Statistician Nate Silver has been publicly critical of using Value Added Assessment for teacher evaluations – on more than one occasion – and I’ve written about those comments.

So I was disappointed today to see a piece on his site (not written by him), that was quite enthusiastic about it – The Science Of Grading Teachers Gets High Marks. It provided the facade of impartiality by using – of all people – Thomas Kane as one of the arbiters of fairness to judge studies. Going to the link on his name will bring you to pieces I’ve written about his research in the past and, believe me, you will not consider him to be unbiased. In addition, the article uses Douglas Staiger as another arbiter. I had never heard of him before, but a quick Internet search will find the same results as Kane’s history.

Obviously, I, too, am biased and I’m no scientist. But I do know the definition of “unbiased,” and these two don’t fit the bill.

You might be interested in The Best Resources For Learning About The “Value-Added” Approach Towards Teacher Evaluation.


This post has been receiving some attention on Twitter. Here’s one response: