> which is related to VAM,

I noticed that one of those two methods you linked to is the VAM method used in Houston, EVAAS.

> Some models have been shown to be consistent across both grade levels and schools.

So said the creator of EVAAS. However, the EVAAS method has not been published, the algorithm is proprietary, and the results of the Texas trial showed the limitations of EVAAS.

Your citations in support of your view are either published by people trying to sell you their testing system, or were published during the hype phase of VAM, before there was evidence that they were not able to do things like identify poorly performing teachers for the purposes of firing them.

> If GPAs were used for teacher evaluation a teacher

Like, duh. That's why GPAs aren't used for teacher evaluation.

You can't seriously think that 50 years ago there were no effective ways to evaluate teachers.

> Standardized tests also act as a counterbalance in general to slow down grade inflation.

And yet grades are still more effective at predicting college success than standardized tests.

Huh.

And we've had a full student generation of students required to do high-stakes testing, yet the decades of yammering about grade inflation is still going on, as if the two really coupled at all?

Huh.

And, umm, standardized tests are normed. If students or teachers across the US were getting better, norming would hide that improvement.

We know this because of the Flynn effect. Unnormed IQ scores have improved by about 15 points over the decades. Shouldn't this be reflected in improved overall school grades?

> Neither is trusting the teacher's unions to decide who to fire

We don't trust teacher unions to decide who to fire.

School districts decide.

Unions can slow it down, or provide legal support to stop it. They are their to help the teachers.

It's not like principals and school districts always follow the law and employment contract requirements. And never pressure teachers to give better grades to the football team, or the kid of the head of the school board.

> We need a better solution than what we have now

Non-union charters schools haven't proved any better.

We now have, what, a full generation of students that have gone through high-stakes testing?

When do we decide it's not worthwhile?

In my view, all this noise about testing and teacher evaluation is meant to justify school privatization, so private companies can profit from all that public school money, and rich people can get tax-payer subsidized good private school education while poor people are left with the dregs.

In my view, if you want to improve grades and future success then don't look to high-stakes testing. Look to free breakfasts and lunches for everyone, low limits on class size, more teaching aides, school nurses who can provide basic health care support, and more.

But those are expensive. So instead we punish the teachers which some secretive black box say are under-performing.

> using student growth measures as part teacher evaluations

That statement alone is meaningless. It could mean anything from "huh, your XYZ scores are a bit low, so we'll provide additional training for you" to "your XYZ scores are a bit low, we're going to fire you."

So when you say "as part teacher evaluations", you need to clarify just what you mean.

VAM has been used to fire teachers - which is what its supporters often want - and in violation of their due process rights.

VAM has not been used to provide more funding to lower-scoring schools to help with staffing or facility issues. Yet it could also be used for that.