:28 am

   The big problem with VAM, in my view, has always been its inscrutability. You can’t evaluate employees with an algorithm that neither they nor their bosses understand. It doesn’t matter how accurate it is. There will be no confidence in the system.

   Reply
   • danielkatz2014 says:

     July 28, 2015 at 2:50 pm

     On the plus side that formula moonlights at CERN analyzing LHC test results.

     Reply
8. Barry Wilson says:

   July 28, 2015 at 10:36 am

   Would be nice to have Arne Duncan and Jeb Bush explain it on nightly news so we can better appreciate their advocacy.

   Reply
   • Duane Swacker says:

     July 28, 2015 at 10:44 am

     TAGO!

     Reply
9. freetoteach says:

   July 28, 2015 at 10:53 am

   Tuesday July 28, 2015
   The Buffalo News.com
   City & Region
   Education lobbyists’ backers stay in the shadows
   By Chris Bragg

   ALBANY TIMES UNION

   Published: July 26, 2015, 04:59 PMUpdated: July 26, 2015, 05:02 PM
   ALBANY – Three groups pushing education reforms that spent heavily lobbying state government this year funded at least a portion of their efforts though donations whose original sources are essentially untraceable.

   Those question marks remain despite a 2011 ethics reform law meant to illuminate the sources of funding behind major lobbying efforts. Gaps in the law, however, appear to have allowed deep-pocketed groups or donors seeking anonymity to work around the requirements.

   StudentsFirstNY Advocacy, the Coalition for Opportunity in Education, and Families for Excellent Schools spent more than $8.3 million during the 2015 legislative session lobbying state government to promote charter schools and other issues, according to recent lobbying disclosure filings. The three nonprofits allied themselves with Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in an ultimately unsuccessful push for the Education Investment Tax Credit, which would have incentivized donations to educational efforts, both public and private.

   The original donors behind more than $3.4 million of the spending remain murky in the groups’ biannual filings. In one instance, StudentsFirstNY Advocacy received a $1 million donation from a heavily overlapping but technically separate group run out of the same office, obscuring the original sources of the seven- figure gift.

   Billy Easton, executive director of the union-backed group the Alliance for Quality Education – which does disclose its donors under the 2011 law – called the groups’ methods part of their effort to “not let New Yorkers know who is trying to control the politics of the state.”

   Charter supporters have poured money into Albany lobbying efforts in an effort to counter heavy lobbying spending by teachers unions.

   A group backed by union interests, dubbed Hedge Clippers, has in recent months held large protests at the residences of major charter school financial supporters. Those supporters’ identities are known in part because their names have surfaced in the past in public disclosure filings, and some surely would prefer to escape such treatment.

   The 2011 state ethics reform law came amid criticism of a nonprofit that spent millions supporting Cuomo’s early agenda but didn’t have to disclose its financial backers. The reform – passed with Cuomo’s support – requires issue-oriented nonprofits, designated as 501(c)4 groups, spending more than $50,000 in a year on lobbying to disclose donations of more than $5,000.

   The law took effect in 2013. Loopholes quickly became apparent.

   The most generous education reform spender so far this year is the Latham-based Coalition for Opportunity in Education, which spent $4.7 million in an unsuccessful push for the Cuomo-backed education tax credit. The names of most of the donors to the group were disclosed, but one of its largest gifts came from a shadowy source.

   On May 8 – roughly six weeks before the end of the legislative session – the coalition received $863,000 from Green Orchard Inc., an issues-oriented nonprofit founded in 2012 that lists an address in Harrisburg, Penn. A tax filing states that Green Orchard exists to steer money to other issue-oriented nonprofits that support its conservative stances on issues like “childhood education and development, free-market reforms and economic freedoms.”

   Geen Orchard does not have to report its donors on its publicly available tax returns.

   Brian Sullivan, Green Orchard’s treasurer and an attorney, did not return a phone call for comment.

