avaliação do desempenho docente... valor acrescentado...? modelos...? como...?

não deixa de ser estranho que por cá... depois da 'palhaçada' da primeira versão da add [onde os resultados dos alunos eram para contar...]... nada de muito substantivo e substancial se 'discuta' por cá...!

há bases de trabalho [dados e estudos...?] que possibilitem orientar o desenvolvimento de posturas de desempenho profissional em linha com parâmetros de qualidade, valor acrescentado... e outros [directamente e/ou indirectamente] relacionados com a actividade docente...?

não vejo muitas preocupações quanto a este assunto [de somenos...?]...

"The proper question about bias is more broad: Do the models adequately account for all the relevant factors that are outside of teachers’ control?

This is a bigger issue, and it pertains to teachers of high- and low-poverty students in all schools and districts, urban and rural, large and small. Now, it’s certainly true that many of the conditions that influence performance, such as parental involvement, oral language development, early childhood education, family stress, etc., are associated with income, but the relationship is imperfect. And, many other important factors are only weakly or unrelated (especially given the limitations of the lunch program variable). Child development is cumulative and multifaceted.

So, the answer to this more central question – whether a growth model accounts for non-teacher factors – is inherently a matter of degree. When using properly-interpreted estimates from the best models with multiple years of data (not the case in many places using these estimates for decisions), it’s fair to say that a large proportion of the non-teacher-based variation in performance can be accounted for.

There will, however, always be bias, sometimes substantial, affecting many individual teachers, as there would be with any performance measurement. Whether or not the bias is “tolerable” depends on one’s point of view, as well as how the estimates are used (the latter is especially important among cautious value-added supporters like myself). Furthermore, as I’ve argued many times, the bigger problem in many cases, one that can be partially addressed but is being largely ignored, is random error."

aqui.