Diagnosing the learning crisis: What can value-added analysis contribute?

Advocates of teacher value-added modelling (VAM) argue that this technique can provide evidence on teacher effectiveness to inform teacher policies and broader education system reforms. Critics contend that value-added is a poor proxy for teacher quality and as such is of questionable utility, especially where teacher accountability is concerned. In low- and middle-income countries, and especially sub-Saharan Africa, where the challenge of the ‘learning crisis’ is most severe, a lack of longitudinal data has precluded extensive debate on the matter. In this paper we explore the potential of value-added analysis for diagnostic purposes in the context of Ethiopia. We make use of data from the Young Lives longitudinal study – specifically two rounds of school surveys conducted in Ethiopia between 2012 and 2017 when pupils were in grades 4–8. Learning levels in the Young Lives sites in Ethiopia are very considerably below curricular expectations. Like many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Ethiopia faces a significant challenge in terms of a ‘learning crisis’ and in terms of the attendant need to develop policies to improve educational effectiveness within the confines of very limited resources. We discuss the background to VAM models and their use, including in relation to the context of Ethiopia. The paper shows that learning progress in primary schools varies widely between classrooms, and between pupils within the same classroom. Some schools and teachers are more successful in raising overall attainment by ‘raising the floor’ of learning and narrowing the dispersion. Others are more successful by ‘raising the roof’. Less effective teachers appear to be particularly ineffective for pupils with higher scores at the start of the year. In contrast, the most effective teachers showed high levels of ‘value-added’ for pupils at all levels of prior performance. Diagnostic analysis of teacher value-added has potential, we argue, to aid understanding of contributors to low levels of learning such as: (i) over-ambitious curricula; (ii) absence of ‘teaching at the right level’; (iii) within class heterogeneity and pupil grouping strategies; and (iv) teaching and learning strategies – such as ‘differentiation’ or ‘mastery’.