   If Green Orchard had itself spent $863,000 on lobbying in New York this year, it would have had to disclose its donors, according to the state’s 2011 ethics law requiring donor disclosure from such nonprofits. But because it gave to another 501(c)4 that then spent the money, only Orchard Green is listed as a donor to the Coalition – not the sources behind those dollars.

   A spokesman for the Coalition said Green Orchard “donated to the effort, but beyond that I don’t have any more information. We reported the contribution in full compliance with the law.”

   The issue has arisen before: If a donation is given to an intermediary that then gives to a lobbying group, only the intermediary’s identity must be disclosed under the 2011 ethics reform.

   The state lobbying and ethics panel, the Joint Commission on Public Ethics, acknowledged in a February report that entities were currently able to “construct funding mechanisms that may avoid disclosure while still technically complying with the law and the regulations,” and suggested lawmakers might address the issue. The State Legislature has not done so.

   A second deep-pocketed education reform backer, Manhattan-based group StudentsFirstNY Advocacy, which pushes for charter schools and other causes, spent $2 million this year, but the sources behind roughly half that spending are unclear for similar reasons.

   One million dollars were donated to StudentsFirst NY Advocacy by another nonprofit, StudentsFirst NY Inc., that heavily overlaps with it: The two groups share an office suite and staff.

   Both StudentsFirst NY Advocacy and StudentsFirst NY Inc. are issue-oriented nonprofits that must disclose their donors if they engage in substantial lobbying spending. If StudentsFirst NY Inc. had itself spent its $1 million on lobbying, it would have had to disclose the sources behind the funds.

   But because the $1 million passed from StudentsFirst NY to StudentsFirst NY Advocacy, which then spent heavily on lobbying, only the name of StudentsFirst NY Inc. appears on the lobbying disclosure filing submitted by the Advocacy arm in July.

   Asked if the money transfer was meant to obscure the identity of donors, a StudentsFirst NY spokesman maintained the $1 million came from pre- existing StudentsFirst NY funds – not from new donations funneled through the group.

   Jenny Sedlis, executive director of StudentsFirst NY, added in a statement that “StudentsFirst NY is proud of the campaign we ran to increase high-quality school choices for kids.”

   Sedlis is also listed as a lobbyist for StudentsFirstNY Advocacy.

   Families for Excellent Schools, another Manhattan group that also lists the same address as StudentsFirst NY but says that it operates separately, has taken a much more direct approach that has allowed its donors to remain anonymous.

   Families for Excellent Schools, which spent $1.6 million on New York lobbying so far this year, has an issue-oriented nonprofit arm that would have to disclose its benefactors. But the group does almost all its lobbying through its apolitical arm, which does not have to report its donors under New York lobbying laws and can take tax-deductible donations.

   The apolitical arm spent a staggering $9.7 million on Albany lobbying in 2014, but it did not disclose a single donor.

   Such apolitical nonprofits, categorized as 501(c)3 groups, face restrictions from the Internal Revenue Service on how much they can spend on lobbying – a likely reason why such nonprofits are exempt from disclosing their donors under New York law.

   The heavy lobbying spending as defined by New York law, plus the IRS restrictions on lobbying by such nonprofits, could raise potential issues regarding the group’s tax status.

   But David Grandeau, an attorney for Families For Excellent Schools and former top state lobbying regulator, has maintained that the IRS definition of lobbying is far narrower than the one found in New York law, a distinction that he says makes the heavy New York lobbying spending by the group permissible under federal regulations.

   The group’s lobbying spending has also dropped this year from its 2014 heights.

   Grandeau said last year that the group had “correctly disclosed its spending in New York State, and we are confident that our activity is within the limitations allowable.”

   Reply
10. John says:

    July 28, 2015 at 10:56 am

    Anyone interested in the model in more detail should read this: http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7503/urlt/0072161-value-added-model-white-paper.doc.

