Teacher Evaluation,Performance-Related Pay,and Constructivist Instruction

Abstract

Using statewide longitudinal teacher survey data collected in 2009 and 2010, this study examined the characteristics of teacher evaluation used to determine performance-related pay (PRP), and the association between PRP and improvement in the practice of constructivist instruction. The study found that 10.9% of middle school mathematics teachers in Missouri received PRP in 2009 and the average amount was US$1,463. The teachers were mainly evaluated by principals who conducted classroom observations and held face-to-face meetings to assess their teaching practice and professional development activities. After controlling for the background characteristics, this study found a modest yet positive association between PRP and improvement in teacher practice of constructivist instruction from 2009 to 2010.

Keywords

teacher evaluation performance-related pay constructivist instruction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Federation of Teachers, & National Education Association. (1998). Peer assistance and peer review: An AFT/NEA handbook. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/paprhandbook0998.pdf

Atkinson

Burgess

Croxson

Gregg

Propper

Slater

Wilson

(2009). Evaluating the impact of performance-related pay for teachers in England. Labour Economics, 16, 251-261.

Ballou

Podgursky

(1997). Teacher pay and teacher quality. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

Brooks

J. G.

Brooks

M. G.

(1993). In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Cullen

J. B.

Reback

(2006). Tinkering toward accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system. In Gronberg

T. J.

Jansen

D. W.

(Eds.), Improving school accountability: Check-ups or choice (pp. 1-34). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: JAI Press.

Danielson

(1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Darling-Hammond

Amrein-Beardsley

Haertel

E. H.

Rothstein

(2011). Getting teacher evaluation right: A background paper for policy makers. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association and National Academy of Education.

Delandshere

Petrosky

A. R.

(2010). The use of portfolios in preservice teacher education: A critical appraisal. In Kennedy

M. M.

(Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 9-42). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Dewey

(1929). My pedagogic creed. Washington, DC: Progressive Education Association.

10.

Eberts

Hollenbeck

Stone

(2002). Teacher performance incentives and student outcomes. Journal of Human Resources, 37, 913-927.

11.

Education Commission of the States. (2008). State collective bargaining policies for teachers. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/77/27/7727.pdf

12.

Education Week. (2011). Uncertain forecast: Education adjusts to a new economic reality. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education Inc.

13.

Ellett

C. D.

Teddlie

(2003). Teacher evaluation, teacher effectiveness, and school effectiveness: Perspectives from the USA. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 101-128.

14.

Figlio

D. N.

Getzler

L. S.

(2006). Accountability, ability, and disability: Gaming the system. In Gronberg

T. J.

Jansen

D. W.

(Eds.), Improving school accountability: Check-ups or choice (pp. 35-49). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: JAI Press.

15.

Figlio

D. N.

Kenny

L. W.

(2007). Individual teacher incentives and student performance. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 901-914.

16.

Figlio

D. N.

Winicki

(2005). Food for thought: The effects of school accountability plans on school nutrition. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 381-394.

17.

Fryer

R. G.

(2011). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City public schools. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

18.

Gallagher

H. A.

(2004). Vaughn elementary’s innovative teacher evaluation system: Are teacher evaluation scores related to growth in student achievement? Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 79-107.

19.

Glewwe

Llias

Kremer

(2010). Teacher incentives. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 205-227.

20.

Goldhaber

DeArmond

Player

Choi

H.-J.

(2008). Why do so few public school districts use merit pay. Journal of Education Finance, 33, 262-289.

21.

Goldstein

(2007). Easy to dance to: Solving the problems of teacher evaluation with peer assistance and review. American Journal of Education, 113, 479-508.

22.

Goodman

Turner

(2010). Teacher incentive pay and educational outcomes: Evidence from the nyc bonus program. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School.

23.

Hamilton

L. S.

McCaffrey

D. F.

Stecher

B. M.

Klein

S. P.

Robyn

Bugliari

(2003). Studying large-scale reforms of instructional practice: An example from mathematics and science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 1-29.

24.

Hanushek

E. A.

Kain

J. F.

Rivkin

S. G.

(2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 326-354.

25.

Harris

D. N.

McCaffrey

D. F.

(2010). Value-added: Assessing teachers’ contributions to student achievement. In Kennedy

M. M.

(Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: a handbook (pp. 251-282). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

26.

Hazi

H. M.

Rucinski

D. A.

(2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for improved student learning: A fifty-state review of statute and regulatory action since NCLB. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v17n5/

27.

Jacob

B. A.

(2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761-796.

28.

Jacob

B. A.

Lefgren

(2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26(1), 101-136.

29.

Jacob

B. A.

Levitt

S. D.

(2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalance and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 843-877.

30.

Johnson

S. M.

Papay

J. P.

(2009). Redesigning teacher pay: A system for the next generation of educators. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

31.

Kennedy

M. M.

(2010). Approaches to annual performance assessment. In Kennedy

M. M.

(Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: a handbook (pp. 225-249). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Kimball

S. M.

Milanowski

(2009). Examining teacher evaluation validity and leadership decision making within a standards-based evaluation system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(1), 34-70.

33.

Kimball

S. M.

White

Milanowski

A. T.

Borman

(2004). Examining the relationship between teacher evaluation and student assessment results in Washoe County. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 54-78.

34.

Kingdon

G. G.

Teal

(2007). Does performance related pay for teachers improve student performance? Some evidence from India. Economics of Education Review, 26, 473-486.

