Teacher evaluation for accountability and development

Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 174-193

  Donaldson, Morgaen L ^a,b   Papay, John P ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

^b HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85064371615     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203788684     Document Type: Chapter

References (85)

1. Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25 (1), 95–135.
2. Baker, E. L., et al. (2010). Problems withthe use of student test scores to evaluate teachers (EPI Briefing Paper 278). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
3. Baker, G., Gibbons, R., & Murphy, K. J. (1994). Subjective performance measures in optimal incentive contracts. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109 (4), 1125–1156.
4. Braun, H., Chudowsky, N., & Koenig, J. (Eds.). (2010). Getting value out of value-added. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
5. Briggs, D. C. (2013). Teacher evaluation as Trojan horse: The case for teacher-developed assessments. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 11 (1–2), 24–29.
6. Center on Great Teachers and Leaders. (2014). National Picture: A Different View. Retrieved from http:// www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/42states.pdf.
7. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood (NBER Working Paper No. 17699). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
8. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2013). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates (NBER Working Paper No. 19423). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
9. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis withstudent fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26 (6), 673–682.
10. Corcoran, S. P., Jennings, J. L., & Beveridge, A. A. (2011). Teacher effectiveness on high- and lowstakes tests. Evanston, IL: Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
11. Cubberly, E. P. (1929). Public school administration. Cambridge, MA: Riverside.
12. Darling-Hammond, L., Wise, A. E., & Pease, S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluation in the organizational context: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 53 (3), 285–328.
13. Dee, T., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT (NBER Working Paper No. 19529). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
14. Donaldson, M. L. (2009). So long, Lake Wobegon? Using teacher evaluation to raise teacher quality. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
15. Donaldson, M. L. (2013, April). How do teachers respond to being evaluated based on their students’ achievement? Evidence from New Haven, CT. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
16. Donaldson, M. L., Cobb, C., LeChasseur, K., Gabriel, R., Gonzales, R., Woulfin, S., & Makuch, A. (2014). An evaluation of the pilot implementation of Connecticut’s system for educator evaluation and development. Storrs, CT: Center for Education Policy Analysis.
17. Donaldson, M. L., & Papay, J. P. (2014). An idea whose time had come: Negotiating teacher evaluation reform in New Haven, Connecticut. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
18. Elliott, E. C. (1915). How shall the efficiency of teachers be tested and recorded. Proceedings of the National Educational Association, 469–473.
19. Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107 (1), 186–213.
20. Figlio, D. N., & Getzler, L. (2006). Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system? In T. J. Gronberg & D. W. Jansen (Eds.), Advances in applied microeconomics, improving school accountability. New York: Elsevier.
21. Firestone, W. A., Nordin, T. L., Blitz, C. L., Kirova, D., & Shcherbakov, A. (2013). How teacher evaluation is changing educational leadership: Lessons from a two-year pilot program. Proceedings of the University Council of Educational Administration.
22. Glazerman, S., Loeb, S., Goldhaber, D., Staiger, D., Raudenbush, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy, Brookings Institution.
23. Goe, L., & Holdheide, L. (2011). Measuring teachers’ contributions to student learning growthfor nontested grades and subjects. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
24. Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2007). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National Board certification as a signal of effective teaching. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89 (1), 134–150.
25. Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2008). Assessing the potential of using value-added estimates of teacher job performance for making tenure decisions. Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
26. Goldhaber, D., & Walch, J. (2012). Strategic pay reform: A student outcomes-based evaluation of Denver’s ProComp teacher pay initiative. Economics of Education Review, 31, 1067–1083.
27. Goldhammer, R., Anderson, R. H., & Krajewski, R. J. (1969). Clinical supervision: Special methods for the supervision of teachers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
28. Halverson, R. R., & Clifford, M. A. (2006). Evaluation in the wild: A distributed cognition perspective on teacher assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42 (4), 578–619.
29. Hanus, P. H. (1914). City school supervision. Yonkerson- Hudson, NY: World Book.
30. Hanushek, E. A. (2009). Teacher deselection. In D. Goldhaber & J. Hannaway (Eds.), Creating a new teaching profession. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
31. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 100 (May), 267–271.
32. Harris, D. N., Ingle, W. K., & Rutledge, S. A. (2014). How teacher evaluation methods matter for accountability: A comparative analysis of teacher effectiveness ratings by principals and teacher value-added measures. American Educational Research Journal, 51 (1), 73–112.
33. Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2009). The effects of NBPTS-certified teachers on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28 (1), 55–80.
34. Hill, H. C., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83 (2), 371–384.
35. Hill, H. C., Umland, K. U., Litke, E., & Kapitula, L. (2012). Teacher quality and quality teaching: Examining the relationship of a teacher assessment to practice. American Journal of Education, 118 (4), 489–519.
36. Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7, 24–52.
37. Honawar, V. (2007). Gains seen in retooled teacher education. Education Week, 27 (10), 1–13.
38. Hull, J. (2013). Trends in teacher evaluation: How states are measuring teacher performance. Alexandria, VA: Center for Public Education.
