You are here:

The distribution and mobility of effective teachers: Evidence from a large, urban school district
ARTICLE

, American University, School of Education, Teaching, and Health, United States ; , Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, United States ; , National Center for Performance Incentives, United States ; , ETS, United States

Economics of Education Review Volume 48, Number 1, ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Using 7 years of student achievement data from a large urban school district in the south, this study examines the sorting of teachers’ value-added effectiveness estimates by student demographics and considers factors that may contribute to such sorting. We find that students in schools in the highest quartile of minority enrollments have teachers with value-added estimates that are about 0.11 of a student-level standard deviation lower than their peers in schools in the lowest minority quartile. However, neither teacher mobility patterns nor between-school differences in teacher qualifications seems responsible for this sorting. Though the highest minority schools face higher teacher turnover, they do not disproportionately lose their highest value-added teachers, nor are teachers with high value-added systematically migrating to lower-minority schools. Instead, teachers in the highest minority schools have lower value-added on average, regardless of experience. We find suggestive but inconclusive evidence that teachers’ improvement rates differ by minority-enrollment quartile.

Citation

Steele, J.L., Pepper, M.J., Springer, M.G. & Lockwood, J.R. (2015). The distribution and mobility of effective teachers: Evidence from a large, urban school district. Economics of Education Review, 48(1), 86-101. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved September 22, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on March 1, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.05.009

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25, pp. 95-135.
  2. Betts, J.R., Rueben, K.S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes: The distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California.
  3. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Who leaves? Teacher attrition and student achievement. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  4. Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M., & Wyckoff, J. (2010). The role of teacher quality in retention and hiring: Using applications-to-transfer to uncover preferences of teachers and schools. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  5. Buddin, R. (2010). How effective are Los Angeles elementary teachers and schools? Retrieved August 16, 2010, from http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2010-08/55538493.pdf.
  6. Chenoweth, K. (2007). “It's being done”: Academic success in unexpected schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  7. Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., & Vigdor, J.L. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), pp. 377-392.
  8. Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., & Vigdor, J.L. (2007). Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), pp. 778-820.
  9. Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., Vigdor, J.L., & Wheeler, J. (2007). High poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. Washington, DC: National Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
  10. Denison, D. (2010). New teacher tenure rules connected to Race to the Top goals. Smyrna/Clayton Sun-Times.
  11. Duncan, G.J., & Murnane, R. (2014). Restoring opportunity: The crisis of inequality and the challenge for American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
  12. Falch, T., & Strom, B. (2005). Teacher turnover and non-pecuniary factors. Economics of Education Review, 24(6), pp. 611-631.
  13. Feng, L. (2010). Hire today, gone tomorrow: New teacher classroom assignments and teacher mobility. Education Finance and Policy, 5(3), pp. 278-316.
  14. Garet, M.S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., & Jones, W. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education.
  15. Glazerman, S., & Max, J. (2011). Do low-income students have equal access to the highest-performing teachers?. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  16. Goldhaber, D., Gross, B., & Player, D. (2011). Teacher career paths, teacher quality, and persistence in the classroom: Are public schools keeping their best?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(1), pp. 57-87.
  17. Hamilton, L.S., Stecher, B.M., Marsh, J.A., McCombs, J.S., Robyn, A., & Russell, J. (2007). Implementing standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Responses of superintendents, principals, and teachers in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
  18. Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S.G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), pp. 326-354.
  19. Hanushek, E.A., & Rivkin, S.G. (2010). Constrained job matching: Does teacher job search harm disadvantaged urban schools?. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  20. Hausman, J., & McFadden, D. (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica, 52(5), pp. 1219-1240.
  21. Hosmer, D.W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
  22. Isenberg, E., Max, J., Gleason, P., Potamites, L., Santillano, R., & Hock, H. (2013). Access to effective teaching for disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  23. Johnson, S.M., Kardos, S.M., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Donaldson, M.L. (2005). The support gap: New teachers' early experiences in high-income and low-income schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(61).
  24. Kane, T.J., & Staiger, D.O. (2008). Are teacher-level value-added estimates biased? An experimental validation of non-experimental estimates. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education.
  25. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), pp. 37-62.
  26. Liu, E., & Johnson, S.M. (2006). New teachers' experiences of hiring: Late, rushed, and information-poor. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(3), pp. 324-360.
  27. Loeb, S., & Reininger, M. (2004). Public policy and teacher labor markets: What we know and why it matters., pp. 1-64. East Lansing, MI: The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University.
  28. Mansfield, R.K. (2010). Teacher quality and student inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
  29. Marsh, J.A., McCombs, J.S., Lockwood, J.R., Martorell, F., Gershwin, D., & Naftel, S. (2008). Supporting literacy across the sunshine state: A study of Florida middle school reading coaches. Santa Monica, CA: RANDCorporation.
  30. McCaffrey, D.F., Han, B., & Lockwood, J.R. (2008). From data to bonuses: A case study of the issues related to awarding teachers pay on the basis of their students' progress. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives.
  31. Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), pp. 417-458.
  32. Rockoff, J.E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), pp. 247-252.
  33. Sass, T.R., Hannaway, J., Xu, Z., Figlio, D., & Feng, L. (2012). Value added of teachers in high-poverty schools and lower poverty schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 72(2–3), pp. 104-122.
  34. Sawchuck, S. (2011). Wanted: Ways to measure most teachers. Education Week, 30(1), p. 15.
  35. Scafidi, B., Sjoquist, D.L., & Stinebrickner, T.R. (2007). Race, poverty, and teacher mobility. Economics of Education Review, 26(2), pp. 145-159.
  36. Stecher, B.M., Epstein, S., Hamilton, L.S., Marsh, J.A., Robyn, A., & McCombs, J.S. (2008). Pain and gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in three states, 2004–2006. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
  37. Steele, J.L., Baird, M., Engberg, J., & Hunter, G. (2014). Trends in the distribution of teacher effectiveness in the intensive partnerships for effective teaching. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
  38. Wooldridge, J.M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  39. Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K.L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
  40. Zelinski, A. (2010, July 9). Teacher evaluation panel hashes out first set of recommendations. Tennessee Report. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://www.tnreport.com/2010/07/teacher-evaluation-panel-hashes-out-first-set-of-recommendations/.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References