Recently, student outcomes have bubbled to the top of debates about how to evaluate teaching in community and liberal arts colleges, universities, and professional schools, but even more international attention has been riveted on how outcomes are being used to evaluate teachers and administrators K-12 (Harris, 2012; Rowen & Raudenbush, 2016; Sawchuk, 2014). It remains a bubbling cauldron of controversy. Since 2014, the bubbling continued with some clarification of the issues, numerous research studies in the public sector, and several significant publications and policy statements that can guide current practices. The purpose of this article is to synthesize what has already been learned in order to furnish guidelines for practice. It covers the following contentious territory: (1) push for student outcomes; (2) pushback against student outcomes; (3) definition of value-added models (VAMs); (4) validity and reliability of VAM scores; (5) standards for using VAM; and (6) conclusions and recommendations.