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 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 = )

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 /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/ /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 Student and Teacher Characteristics MathReading Total Students76,30870,916 Total Teachers Principals Interviewed 3030 Teachers Rated by Principal234231

Sample Teacher Grade Levels and Principal Ratings Math Reading Teachers Taught Primarily Elementary School Taught Primarily Middle School Taught Primarily High School Mean Principal Rating of Teacher Overall Ability to Raise Test Scores “Caring” “Enthusiastic” “Motivated” “Strong Teaching Skills” “Knows Subject” “Communication Skills” “Intelligence” “Positive Relationship with Parents” “Positive Relationship with Students”

Pairwise Correlation of Principal’s Ratings of Teachers With Teacher Characteristic Factors (Math) Overall Rating Ability to Raise Test Scores Inter- personal Skills Motivation/ Enthusiasm Works Well With Others Knowledge / Teaching Skills Overall Rating1 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 of Teachers With Teacher Characteristic Factors (Reading) Overall Rating Ability to Raise Test Scores Inter- personal Skills Motivation/ Enthusiasm Works Well With Others Knowledge / Teaching Skills Overall Rating1 Ability to Raise Test Scores 0.736**1 Interpersonal Skills 0.719**0.626**1 Motivation/ Enthusiasm 0.699**0.569**0.714**1 Works Well With Others 0.725**0.589**0.762**0.677**1 Knowledge/ Teaching Skills 0.861**0.697**0.644**0.682**0.650**1 ** Significant at the 0.05 level

Factor Loadings of Normalized Principal Ratings (Math) Teacher Characteristic Rated by Principal Interpersonal Skills Motivation/ Enthusiasm Works Well With Others Knowledge/ Teaching Skills Intelligent Works Well With Grade Team/Dept Works Well With Me (Principal) Positive Relationship With Parents Positive Relationship With Students Caring Enthusiastic Motivated Strong Teaching Skills Knows Subject Communication Skills

Factor Loadings of Normalized Principal Ratings (Reading) Teacher Characteristic Rated by Principal Interpersonal Skills Motivation/ Enthusiasm Works Well With Others Knowledge/ Teaching Skills Intelligent Works Well With Grade Team/Dept Works Well With Me (Principal) Positive Relationship With Parents Positive Relationship With Students Caring Enthusiastic Motivated Strong Teaching Skills Knows Subject Communication Skills

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 A it =achievement level of student i in year t X it =time-varying student characteristics P -ijmt =time-varying characteristics of peers in classroom j in school m ii =student fixed-effect kk =teacher fixed effect mm =school fixed effect

Value-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** (2.02)(0.84) Attended Different School in Prior Year 1.910*** (2.99)(1.15) Class Size-0.111** (2.21)(0.68) Proportion of Classroom Peers *** Who are White(4.37)(1.30) ________________________________________________________ Covariance of Achievement Gain and: Student FE Teacher FE Model (Including School Indicators) Error 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 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*** (4.52)(1.48) _________________________________________________________ R-squared No. of Observations _________________________________________________________ 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 Estimated Teacher Effectiveness -- By Grade Level Math Reading [1] [2] ________________________________________________________ Overall Rating 3.328*** 2.483** Elementary (2.84)(2.15) Overall Rating 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 Middle/High (0.88)(0.32) _______________________________________________________ R-squared No. of Observations _______________________________________________________ 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 MathReading _______________________________________________________ Interpersonal Skill 0.091* 0.192*** (1.86)(3.26) Knowledge/Teaching Skills 0.592*** 0.592*** (14.53)(11.49) Motivation/Enthusiasm (1.45)(0.04) Works Well With Others 0.237*** 0.193*** (4.83)(3.30) _______________________________________________________ R-squared No. of Observations _______________________________________________________

WLS Estimates of the Relationship WLS Estimates of the Relationship Between Teacher Subjective Characteristics and Estimated Teacher Effectiveness Math Reading _______________________________________________________ Interpersonal Skill (0.15)(0.93) Knowledge/Teaching Skills * (1.10)(1.96) Motivation/Enthusiasm (0.61)(0.96) Works Well With Others (1.46)(0.99) _______________________________________________________ R-squared No. of Observations _______________________________________________________

WLS Estimates of the Relationship WLS Estimates of the Relationship Between Teacher Subjective Characteristics and 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 No. of Observations _______________________________________________________

WLS Estimates of the Relationship (Reading) WLS Estimates of the Relationship Between Teacher Subjective Characteristics and Estimated Teacher Effectiveness (Reading) [1] [2] [3] [4] _______________________________________________________ Interpersonal Skill (1.15) Knowledge/Teaching Skills 1.881* (1.84) Motivation/Enthusiasm (0.56) Works Well With Others (0.50) _______________________________________________________ R-squared No. of Observations _______________________________________________________

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*** (3.85)(1.44) ______________________________________________________________________ R-squared No. of Observations ______________________________________________________________________ Note: All models include controls for individual student mobility, class size, peer characteristics, student fixed effects (from 1999/ /04), school indicators and a constant term. Estimates of the Determinants of Student Achievement Gains (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