In the summer of 2013, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) issued public ratings of teacher education programs. We provide the first empirical examination of NCTQ ratings, beginning with a descriptive overview of the ratings and how they evolved from 2013–2016. We also report on results from an information experiment built around the initial ratings release. In the experiment we provided targeted information about specific programmatic changes that would improve the rating for a randomly selected sample of elementary teacher education programs. Average program ratings improved between 2013 and 2016, but we find no evidence that the information intervention increased program responsiveness to NCTQ’s rating effort. In fact, treated programs had lower ratings than the control group in 2016.
AlterM.RebackR. (2014). True for your school? How changing reputations alter demand for selective US colleges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 346–370.
BallouD.PodgurskyM. (2000). Reforming teacher preparation and licensing: What is the evidence?Teachers College Record, 102(1), 5–27.
6.
BarrA.TurnerS. (2018). A letter and encouragement: Does information increase post-secondary enrollment of UI recipients?American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 10(3), 42–68.
7.
BeshearsJ.ChoiJ. J.LaibsonD.MadrianB. C.MilkmanK. L. (2015). The effect of providing peer information on retirement savings decisions. The Journal of Finance70(3), 1161–1201.
8.
BovensM. (2005). The concept of public accountability. In FerlieE.LynneL.PollittC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (p. 182). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press
9.
CastlemanB. L.PageL. C. (2015). Summer nudging: Can personalized text messages and peer mentor outreach increase college going among low-income high school graduates?Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 115, 144–160. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2014.12.008
10.
CastlemanB. L.PageL. C. (2016). Freshman year financial aid nudges: An experiment to increase FAFSA renewal and college persistence. Journal of Human Resources, 51, 389–415. doi:10.3368/jhr.51.2.0614-6458r
11.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.RockoffJ. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104, 2633–2679.
12.
ClarkR. L.MakiJ. A.MorrillM. S. (2014). Can simple informational nudges increase employee participation in a 401(k) plan?Southern Economic Journal, 80, 677–701.
13.
Cochran-SmithM.ZeichnerK. M. (2005). Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
DaroliaR.HarperC. (2018). Information use and attention deferment in college student loan decisions: Evidence from a debt letter experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40, 129–150. doi:10.3102/0162373717734368
17.
DeeT. S.WyckoffJ. (2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34, 267–297.
EhrenbergR. (2003). Reaching for the brass ring: The US News & World Report rankings and competition. Review of Higher Education, 26, 145–162.
20.
ERIC. (1986a). A nation prepared: Teachers for the 21st century (The Report of the Task Force on Teaching as a Profession). New York, NY: Carnegie Corp.
FerraroP. J.PriceM. K. (2013). Using nonpecuniary strategies to influence behavior: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95, 64–73.
23.
FullanM.GalluzzoG.MorrisP.WatsonN. (1998). The rise and stall of teacher education reform. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
24.
FullerE. J. (2014). Shaky methods, shaky motives: A critique of the National Council of Teacher Quality’s review of teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 63–77.
25.
GoldhaberD.BrewerD.AndersonD. (1999). A three-way error components analysis of educational productivity. Education Economics, 7, 199–208.
26.
GoldhaberD.KriegJ.TheobaldR. (2014). Knocking on the door to the teaching profession? Modeling the entry of prospective teachers into the workforce. Economics of Education Review, 43, 106–124.
27.
GoldhaberD.LiddleS.TheobaldR. (2013). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29–44.
GuytonJ.ManoliD. S.SchaferB.SebastianiM. (2016). Reminders and recidivism: Evidence from tax filing and EITC participation among low-income nonfilers (No. w21904). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w21904
30.
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100, 267–271.
HenryG. T.BastianK. C. (2015). Measuring up: The National Council on Teacher Quality’s ratings of teacher preparation programs and measures of teacher performance. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, College of Arts and Sciences, Education Policy Initiative.
33.
HippelP. T.von, BellowsL.OsborneC.LincoveJ. A.MillsN. (2016). Teacher quality differences between teacher preparation programs: How big? How reliable? Which programs are different?Economics of Education Review, 53, 31–45.
34.
HoxbyC.TurnerS. (2013). Expanding opportunities for high-achieving, low-income students (Working Paper No. 12-014). Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Retrieved from http://siepr.stanford.edu/publicationsprofile/2555
35.
JacksonC. K. (2016). What do test scores miss? The importance of teacher effects on non-test-score outcomes (NBER Working Paper Series No. 22226). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w22226.pdf
KilleenK.LoebS.WilliamsI. (2015). A double draw of proximity: The importance of geography in teacher application and hiring decisions. Stanford, CA: Center for Education Policy Analysis.
38.
KoedelC.ParsonsE.PodgurskyM.EhlertM. (2015). Teacher preparation programs and teacher quality: Are there real differences across programs?Education Finance and Policy, 10, 508–534.
39.
KraftM. A. (2017). Teacher effects on complex cognitive skills and social-emotional competencies. Journal of Human Resources. Advance online publication. doi:10.3368/jhr.54.1.0916.8265r3
LucaM.SmithJ. (2013). Salience in quality disclosure: Evidence from the U.S. News college rankings. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 22, 58–77.
42.
MarxB. M.TurnerL. J. (in press). Student loan nudges: Experimental evidence on borrowing and educational attainment. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.
43.
McDonoughP. M.LisingA.WalpoleA. M.PerezL. X. (1998). College rankings: Democratized college knowledge for whom?Research in Higher Education, 39, 513–537.
44.
McLendonM. K. (2003). State governance reform of higher education: Patterns, trends, and theories of the public policy process. In PaulsenM. B.PernaL. W. (Series Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 57–143). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.
45.
MeredithM. (2004). Why do universities compete in the ratings game? An empirical analysis of the effects of the US News & World Report college rankings. Research in Higher Education, 45, 443–461.
46.
MeyerA. G.HansonA. R.HickmanD. C. (2017). Perceptions of institutional quality: Evidence of limited attention to higher education rankings. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 142, 241–258.
47.
MonksJ.EhrenbergR. G. (1999). The impact of U.S. News & World Report college rankings on admissions outcomes and pricing policies at selective private institutions (CHERI Working Paper No. 1). Ithaca, NY: Cornell Higher Education Research Institute. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=cheri
48.
NyeB.KonstantopoulosS.HedgesL. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257.
PeckC. A.McDonaldM. (2013). Creating “cultures of evidence” in teacher education: Context, policy, and practice in three high-data-use programs. The New Educator, 9, 12–28.
51.
RansonS. (2003). Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Education Policy, 18, 459–480.
52.
RapoportN. B. (1999). Ratings, not rankings: Why US News & World Report shouldn’t want to be compared to Time and Newsweek—or The New Yorker. Ohio State Law Journal, 60(3), 1097–1101.
53.
ReiningerM. (2012). Hometown disadvantage? It depends on where you’re from: Teachers’ location preferences and the implications for staffing schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 127–145.
RomzekB. S. (2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66, 21–44.
56.
RonfeldtM.CampbellS. L. (2016). Evaluating teacher preparation using graduates’ observational ratings. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 603–625.
57.
SauderM.LancasterR. (2006). Do rankings matter? The effects of U.S. News & World Report rankings on the admissions process of law schools. Law & Society Review, 40, 105–134.
ZumetaW.KinneA. (2011). Accountability policies: Directions old and new. In HellerD. E. (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability (pp. 173–199). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
