1 / 26

What Makes For a Good Teacher and Who Can Tell?

Explore the link between teacher characteristics and student achievement, impact of principal evaluations, and future performance predictions.

kelle
Download Presentation

What Makes For a Good Teacher and Who Can Tell?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What Makes For a Good Teacher and Who Can Tell? Douglas N. Harris Tim R. Sass Dept. of Ed. Policy Studies Dept. of Economics Univ. of Wisconsin Florida State Univ. IES Research Conference, June 2008

  2. Background • Growing Interest in Linking Teacher Performance and Compensation • “Value Added” scores based on performance of a teacher’s students have limitations • Only available for teachers in tested subject (reading and math) • Subject to measurement error and inter-temporal instability • Movement to Grant Principals Greater Autonomy in Personnel Decisions • Charter schools • School reform in New York City

  3. Background • Still Know Relatively Little About What Teacher Characteristics are Associated With Ability to Improve Student Performance • Most recent studies using panel data on individual student achievement find that teacher experience (in the early years) matters, but little else in the way of readily observable characteristics seems to affect student achievement • Knowing what characteristics determine teacher quality has implications for teacher preparation, licensure, hiring practices and professional development

  4. Research Questions • Do principals’ evaluations of teachers contain information beyond readily-observable “objective” teacher characteristics? • What factors determine a principal’s overall evaluation of her teachers? • What specific teacher characteristics are associated with a teacher’s ability to raise student achievement (ie. “value added”)? • Can principals do as well (or better) at predicting future teacher value added than past performance measures?

  5. Literature Review • Early Literature • Murnane (1975) • Conditioning on student characteristics and prior achievement, a one-standard-deviation increase in principal’s rating is associated with a 0.125 standard deviation increase in student third-grade math scores • Peterson (1987, 2000) • Finds weak correlation between principal ratings of teachers and parent or student satisfaction • Milanowski (2004), Kimball, et al. (2004), White (2004) • Comparisons of principals’ four-point teacher evaluation scales with single-year estimates of teacher value added • Generally find weakly positive correlation between principal evaluations and estimated teacher quality (correlation = 0.2 - 0.4)

  6. Literature Review • Recent Literature • Jacob and Lefgren (2005) • Consider both principal’s overall rating and evaluations of specific teacher characteristics • Find principals good at identifying best and worse teachers, but less able to distinguish teachers in the middle • Principal evaluations better at predicting future student achievement than teacher experience or educational attainment, though generally not as good as value-added estimates • Principal evaluations better at predicting parental requests for teachers than teacher value-added scores

  7. Data • Anonymous mid-sized school district in Florida • Schools serve a diverse set of student populations • Free/Reduced-Price Lunch: 5-90% • Percent Minority: 10-90% • Longitudinal student-level achievement data • Grades 1-10 • 1999/00 through 2004/05 • Math and reading scores on the Stanford Achievement Test

  8. Data • Principal Interviews • In-person interviews conducted in Summer 2006 • Single-blind evaluation of up to 10 teachers (5 per subject) • Random sample of teachers at school who taught at least three classes in the tested grades and subjects during 1999/00-2004/05 • 9-Point Rating Scale • Not effective (1-3): performance is substantially below minimum standards • Adequate: (4-6): meets standards but can improve in several areas. • Exceptional (7-9): teacher is among the best I have seen • Asked to evaluate teachers on: • Overall performance • Ability to test scores • Specific characteristics

  9. Sample Studentand Teacher Characteristics MathReading Total Students 76,308 70,916 Total Teachers 943 960 Principals Interviewed 30 30 Teachers Rated by Principal 234 231

  10. Sample Teacher Grade Levelsand Principal Ratings MathReading Teachers Taught Primarily Elementary School 0.718 0.706 Taught Primarily Middle School 0.152 0.153 Taught Primarily High School 0.131 0.140 Mean Principal Rating of Teacher Overall 7.103 7.108 Ability to Raise Test Scores 7.232 7.164 “Caring” 7.397 7.468 “Enthusiastic” 7.269 7.385 “Motivated” 7.436 7.494 “Strong Teaching Skills” 7.560 7.597 “Knows Subject” 7.868 7.896 “Communication Skills” 7.594 7.710 “Intelligence” 7.897 7.922 “Positive Relationship with Parents” 7.511 7.596 “Positive Relationship with Students” 7.670 7.730

  11. Pairwise Correlation of Principal’s Ratings ofTeachers With Teacher Characteristic Factors (Math) ** Significant at the 0.05 level

  12. Pairwise Correlation of Principal’s Ratings ofTeachers With Teacher Characteristic Factors (Reading) ** Significant at the 0.05 level

  13. Factor Loadings of Normalized Principal Ratings (Math)

  14. Factor Loadings of Normalized Principal Ratings (Reading)

  15. Estimation Procedure • Estimate Student Achievement Model • Includes student, teacher and school fixed effects • Estimated teacher effects yield within-school measure of teacher effectiveness • Regress Estimated Teacher Fixed Effects on “Objective” Teacher Characteristics and Normalized Principal Ratings • Objective characteristics include teacher experience, possession of an advanced degree and certification status • Weighted least squares estimates with the square root of the numbers of students per teacher as weights

  16. Value-Added Model

  17. Value-Added Results Used for Estimation of Teacher Effects (Grades 2 – 10, 1999/2000 – 2004/05) MathReading ________________________________________________________ Number of Schools Attended -2.131** -0.977 (2.02) (0.84) Attended Different School in Prior Year 1.910*** 0.834 (2.99) (1.15) Class Size -0.111** -0.038 (2.21) (0.68) Proportion of Classroom Peers -7.788*** -2.481 Who are White (4.37) (1.30) ________________________________________________________ Covariance of Achievement Gain and: Student FE 0.186 0.183 Teacher FE 0.032 0.100 Model (Including School Indicators) 0.191 0.183 Error 0.591 0.534 No. of Observations 76,308 70,916 ________________________________________________________ Note: Model Includes Student, Teacher, School and Grade-By-Year fixed effects. t-ratios adjusted for clustering at the classroom level.

