Value-added Model Term Analysis

Here, author Cathy O’Neil delves more deeply into why many “weapons of math destruction” (WMDs) are inefficient, even while they’re touted as solutions to making modern life more efficient and streamlined. Value-added models—models that seek to measure the gap between students’ targeted improvement and their actual improvement from year to year—are, in O’Neil’s estimation, WMDs. This is because they claim to be fair and efficient, yet they’re oversimplistic to the point of being irresponsible.

These models use data in the form of student test scores to evaluate teachers’ performances, but they’re so rudimentary that they’re not reliable tools in determining whether teachers are doing their jobs well. The data these models measure doesn’t take into account the human aspect of the student-teacher relationship. So, while these models might be efficient in terms of sorting test scores, they shouldn’t be used to make decisions about teachers’ futures.

But because WMDs are generally created to maximize efficiency and profit, these models are indeed doing the jobs they were designed to do. They’re unfair, though they claim to be fair—and they’re not reliable, though they claim to be revolutionizing the efficiency of an entire sector of society (the education system). They’re damaging and destructive, and they must be reformed and regulated in order to truly look out for teachers and students across the U.S.