Value-Added Measures in Restructuring Urban Schools

Value-added measures of teacher effectiveness have become very popular in educational reform efforts. Using 2010 data from elementary schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), we engage in a new and innovative statistical approach to contribute to the discussion concerning such measures. We hypothesize that quality teachers are not independent of students and schools. Through two-stage least squares, we find that in the aggregate, high-quality teachers do not improve aggregate student outcomes in urban districts controlling for student and school factors. While good teachers can have individual, positive, and dramatic effects on individual students, their impacts on larger populations are diluted. Therefore, although high-quality teachers can improve individual student outcomes, other factors are more likely to create a more equitable, effective system of education.

[1]  Helen F. Ladd.  Education and Poverty: Confronting the Evidence , 2012 .

[2]  Jonah E. Rockoff,et al.  The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood. NBER Working Paper No. 17699. , 2011 .

[3]  Heather C. Hill,et al.  A Validity Argument Approach to Evaluating Teacher Value-Added Scores , 2011 .

[4]  S. Konstantopoulos,et al.  The Persistence of Teacher Effects in Elementary Grades , 2011 .

[5]  E. Hanushek.  The Economic Value of Higher Teacher Quality , 2010 .

[6]  Xiaoxia A. Newton,et al.  Value-Added Modeling of Teacher Effectiveness: An Exploration of Stability across Models and Contexts , 2010 .

[7]  Eric A. Hanushek,et al.  Generalizations about Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality , 2010 .

[8]  C. Jackson,et al.  Student Demographics, Teacher Sorting, and Teacher Quality: Evidence from the End of School Desegregation , 2009, Journal of Labor Economics.

[9]  Joshua D. Angrist,et al.  Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion , 2008 .

[10]  Helen F. Ladd,et al.  High Poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers and Principals. Sanford Working Paper Series. SAN06-08. , 2006 .

[11]  L. Hedges,et al.  How Large Are Teacher Effects? , 2004 .

[12]  Jonah E. Rockoff.  The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data , 2004 .

[13]  E. Hanushek,et al.  How to Improve the Supply of High-Quality Teachers , 2004 .

[14]  R. Ingersoll.  Why Some Schools Have More Underqualified Teachers Than Others , 2004 .

[15]  Paul Wright,et al.  Controlling for Student Background in Value-Added Assessment of Teachers , 2004 .

[16]  R. W. Fairlie,et al.  CHAPTER 5 Technology and Education : Computers , Software , and the Internet , 2016 .

[17]  Jonah E. Rockoff,et al.  NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS OF TEACHERS: TEACHER VALUE-ADDED AND STUDENT OUTCOMES IN ADULTHOOD , 2012 .

[18]  Joseph G. Altonji,et al.  The role of family, school and community characteristics in inequality in education and labor market outcomes , 2011 .

[19]  K. Magnuson,et al.  The nature and impact of early achievement skills, attention skills, and behavior problems , 2011 .

[20]  E. Hanushek.  THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF HIGHER TEACHER QUALITY , 2010 .

[21]  S. Loeb,et al.  The Effect of School Neighborhoods on Teacher Career Decisions , 2010 .

[22]  R. Mickelson.  Segregation and the SAT , 2006 .