    Reply
11. Jon Awbrey says:

    July 28, 2015 at 11:01 am

    

    Reply
12. mathcs says:

    July 28, 2015 at 11:16 am

    “If you wish to advocate for it, you must first teach it to a class of seventh graders, who will then be assessed on it, and then the VAM will be used to evaluate you, and you must get a perfect score.”

    Reply
13. Vinh says:

    July 28, 2015 at 11:51 am

    VAM, like IRT and dependent on its output, attempts to measure a complex system using a simple contruct. Using something that is faulty to measure something that is faulty is beyond stupid. Even if IRT is not faulty, the problem with VAM is that your sample sizes are much too small to be calculating effect size. With such low power, the standard error of measurement is going to be so large as to render any conclusion invalid.

    Reply
    • Duane Swacker says:

      July 28, 2015 at 12:30 pm

      “Using something that is faulty to measure something that is faulty is beyond stupid.”

      Bingo, bango, boingo!!!

      “the standard error of measurement is going to be so large as to render any conclusion invalid.”

      The standard error of measurement doesn’t make any difference as the epistemological (the foundational theory of learning) concept is rife with error and falsehoods. ANY RESULTS, by definition then, have to be COMPLETELY INVALID.

      By the way, for those of us diagnosed with AI, what is IRT?

      Reply
14. SomeDAM Poet says:

    July 28, 2015 at 12:54 pm

    Here’s how it works in practice

    “My VAM score for 2011-2012 was .35242121193” — Jo Ann Nahirny

    Florida not only (apparently) knew how good a teacher she was, but knew it to 11 significant digits!!

    VAM is the posterboy for mathturbation (meaningless mathematical manipulation)

    Reply
    • SomeDAM Poet says:

      July 28, 2015 at 1:45 pm

      “The VAMbots”

      Mathturbating
      Data diddlers
      Teacher rating
      Mathy meddlers

      Reply
15. SomeDAM Poet says:

    July 28, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    “VAMs are Craps”

    To judge a teacher, roll the dice
    The VAMs are craps, and job the price
    To keep a teacher, roll a seven
    When coming out, or roll eleven
    A 2 or 12 will crap them out
    And also 3, the lousy lout
    When point’s established, a 7 roll
    Sends the teacher down the hole
    But point repeated ‘fore a 7
    Keeps them in the Seventh Heaven
    The VAMs are mathy as can be
    And oh so fair, as you can see

    ///////////////////

    See Gary Rubinstein’s series on NY City VAM scores

    Reply
16. kafkateach says:

    July 28, 2015 at 4:35 pm

    I thought the Florida VAM was the biggest insult ever created for veteran teachers until June when the Florida Best and Brightest Scholarship was snuck into the budget which gives teachers a $10,000 bonus if they scored in the top 20th percentile on their SATs. New hires will automatically qualify but for veteran teachers you must also win the VAM lotto to qualify for the $10,000. You will now have teachers with no teaching experience making $10,000 more than 12 year veterans based on their college entrance exams. It just keeps getting worse and worser. https://kafkateach.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/floridas-best-and-brightest-scholarship-brought-to-you-by-dumb-and-dumber/

    Reply
17. Mary says:

    July 28, 2015 at 8:32 pm

    What is the formula for?

    Reply
18. teachingeconomist says:

    July 28, 2015 at 8:53 pm

    It is not that difficult to understand. Would you like an exhumation?

    Reply
    • teachingeconomist says:

      July 28, 2015 at 10:33 pm

      Not exhumation, but explanation.

      Reply
      • virginiasgp says:

        July 29, 2015 at 1:29 am

        Bruce Baker/SomeDAM Poet it doesn’t matter what SGPs were designed for, they correlate with VAMs about 90%. Thus, they are measuring the same thing with slightly less accuracy. The only reason SGPs are in favor is because they are cheap to implement. Well, one would hope the open source would be implemented well but Virginia couldn’t even do that (how do you have a “median” SGP of 43???) Try all you like, SGPs are close cousins of VAMs and are about to be set free in Virginia.

