1 / 10

Comments on: “New Research on Training, Growing and Evaluating Teachers”

Comments on: “New Research on Training, Growing and Evaluating Teachers”. 6 th Annual CALDER Conference February 21, 2013. How Can We Improve Teacher Quality?. Improve the pool of applicants Alternative routes into teaching Improve traditional teacher preparation programs

nevina
Télécharger la présentation

Comments on: “New Research on Training, Growing and Evaluating Teachers”

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. Comments on:“New Research on Training, Growing and Evaluating Teachers” 6th Annual CALDER Conference February 21, 2013

  2. How Can We Improve Teacher Quality? • Improve the pool of applicants • Alternative routes into teaching • Improve traditional teacher preparation programs • Increase starting salaries • Raise entry requirements • Do a better job of selecting the best candidates • Observable characteristics generally not related to future performance • Improve the human capital of current teachers • Studies of various forms of PD/mentoring typically find no impact on student achievement • Get existing teachers to work harder/better • Nashville and similar merit-pay experiments find little/no impact on teacher performance • Get rid of low-performing teachers and hold on to high-performing teachers • Simulations suggest gains could be large; don’t not yet know how this will pan out in practice

  3. Teacher Preparation Programs and Teacher Quality: Are There Real Differences Across Programs? • Short Answer: No (at least in Missouri) • Few programs stand out in other states either • Florida, Louisiana, New York, Texas • Why Aren’t There Differences? • Uniform negative selection • Education majors at more selective universities aren’t much better than those at less selective universities • Maybe teacher prep. programs don’t differ much across institutions • Or maybe they don’t matter at all

  4. Do First Impressions Matter? Improvements in Early Career Teacher Effectiveness • Short Answer: Yes • Value of teacher retention/”de-selection” based on value-added (VA) depends on how well early-career VA predicts long-run performance • Although there is substantial variability in the payoff to early career experience, VA in first two years does a reasonably good job at predicting later VA, particularly if you want to identify high and low performers • Still only about 28% of variation in future VA is “explained” by VA in first two years • If dismiss teachers in lowest 10% of VA in first two years, would eliminate 30% of teachers who are later in bottom 10% of VA and none of those who are later in the top 10% based on VA

  5. Selecting Growth Measures for School and Teacher Evaluations: Should Proportionality Matter? • Consider three models • Student Growth Percentiles • Account for differences in potential achievement solely with prior achievement • One-Step Value Added • Use both prior test scores and student demographics to account for differences in potential achievement • Simultaneously estimate impacts of student characteristics and schools/teachers by looking at within-school/within-teacher variation in student achievement (i.e. fixed effects) • Two-Step Value Added • First step estimates achievement as a function of a student’s prior scores and characteristics, plus observable school/teacher characteristics • Second step takes the difference between the actual score and the predicted score for each student in step one and compares the averages across schools/teachers

  6. Selecting Growth Measures for School and Teacher Evaluations: Should Proportionality Matter? • Student Growth Percentiles • Advantages • Doesn’t explicitly set lower expectations for disadvantaged students • Disadvantages • If disadvantaged students score lower (conditional on prior test scores) than non-disadvantaged students, then penalizing teachers/schools who serve them

  7. Selecting Growth Measures for School and Teacher Evaluations: Should Proportionality Matter? • One-Step Value Added • Advantages • Takes into account that some types of students will likely score lower than others, even if they have the same initial score • Disadvantages • Assumes effects of student characteristics within-school (or within-teacher) are the same as the effects across schools (or teachers) • Effects of small differences in student characteristics within schools/teachers extrapolated to effects of large differences in characteristics across schools/teachers • Likely much bigger deal for ranking schools than for ranking teachers • Measurement error a bigger problem since less true variation within schools/teachers

  8. Selecting Growth Measures for School and Teacher Evaluations: Should Proportionality Matter? • Two-Step Value Added • Advantages • Does not penalize schools for factors outside their control • Schools serving disadvantaged students may get worse pool of teacher candidates • Disadvantages • If school/teacher quality is correlated with student characteristics, will underestimate differences in quality • Falsely attribute differences in school/teacher quality to student characteristics • If disadvantaged students tend to be assigned low-quality teachers, then end up penalizing high-quality teachers

  9. Selecting Growth Measures for School and Teacher Evaluations: Should Proportionality Matter? • What’s the right model? • Ehler, et al. argue for the two-step VA model • Choice not so clear • SGPs appear problematic because they do not account for student characteristics (conditional on test scores) but with enough prior scores, may not be so bad • One-step VAM may over-penalize schools/teachers serving disadvantaged students • Two-step VAM may under-reward schools/teachers serving advantaged students

  10. Implications • Improving the pool of potential teachers important, but tweaking traditional teacher preparation programs not likely to get us there • Need to find was to get higher quality potential teachers by lowering entry barriers, increasing incentives or (maybe) radically changing traditional teacher preparation programs • Although far from a perfect instrument, incorporating early-career value added into retention/dismissal decisions will help • While there is no single “right” value added model, states ought to be paying more attention about the consequences of selecting a particular model and consider how they intend to use the results when decided which model they choose

More Related