This paper presents myths as well as facts about value-added analysis. These myths include: (1) "Value-added isn't fair to teachers who work in high-need schools, where students tend to lag far behind academically"; (2) "Value-added scores are too volatile from year-to-year to be trusted"; (3) "There's no research behind value-added"; (4) "Using value-added means that teachers will be evaluated based solely on standardized test scores"; and (5) "Value-added is useless because it's imperfect--it has a margin of error." Facts include: (1) Value-added controls for students' past academic performance and demographic factors; (2) Value-added scores are about as stable as batting averages in baseball and other widely-accepted performance measures; (3) Value-added is the product of nearly three decades of research by leading academics and economists; (4) Evaluations that include value-added also use other measures of teacher performance, such as classroom observations; and (5) Measures of teacher performance don't have to be perfect to be useful. (Contains 7 footnotes.)