  18. Weighted Least Squares Estimates of the Relationship Between Principal Ratings and Estimated Teacher Effectiveness Math Reading [1] [2] [1] [2] _________________________________________________________ Overall Rating 2.685*** 1.661* (2.82) (1.76) Ability to Raise Test Scores 2.570*** 0.975 (4.52) (1.48) _________________________________________________________ R-squared 0.078 0.149 0.061 0.057 No. of Observations 234 207 231 201 _________________________________________________________ Note: Model includes a set of six experience category indicators and indicators for possession of advanced degrees and full certification.

  19. WLS Estimates of the Relationship Between Principal Ratings and Estimated Teacher Effectiveness -- By Grade Level Math Reading [1] [2] [1] [2] ________________________________________________________ Overall Rating 3.328*** 2.483** Elementary (2.84) (2.15) Overall Rating 1.424 0.029 Middle/High (0.87) (0.02) Ability to Raise Test Scores 4.071** 2.971** Elementary (3.31) (2.25) Ability to Raise Test Scores 1.456 -0.554 Middle/High (0.88) (0.32) _______________________________________________________ R-squared 0.082 0.126 0.067 0.071 No. of Observations 234 199 231 201 _______________________________________________________ Note: Model includes a set of six experience category indicators and indicators for possession of advanced degrees and full certification.

  20. WLS Estimates of the Relationship Between Teacher Subjective Characteristics and a Principal’s Overall Rating of Teachers Math Reading _______________________________________________________ Interpersonal Skill 0.091* 0.192*** (1.86) (3.26) Knowledge/Teaching Skills 0.592*** 0.592*** (14.53) (11.49) Motivation/Enthusiasm 0.069 -0.002 (1.45) (0.04) Works Well With Others 0.237*** 0.193*** (4.83) (3.30) _______________________________________________________ R-squared 0.853 0.786 No. of Observations 207 206 _______________________________________________________

  21. WLS Estimates of the RelationshipBetween Teacher Subjective Characteristicsand Estimated Teacher Effectiveness Math Reading _______________________________________________________ Interpersonal Skill -0.250 1.656 (0.15) (0.93) Knowledge/Teaching Skills 1.579 3.044* (1.10) (1.96) Motivation/Enthusiasm -1.030 -1.532 (0.61) (0.96) Works Well With Others 2.523 -1.745 (1.46) (0.99) _______________________________________________________ R-squared 0.078 0.056 No. of Observations 207 206 _______________________________________________________

  22. WLS Estimates of the RelationshipBetween Teacher Subjective Characteristicsand Estimated Teacher Effectiveness (Math) [1] [2] [3] [4] _______________________________________________________ Interpersonal Skill 1.866* (1.94) Knowledge/Teaching Skills 2.295** (2.38) Motivation/Enthusiasm 1.661* (1.77) Works Well With Others 2.572*** (2.63) _______________________________________________________ R-squared 0.058 0.066 0.055 0.072 No. of Observations 207 207 207 207 _______________________________________________________

  23. WLS Estimates of the RelationshipBetween Teacher Subjective Characteristicsand Estimated Teacher Effectiveness (Reading) [1] [2] [3] [4] _______________________________________________________ Interpersonal Skill 1.167 (1.15) Knowledge/Teaching Skills 1.881* (1.84) Motivation/Enthusiasm 0.559 (0.56) Works Well With Others 0.521 (0.50) _______________________________________________________ R-squared 0.035 0.045 0.030 0.030 No. of Observations 206 206 206 206 _______________________________________________________

  24. Estimates of the Determinants of Student Achievement Gains(Grades 2 – 10, 2004/05) Math Reading [1] [2] [1] [2] ______________________________________________________________________ Overall Rating 2.107*** 1.446*** (3.86) (2.69) Teacher Fixed Effect (from 99/00-03/04) 0.230*** 0.106 (3.85) (1.44) ______________________________________________________________________ R-squared 0.236 0.237 0.115 0.114 No. of Observations 5361 5361 4399 4399 ______________________________________________________________________ Note: All models include controls for individual student mobility, class size, peer characteristics, student fixed effects (from 1999/00-2003/04), school indicators and a constant term.

  25. Summary • Principal ratings of teachers predict teacher value-added even after controlling for teacher experience, educational attainment and certification status • Principal ratings most strongly influenced by knowledge/teaching skill of teachers and the teacher’s ability to work with others • A teacher’s ability to raise test scores is also most strongly influenced by knowledge/teaching skill and ability to work with others • Relationships imprecise when all factors included simultaneously • Principal’s overall evaluation does as well as past value-added at predicting current teacher effectiveness

  26. Implications • Possibly greater role for principals in evaluating teachers and in retention decisions • “pay for performance” scheme which includes principal ratings likely better than current pay scale based on teacher experience and education alone • “value added” scores could be part of the mix as well • Possibly greater emphasis on teaching skills/knowledge in teacher preparation and professional development

More Related