Popular modes of evaluating teachers are fraught with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, but the field has identified better approaches.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amrein-BeardsleyA.CollinsC. (In press). The SAS education value-added assessment system (EVAAS): Its intended and unintended effects in a major urban school system.Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University.
2.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project.Seattle, WA: Author.
3.
BraunH. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
4.
BriggsD.DomingueB. (2011). Due diligence and the evaluation of teachers: A review of the value-added analysis underlying the effectiveness rankings of Los Angeles Unified School District teachers by the Los Angeles Times. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
5.
CarrellS.WestJ. (2010). Does professor quality matter? Evidence from random assignment of students to professors. Journal of Political Economy, 118 (3).
6.
Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
7.
GoddardY.GoddardR.D. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109 (4), 877–896.
8.
JacksonC.K.BruegmannE. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers.Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.
9.
LockwoodJ.McCaffreyD.HamiltonL.StetcherB.LeV.N.MartinezJ. (2007). The sensitivity of value-added teacher effect estimates to different mathematics achievement measures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44 (1), 47–67.
10.
MilanowskiA. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79 (4), 33–53.
11.
MilanowskiA.KimballS.M.WhiteB. (2004). The relationship between standards-based teacher evaluation scores and student achievement.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
12.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future.New York, NY: Author.
13.
National Research Council, Board on Testing and Assessment. (2008). Assessing accomplished teaching: Advanced-level certification programs.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
14.
National Research Council, Board on Testing and Assessment. (2009). Letter report to the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.
15.
NewtonX.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.ThomasE. (2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18 (23).
16.
PackardR.DereshiwskyM. (1991). Final quantitative assessment of the Arizona career ladder pilot-test project.Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.
17.
RockoffJ.SperoniC. (2010). Subjective and objective evaluations of teacher effectiveness.New York, NY: Columbia University.
18.
RothsteinJ. (2007). Do value-added models add value? Tracking, fixed effects, and causal inference. CEPS Working Paper No. 159. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
19.
RothsteinJ. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125 (1), 175–214.
20.
RothsteinJ. (2011). Review of ‘Learning about teaching: Initial findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project.’Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
21.
SassT. (2008). The stability of value-added measures of teacher quality and implications for teacher compensation policy. Washington, DC: CALDER.
22.
SolmonL.WhiteJ.T.CohenD.WooD. (2007). The effectiveness of the Teacher Advancement Program. Washington, DC: National Institute for Excellence in Teaching.
23.
SpringerM.BallouD.HamiltonL.LeV.LockwoodV.McCaffreyD.PepperM.StecherB. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching. Nashville, TN: National Center on Performance Incentives.
24.
TaylorE.TylerJ. (2011, March). The effect of evaluation on performance: Evidence of longitudinal student achievement data of mid-career teachers. Working Paper No. 16877. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
WilsonM.HallamP.PecheoneR.MossP. (2011). Investigating the validity of portfolio assessments of beginning teachers: Relationships with student achievement and tests of teacher knowledge.Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Evaluation, Assessment, and Research Center.
