Nations, states, and districts must choose among an array of different approaches to measuring school effectiveness in implementing their accountability policies, and the choice can be difficult because different approaches yield different results. This study compares two approaches to computing school effectiveness: a “beating the odds” type approach and a “value-added” approach. We analyze the approaches using both administrative data and simulated data and reveal the reasons why they produce different results. We find that differences are driven by a combination of factors related to modeling decisions as well as bias stemming from nonrandom assignment. Generally, we find that the value-added method provides a more defensible measure of school effectiveness based purely on test scores, but we note advantages and disadvantages of both approaches. This study highlights the consequences of several of the many choices facing policymakers in choosing a methodology for measuring school effectiveness.

中文翻译：

---

比较和评估衡量学校效能的两种不同方法的后果

国家、州和学区必须在一系列不同的方法中进行选择，以衡量学校在实施问责政策方面的有效性，而选择可能很困难，因为不同的方法会产生不同的结果。本研究比较了计算学校效率的两种方法：“克服困难”类型的方法和“增值”方法。我们使用管理数据和模拟数据分析这些方法，并揭示它们产生不同结果的原因。我们发现差异是由与建模决策相关的因素以及非随机分配产生的偏差共同驱动的。一般来说，我们发现增值方法提供了一种更可靠的衡量学校有效性的方法，纯粹基于考试成绩，但我们注意到这两种方法的优缺点。