what makes for a good teacher and who can tell?

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

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

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

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?

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)

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

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

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

Sample Studentand Teacher Characteristics

Math Reading

Total Students 76,308 70,916

Total Teachers 943 960

Principals Interviewed 30 30

Teachers Rated by Principal 234 231

Sample Teacher Grade Levelsand Principal Ratings

Math ReadingTeachers

Taught Primarily Elementary School 0.718 0.706Taught Primarily Middle School 0.152 0.153Taught Primarily High School 0.131 0.140

Mean Principal Rating of TeacherOverall 7.103 7.108Ability 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

Pairwise Correlation of Principal’s Ratings ofTeachers With Teacher Characteristic Factors (Math)

Overall Rating

Ability to Raise Test

Scores

Inter-personal

SkillsMotivation/ Enthusiasm

Works Well With

Others

Knowledge/ Teaching

Skills

Overall Rating 1

Ability to Raise Test Scores

0.745** 1

Interpersonal Skills

0.703** 0.550** 1

Motivation/ Enthusiasm

0.738** 0.596** 0.734** 1

Works Well With Others

0.762** 0.598** 0.756** 0.732** 1

Knowledge/ Teaching Skills

0.881** 0.752** 0.612** 0.682** 0.644** 1

** Significant at the 0.05 level

Pairwise Correlation of Principal’s Ratings ofPairwise Correlation of Principal’s Ratings ofTeachers With Teacher Characteristic Factors (Reading)Teachers With Teacher Characteristic Factors (Reading)

Overall Rating


Scores

Inter-personal

SkillsMotivation/ Enthusiasm

Works Well With

Others

Knowledge/ Teaching

Skills

Overall Rating 1


Scores0.736** 1


0.719** 0.626** 1


0.699** 0.569** 0.714** 1


0.725** 0.589** 0.762** 0.677** 1

Knowledge/ Teaching

Skills0.861** 0.697** 0.644** 0.682** 0.650** 1

** Significant at the 0.05 level

Factor Loadings of Normalized Principal Ratings (Math)Factor Loadings of Normalized Principal Ratings (Math)

Teacher Characteristic Rated by Principal





Intelligent -0.0481 0.0839 0.0606 0.7067

Works Well With Grade Team/Dept.

-0.0046 -0.0887 0.9711 0.0399

Works Well With Me (Principal)

0.1743 0.0835 0.7415 -0.0814

Positive Relationship With Parents

0.7231 0.0781 0.0768 0.0742

Positive Relationship With Students

0.9408 0.0103 -0.0131 0.0636

Caring 0.5591 0.1372 0.2422 -0.0185

Enthusiastic 0.1086 0.9721 -0.0707 -0.0035

Motivated 0.0398 0.5224 0.2802 0.1624

Strong Teaching Skills 0.1512 0.0258 -0.0462 0.8471

Knows Subject -0.0088 -0.0551 -0.0036 0.9831

Communication Skills 0.1040 0.1705 0.2734 0.3191

Factor Loadings of Normalized Principal Ratings (Reading)Factor Loadings of Normalized Principal Ratings (Reading)

Teacher Characteristic Rated by Principal





Intelligent 0.0030 0.0055 0.0332 0.7182

Works Well With Grade Team/Dept.

0.0243 -0.0598 0.8522 0.0838

Works Well With Me (Principal)

0.1390 0.0461 0.8329 -0.0597

Positive Relationship With Parents

0.7554 0.0528 0.0649 0.0757

Positive Relationship With Students

0.9171 0.0271 0.0193 0.0313

Caring 0.6046 0.0983 0.2541 -0.0367

Enthusiastic 0.0775 0.9879 -0.0464 -0.0191

Motivated 0.0247 0.5366 0.2017 0.2445

Strong Teaching Skills 0.2237 0.0174 -0.0802 0.8140

Knows Subject -0.0834 -0.0156 0.0385 0.9819

Communication Skills 0.1650 0.2167 0.1715 0.3290

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

Value-Added Model

itmkiijmtititA PβXβ 21

Ait = achievement level of student i in year t

Xit = time-varying student characteristics

P-ijmt = time-varying characteristics of peers in classroom j in school m

i = student fixed-effect

k = teacher fixed effect

m = school fixed effect

Value-Added Results Used for Estimation of Teacher EffectsValue-Added Results Used for Estimation of Teacher Effects (Grades 2 – 10, 1999/2000 – 2004/05)(Grades 2 – 10, 1999/2000 – 2004/05)

Math Reading ________________________________________________________

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 0.183Teacher FE 0.032 0.100Model (Including School Indicators) 0.191 0.183Error 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.

Weighted Least Squares Estimates of the Relationship Between Weighted Least Squares Estimates of the Relationship Between Principal Ratings and Estimated Teacher Effectiveness 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.

WLS Estimates of the Relationship Between Principal Ratings and WLS Estimates of the Relationship Between Principal Ratings and Estimated Teacher Effectiveness -- By Grade Level 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 0.029Middle/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.

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_______________________________________________________

WLS Estimates of the RelationshipWLS 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_______________________________________________________

WLS Estimates of the RelationshipWLS 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_______________________________________________________

WLS Estimates of the RelationshipWLS Estimates of the RelationshipBetween Teacher Subjective Characteristicsand Estimated Teacher Effectiveness (Reading)(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 0.030No. of Observations 206 206 206 206_______________________________________________________

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.

Estimates of the Determinants of Student Achievement GainsEstimates of the Determinants of Student Achievement Gains(Grades 2 – 10, 2004/05)(Grades 2 – 10, 2004/05)

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

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

what makes for a good teacher and who can tell?

Documents