The author reports on the debate about "value added" measures of teaching which may be the most divisive topic in teacher-quality policy today. It has generated sharp-tongued exchanges in public forums, in news stories, and on editorial pages. And it has produced enough policy briefs to fell whole forests. But for most of the nation's teachers, who do not teach subjects or grades in which value-added data are available, that debate is also largely irrelevant. Now, teachers' unions, content-area experts, and administrators in many states and communities are hard at work examining measures that could be used to weigh teachers' contributions to learning in subjects ranging from career and technical education to art, music, and history--the subjects, in other words, that are far less frequently tested. The work, which has taken place quietly, in contrast to the larger value-added conversation, is renewing interest in alternative sources of achievement information. Such work is also giving way to questions about how to make sure that alternative measures--such as projects, portfolios scored according to guidelines, and classroom-based assessments--are both rich sources of data and provide comparable information about teachers and their impact on student learning. Because legislation in several states, including New York, Rhode Island, and Tennessee, requires evaluations to weigh multiple measures of a teacher's contribution to student learning, all teachers in those states will need more than just value-added statistics to show that they are effective.