        DanielKatz2014, agree on their uses at the school or district level, especially on policies. For the teacher, it all depends on the sample size. I don’t concur with using 15 or less. But when you get 2+ years of data and 40+ scores, they become very stable. You are wrong on SGPs measuring poverty statistics. Haven’t you read the research that 90% of the SES information is contained INSIDE the score histories. Thus, while perfect SES data is better in VAMs, using score history alone (no mention of teachers in the SGP calculation) is sufficient to derive our insights on teachers. Btw, I don’t want SGPs to be used exclusively. I only want them published and used by the schools. Virginia didn’t even give the data to principals and teachers to make policy decisions even though they took the ESEA waiver money. How messed up is that?

        Spanish Freelancer, are you familiar with the Dillon rule? It basically states that only incompetent but arrogant folks run for local office and are often ill served for the roles (read the decision, it’s very condescending to local officials). As such, it states that local power should be limited to only those enumerated in law. The point is that most folks (except for teachers who clearly have interests in protecting all of their members) don’t vote in school board races. For those that do, they are not familiar with education policy or how districts evaluate their teachers and principals. Duncan is saying that if you want federal money, you have to demonstrate good governance (no requirements, just rules for subsidies). That requires “effective” and not just “credentialed” teachers in schools. Given the union voting power at the local level and the ill-suited local officials who are running our schools, there must be some responsible actor in the room. Just look at my county (Loudoun, VA). They NEVER even downloaded the data to study it. Forget evals, they didn’t even try to measure policy effectiveness. And now my board basically wants to do away with all tests (I’m talking teacher classroom tests) and just have projects everywhere. Is that nuts or what?

      • West coast teacher says:

        July 29, 2015 at 1:50 am

        Go ahead. Explain it.

      • SomeDAM Poet says:

        July 29, 2015 at 10:35 am

        ‘Bruce Baker/SomeDAM Poet it doesn’t matter what SGPs were designed for, they correlate with VAMs about 90%.”

        That’s called mathturbation.

        “Self Love”

        The folks who love the VAM
        Are prone to mathturbation
        It’s “VAM bam thank you sham”
        And real self-flagellation

      • SomeDAM Poet says:

        July 29, 2015 at 11:15 am

        “They [SGP’s] correlate with VAMs about 90%”

        You mean the VAMs that show near randomness when it comes to teacher effect?

        Mathturbation.

    • West coast teacher says:

      July 29, 2015 at 1:49 am

      No. Keep it buried.

      Reply
      • SomeDAM Poet says:

        July 29, 2015 at 8:32 am

        ha ha ha ha

        Maybe they should make a movie of it: “Indiana Jones and the Temple of VAM.”

19. Stephen says:

    July 28, 2015 at 10:15 pm

    #@*!

    Reply
20. MathVale says:

    July 28, 2015 at 11:42 pm

    NOW I get it!

    Reply
21. Akademos says:

    July 29, 2015 at 8:02 am

    Fariña on VAM:

    Fariña also said she wants to establish a so-called asterisk for highly effective teachers who move to Renewal Schools. While Fariña said “it’s been easier to recruit teachers to Renewals than ever” because of strong professional development and a sense of mission, she’s concerned that effective teachers’ ratings will drop when they move from high-achieving schools to struggling ones.

    Fariña said she was planning to follow one teacher who was leaving a high-performing school to teach at a Renewal School in Ames’ Bronx district.

    “She’s going to do the same assessments, she’s going to do everything she did before,” Fariña said. “But the scores are only going to go to a certain point. How is that going to affect her rating? It’s not going to make her any less of a good teacher.”

    District 8’s Renewal Schools are not Ames’ only challenge. Surveying a massive sheet comparing programming and support services at all the district’s schools, Fariña gasped.

    Reply
    • Akademos says:

      July 29, 2015 at 8:04 am

      http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/07/8572882/meetings-fariña-pushes-and-bolsters-superintendents-reforms

      Reply
22. drext727 says:

    July 29, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.

    Reply