I was in several meetings this week where the following question came up in one form or another: what do we know about the relative effectiveness of the teachers that we select? The answer often began with “well, Jonah says. . . ,” which then prompted the predictable question “who’s Jonah?” I realized that it might be nice make sure everyone knows: “who’s Jonah?” and to take the opportunity to update you on recent research findings about New York teachers.
Jonah is Jonah Rockoff, a professor of economics and finance at Columbia Business School. He is one of a group of researchers with economics backgrounds and fluency in advanced statistical models who have examined the relative effectiveness of alternative certification and traditional pathways recruits here at the DOE. These researchers also include Douglas Staiger, an economics professor from Dartmouth, and Thomas Kane, a professor of education and economics at Harvard. Here are their websites, if you’d like to take a look:
http://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jrockoff/cv.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~dstaiger/
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/faculty_research/profiles/profile.shtml?vperson_id=71512
Kane, Rockoff and Staiger used a sophisticated statistical model (remember the Weekly Reader that discussed “value-added” models that identify gains in student achievement?) to compare the effectiveness of the DOE’s alternately certified and traditionally credentialed teachers. They concluded that:
“On average, the certification status of a teacher has at most small impacts on student test performance. However, among those with the same certification status, there are large and persistent differences in teacher effectiveness. This evidence suggests that classroom performance during the first two years, rather than certification status, is a more reliable indicator of a teacher’s future effectiveness.”
Here’s a link to the entire paper:
K:\Pool\Leigh's Weekly Reader\KaneRockoffStaiger2006.pdf
Jim Wyckoff and a group of researchers affiliated with the SUNY Albany and Stanford University have also examined the effectiveness of DOE teachers from various pathways. They, too, found only relatively small differentials among pathways, which varied by grade and subject. They concluded that the more important inquiry lay in determining attributes that, irrespective of pathway, make for effective teaching:
“The current analysis does not address a number of important policy questions. We find substantial variation within pathways of teachers’ ability to increase student achievement. What accounts for these differences? How do the measures of teacher qualifications, such as certification exams scores, quality of institution and performance in undergraduate and graduate education as well as area of certification affect teachers’ ability to enhance student learning? From the perspective of teacher preparation, what attributes of preparation are most important in increasing student achievement? . . . . We want to understand what accounts for the substantial differences among teachers, even within pathways, in their abilities to influence student achievement. We are in the process of exploring answers to these questions.”
Here’s are links to the entire paper, to Wyckoff’s website, and to the SUNY/Stanford research group:
K:\Pool\Leigh's Weekly Reader\WyckoffetalPolicy.pdf
http://www.albany.edu/rockefeller/pad/faculty_1/wyckoff.htm
http://www.teacherpolicyresearch.org/
Vicki and Peter are working with Jim and this group of researchers as they explore more fully the questions they have raised.
The findings from New York are consistent with a body of research emerging from other districts. This research is beginning to drive national policy discussions. The best, most provocative paper that ties much of the research together and discusses implications for policies regarding teacher credentialing, hiring, and tenure was done for the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, co-authored by Kane, Staiger, and Robert Gordon, who is now at the DOE advising the Chancellor.
In this policy paper, Gordon et. al reaffirm that “teachers vary considerably in the extent to which they promote student learning, but whether a teacher is certified or not is largely irrelevant to predicting his or her effectiveness.” They go on to point out that “while certification status was not very helpful in predicting teacher impacts on student performance, teachers’ rankings during their first two years of teaching does provide a lot of information about their likely impact during their third year.” Based on this evidence, they recommend that barriers to entry into the teaching profession be reduced, and that tenure decisions become much more rigorous and include safeguards against tenuring those teachers who have proven to be least effective. If you were going to read only one education policy paper this year, I suggest that this be the one:
K:\Pool\Leigh's Weekly Reader\200604hamilton_1[1].pdf
If you want more or don’t have the patience for educational research papers, here are a couple interesting short summaries of current research on teacher effectiveness:
K:\Pool\Leigh's Weekly Reader\iesboardsept2006.ppt
(a powerpoint presentation by Katie Haycock of the Education Trust that takes a wide ranging look at this research and what we need to do with it, presented at the national conference of a department of the US Department of Education)
http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110620.html (an interesting brief article in Harvard magazine)
It’s a great time in education, as we grapple with what we know and what we can find out about the characteristics of those who can really drive student achievement growth in our schools and classrooms. Stay tuned