Upload
seprogram
View
222
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Searching for Effective TeachersSearching for Effective Teachers with Imperfect Information
Nonprofit Leadership Forum:Measuring and creating excellence in schoolsMeasuring and creating excellence in schools
May 6, 2010
D l O S iDouglas O. StaigerDartmouth College
MotivationMotivation
Huge literature about “teacher effects” on achievementDifficult to predict at hirePartially predictable after hire
Growing use of value added to identify effectiveGrowing use of value added to identify effective teachers for pay, promotion, and professional development
But concern that current value added estimates are too imprecise to be used in high-stakes decisions
How could such measures be used?How could such measures be used?
Use simple search model to illustrate how one could useUse simple search model to illustrate how one could use imperfect information on effectiveness to screen teachers
Use estimates of model parameters from NYC & LAUSD to simulate the potential gains from screening teachers
Evaluate potential gains from:Observing teacher performance for more yearsObtaining more reliable information on teacher performanceObtaining more reliable information at time of hire
Simple search modelSimple search model
Maintained assumptions across all simulationsMaintained assumptions across all simulationsSD of teacher effect = 0.15Turnover rate if not dismissed = 5%
Assumptions for simplest base case (will be varied later)No useful information at time of hireReliability of annual performance measure = 40%Cost of hiring new teacher = -.07 in 1st year, -.02 in 2nd yearDismissal only after first year (e g tenure decision after 1 year)Dismissal only after first year (e.g. tenure decision after 1 year)
Objective: Maximize student achievement by screening out ineffective teachers using imperfect performance measureineffective teachers using imperfect performance measure
Simple model: dismiss 80% of probationary teachers(!)p p y ( )
.808
.6e
.06
.0ed
.4po
rtion
nov
ice
.04
ge v
alue
add
e
.2P
rop
.02
Ave
rag
0
0
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Proportion dismissed
Average value added Proportion novice
Why dismiss so many probationary teachers?y y p y
Differences in teacher effects are large & persistent relativeDifferences in teacher effects are large & persistent, relative to short-lived costs of hiring a new teacher
E li bl f di t b t ti lEven unreliable performance measures predict substantial differences in teacher effects
Costs of retaining an ineffective teacher outweigh costs of di i i ff i hdismissing an effective teacher
Option value of new hiresFor every 5 new hires, one will be highly effectiveTrade off short-term cost of 4 dismissed vs. long-term benefit of 1 retained
Why not dismiss so many probationary t h ?teachers?
Smaller benefits than assumed in the model?Smaller benefits than assumed in the model?High turnover ratesTeacher differences that do not persist in future(including if PD can help ineffective teachers)High stakes distortion of performance measures
Larger costs than assumed in the model?Direct costs of recruiting/firing (little effect if added)Difficulty recruiting applicants (but LAUSD did)Higher pay required to offset job insecurity(particularly if require teacher-training up front)(particularly if require teacher training up front)
Requiring a 2nd or 3rd year to evaluate a b ti t h i b d idprobationary teacher is a bad idea.
T=1 T=2 T=3 T=4
A l dd d 0 080 0 075 0 068 0 061
Wait to dismiss until year:
Average value added 0.080 0.075 0.068 0.061
% dismissed 81% 75% 71% 68%
Allowing a 2nd or 3rd year to evaluate a b ti t h i d idprobationary teacher is a good idea.
T=1 T=2 T=3 T=4
A l dd d 0 080 0 095 0 099 0 101
Dismissal at any time through year:
Average value added 0.080 0.095 0.099 0.101
% dismissed (total) 81% 83% 84% 84%% dismissed (by year)% dismissed (by year)
In year 1 81% 67% 67% 67%In year 2 0% 16% 8% 8%In year 3 0% 0% 9% 4%In year 3 0% 0% 9% 4%In year 4 0% 0% 0% 5%
Obtaining more reliable information on teacher f i l bl littl ff t di i lperformance is valuable, little effect on dismissal
T=1T=2T=3T>3 86 T 1
.6.7
.8se
d.12
.14
.16
ded
3.4
.5or
tion
dism
iss
06.0
8.1
age
valu
e ad
d
.1.2
.P
ropo
.02
.04
.0A
vera
00
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1Reliability of annual performance measure
Average value added Proportion dismissed
Obtaining more reliable information at time of hire i l bl d d di i l tis even more valuable, and reduces dismissal rate.
8025
608
ed2.2
ed
40tio
n di
smis
se
5.2
e va
lue
adde
20Pr
opor
t
.15
Ave
rag
0
.1
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Reliability of pre hire performance signalReliability of pre-hire performance signal
Average value added Proportion dismissed
SummarySummary
Potential gain is largePotential gain is largeCould raise average annual achievement gains by ≈0.08Similar magnitude to STAR class-size experiment and to recent
lt f h t h l l tt iresults from charter school lotteries
Gains could be doubled if had more reliable performance d i l d if b d hi himeasure, and tripled if observed this pre-hire
Select only the most effective teachers, and do it quicklyy q yBut may be practical reasons limiting success of this strategy
Focused on screening, but other uses may yield large gainsFocused on screening, but other uses may yield large gains