35.

Kyriakides

(2005). Drawing from teacher effectiveness research and research into teacher interpersonal behaviour to establish a teacher evaluation system: A study on the use of student ratings to evaluate teacher behaviour. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(2), 44-66.

36.

Lavy

(2002). Evaluating the effect of teachers’ group performance incentives on pupil achievement. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 1286-1317.

37.

Lavy

(2009). Performance pay and teachers’ effort, productivity and grading ethics. American Economic Review, 99, 1979-2011.

38.

Lawler

E. E.

(1990). Strategic pay: Aligning organizational strategies and pay systems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

39.

Liang

Akiba

(2011). Performance-related pay: District and teacher characteristics. Journal of School Leadership, 21, 844-869.

40.

Lockwood

J. R.

McCaffrey

D. F.

Hamilton

L. S.

Stecher

V.-N.

Martinez

J. F.

(2007). The sensitivity of value-added teacher effect estimates to different mathematics achievement measures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(1), 47-67.

41.

Loeb

Miller

L. C.

Strunk

K. O.

(2009). The state role in teacher compensation. Education Finance and Policy, 4(1), 89-114.

42.

Mayer

D. P.

(1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29-45.

43.

Medley

D. M.

Coker

(1987). The accuracy of principals’ judgements of teacher performance. Journal of Educational Research, 80, 242-247.

44.

Milanowski

(2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33-53.

45.

Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (1999). Guidelines for performance-based teacher evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.dese.mo.gov/divteachqual/leadership/profdev/PBTE.pdf

46.

Muralidharan

Sundararaman

(2011). Teacher performance pay: Experimental evidence from India. Journal of Political Economy, 119(1), 39-77.

47.

National Center on Performance Incentives. (n.d.). State-by-state resources. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://my.vanderbilt.edu/performanceincentives/state-by-state-resources/

48.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

49.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

50.

Newmann

F. M.

Marks

H. M.

Gamoran

(1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104, 280-312.

51.

Newton

X. A.

Darling-Hammond

Haertel

Thomas

(2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 18(23). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/810

52.

Nie

Lau

(2010). Differential relations of constructivist and didactic instruction to students’ cognition, motivation, and achievement. Learning and Instruction, 20, 411-423.

53.

Peterson

(2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

54.

Peterson

(2004). Research on school teacher evaluation. National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, 88(60), 60-79.

55.

Peterson

K. D.

Wahlquist

Bone

(2000). Student surveys for school teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(2), 135-153.

56.

Piaget

(1952). The origins of intelligence in children ( Cook

Trans.). New York, NY: International Universities Press.

57.

Pipho

(1991). Centralizing curriculum at state level. In Klein

M. F.

(Ed.), The politics of curriculum decision-making: Issues in centralizing the curriculum (pp. 67-97). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

58.

Podgursky

M. J.

Springer

M. G.

(2007). Teacher performance pay: A review. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26, 909-949.

59.

Reese

J. P.

(2010). The national board for professional teaching standards: An investment for the future? In Kennedy

M. M.

(Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: a handbook (pp. 283-296). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

60.

Richardson

(2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105, 1623-1640.

61.

Rothstein

(2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175-214.

62.

Sass

(2008). The stability of value-added measures of teacher quality and implications for teacher compensation policy. Washington, DC: CALDER.

63.

Springer

M. G.

Pane

J. F.

V.-N.

McCaffrey

D. F.

Burns

S. F.

Hamilton

L. S.

Stecher

(2012). Team pay for performance: Experimental evidence from the Round Rock pilot project on team incentives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 367-390.

64.

Teddlie

Stringfield

Burdett

(2003). International comparisons of the relationships among educational effectiveness, evaluation and improvement variables: An overview. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(1), 5-20.

65.

The White House (2012). Remarks by the president in state of the union address. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/24/remarks-president-state-union-address

66.

Tobias

Duffy

T. M.

(2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure. New York, NY: Routledge.

67.

Tucker

P. D.

Stronge

J. H.

Gareis

C. R.

Beers

C. S.

(2003). The efficacy of portfolios for teacher evaluation and professional development: Do they make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 39, 572-602.

68.

U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). State right-to-work laws and constitutional amendments in effect as of January 1, 2009 with year of passage. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/righttowork.htm

69.

Valentine

J. W.

Harting

R. D.

(1988). Performance-based teacher evaluation in Missouri: a three-year report. Jefferson City, MO: Missouri State Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

70.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

71.

Wei

R. C.

Pecheone

R. L.

(2010). Assessment for learning in preservice teacher education. In Kennedy

M. M.

(Ed.), Teacher assessment and the quest for teacher quality: A handbook (pp. 69-132). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

72.

Winters

M. A.

Ritter

G. W.

Greene

J. P.

Marsh

. (2009). Student outcomes and teacher productivity and perceptions in Arkansas. In Springer

M. G.

(Ed.), Performance incentives: Their growing impact on American k-12 education (pp. 273-294). Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

73.

Woessmann

(2011). Cross-country evidence on teacher performance pay. Economics of Education Review, 30, 404-418.

74.

Wolf

Lichtenstein

Bartlett

Hartman

(1996). Professional development and teaching portfolios: The Douglas Couny outstanding teacher program. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10, 279-286.

75.

Ziegler

J. F.

Yan

(2001). Relationships of teaching, learning, and supervision: Their influence on student achievement in mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.