39. Hunter, F. M. (1924). The relation of supervision to the attainment of the major objectives of elementary education. Addresses and Proceedings of the National Educational Association, 908–914.
40. Hunter, M. (1982). Mastery teaching: Increasing instructional effectiveness in elementary and secondary schools, colleges, and universities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
41. Jackson, C. K. (2012). Non-cognitive ability, test scores, and teacher quality: Evidence from 9thgrade teachers in North Carolina (NBER Working Paper No. 18624). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
42. Jacob, B. A. (2011). Do principals fire the worst teachers? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33 (4), 403–434.
43. Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (3), 843–877.
44. Johnson, S. M. (1988). Pursuing professional reform in Cincinnati. Phi Delta Kappan, 69 (10), 746–751.
45. Johnson, S. M., Donaldson, M. L., Munger, M. S., Papay, J. P., & Qazilbash, E. K. (2009). Leading the local: Teachers union presidents chart their own course. Peabody Journal of Education, 84 (3), 374–393.
46. Johnson, S. M., Papay, J. P., Fiarman, S. E., Munger, M. S., & Qazilbash, E. K. (2010). Teacher to teacher: Realizing the potential of peer assistance and review. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
47. Kane, T. J., McCaffrey, D. F., Miller, T., & Staiger, D. O. (2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment. Seattle, WA: MET Project, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
48. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations withstudent surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, WA: MET Project, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
49. Kane, T. J., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Wooten, A. L. (2011). Identifying effective classroom practices using student achievement data. Journal of Human Resources, 46 (3), 587–613.
50. Kimball, S. M., & Milanowski, A. (2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45 (1), 34–70.
51. Koppich, J. E. (2012). Montgomery County Public Schools: Improving student achievement through effective human capital management. Madison, WI: Center for Educator Compensation Reform.
52. Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53. Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. L. (1980). Performance rating. Bulletin, 87 (1), 72–107.
54. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and work motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705–717.
55. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
57. McGuinn, P. (2012). Stimulating reform: Race to the Top, competitive grants, and the Obama education agenda. Educational Policy, 16 (1), 136–159.
58. Murnane, R. J., & Cohen, D. K. (1986). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why most merit pay plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Educational Review, 56 (1), 1–17.
59. National Council on Teacher Quality. (2013). State of the states 2013 connect the dots: Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.
60. Papay, J. P. (2011). Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal, 48 (1), 163–193.
61. Papay, J. P. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82 (1), 123–141.
62. Papay, J. P., & Johnson, S. M. (2012). Is PAR a good investment? Understanding the costs and benefits of teacher peer assistance and review programs. Educational Policy, 26 (5), 696–729.
63. Peterson, K. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
64. Peterson, K. D., Wahlquist, C., Bone, K., Thompson, J., & Chatterton, K. (2001). Using more data sources to evaluate teachers. Educational Leadership, 58 (5), 40.
65. Peterson, K. D., Wahlquist, C., Brown, J., & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2003). Parent surveys for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17 (4), 317–330.
66. Reardon, S. F., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). Assumptions of value-added models for estimating school effects. Education Finance and Policy, 4 (4), 492–519.
67. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. E c onometrica, 73 (2), 417–458.
68. Robelen, E. W. (2013). Teacher-review tool: Classroom portfolios. Education Week, 33 (4), 1–20.
69. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement. American Economic Review Papers & Proceedings, 94 (2), 247–252.
70. Rockoff, J. E., Staiger, D. O., Kane, T. J., & Taylor, E. S. (2012). Information and employee evaluation: Evidence from a randomized intervention in public schools. American Economic Review, 102 (7), 3184–3213.
71. Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125 (1), 175–214.
72. Rothstein, J. (2013). Teacher quality policy when supply matters (Working Paper). Berkeley, CA: Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley.
73. Sartain, L., Stoelinga, S., & Brown, E. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago: Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
74. Sinnema, C., & Robinson, V. (2007). The leadership of teaching and learning: Implications for teacher evaluation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6 (4), 319–343.
75. Slotnick, W. J., & Smith, M. D. (2004). Catalyst for change: Pay for performance in Denver final report. Boston: Community Training and Assistance Center.
76. Special Issue: Multiple Perspectives on Multiple Measures. (2003). Educational Measurement, 22 (2).
77. Steinberg, M., & Sartain, L. (forthcoming). Does teacher evaluation improve school performance? Experimental evidence from Chicago’s Excellence in Teaching Project. Education Finance and Policy.
78. Stronge, J. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2003). Teacher evaluation. Assessing and improving performance. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
79. Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. American Economic Review, 102 (7), 3628–3651.
80. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Brothers.
81. Thorndike, E. L. (1913). An introduction to the theory of mental and social measurements. New York: Teachers College.
82. Toch, T., & Rothman, R. (2008). Rush to judgment: Teacher evaluation in public education. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
83. Tucker, P. D. (1997). Lake Wobegon: Where all teachers are competent (or, have we come to terms withthe problem of incompetent teachers?). Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11 (2), 103–126.
84. Weingarten, R. (2010). A new pathforward: Four approaches to quality teaching and better schools. Retrieved from http://aft.3cdn.net/227d12e6684 32ca48e_twm6b90k1.pdf.
85. Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., & Keeling, D. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Brooklyn, NY: New Teacher Project