In July 2011, the State of Michigan adopted a broad set of teacher labor market reforms, including a high-stakes evaluation system designed in part to remove low-performing teachers. We examine the characteristics of teachers rated as “minimally effective” and “ineffective,” as well as their schools, and the relationship between low effectiveness ratings and later employment outcomes. Results suggest teachers of color across traditional and charter schools are more likely to receive low effectiveness ratings than their within-school peers. These low rating risks are higher for teachers of color working in comparatively White-faculty contexts. Male and novice teachers are also rated low more frequently, and important differences appear to exist in the usage of low ratings by traditional public and charter schools.
BaileyJ.BocalaC.ShakmanK.ZweigJ. (2016). Teacher demographics and evaluation: A descriptive study in a large urban district (REL 2017-189). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
4.
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012). Asking students about teaching: Student perception surveys and their implementation (MET Project Policy and Practice Summary). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED566384
5.
BowenC.SwimJ. K.JacobsR. R. (2000). Evaluating gender biases on actual job performance of real people: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2194–2215. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1559-1816
6.
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.RonfeldtM.WyckoffJ. (2011). The role of teacher quality in retention and hiring: Using applications to transfer to uncover preferences of teachers and schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(1), 88–110. doi:10.1002/pam.20545
7.
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2013). Analyzing the determinants of the matching of public school teachers to jobs: Disentangling the preferences of teachers and employers. Journal of Labor Economics, 31, 83–117. doi:10.1086/666725
8.
BristolT. J. (2018). To be alone or in a group: An exploration into how the school-based experiences differ for Black male teachers across one urban school district. Urban Education, 53(3), 334–354. doi:10.1177/0042085917697200
9.
CampbellS. L.RonfeldtM. (2018). Observational evaluation of teachers: Measuring more than we bargained for?American Educational Research Journal, 55, 1233–1267. doi:10.3102/0002831218776216
10.
CherngH. S.HalpinP. F. (2016). The importance of minority teachers. Educational Researcher, 45, 407–420. doi:10.3102/0013189X16671718
CloseK.Amrein-BeardsleyA.CollinsC. (2018). State-level assessments and teacher evaluation systems after the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act: Some steps in the right direction. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/state-assessment
13.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24, 377–3792. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.06.008
14.
CohenJ.GoldhaberD. (2015). Observations on evaluating teacher performance: Assessing the strengths and weaknesses of classroom observations and value-added measures. In GrissomJ. A.YoungsP. (Eds.), Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of multiple measures (pp. 8–21). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
15.
CohenJ.GoldhaberD. (2016). Building a more complete understanding of teacher evaluation using classroom observation. Educational Researcher, 45, 378–387. doi:10.3102/0013189X16659442
16.
CorcoranS.GoldhaberD. (2013). Value added and its uses: Where you stand depends on where you sit. Education Finance and Policy, 8, 418–434. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00104
DeeT.WyckoffJ. (2015). Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34, 267–297. doi:10.1002/pam.21818
20.
DohertyK. M.JacobsS. (2015). State of the states: Evaluating teaching, leading and learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality. Retrieved from www.nctq.org/dmsView/StateofStates2015
21.
EgaliteA. J.KisidaB.WintersM. A. (2015). Representation in the classroom: The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45, 44–52. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.007
22.
FengL. (2010). Hire today, gone tomorrow: New teacher classroom assignments and teacher mobility. Education Finance and Policy, 5, 278–316. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00002
23.
FengL.SassT. R. (2017). Teacher quality and teacher mobility. Education Finance and Policy, 12, 396–418. doi:0.1162/EDFP_a_00214
24.
FryerR. (2013). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City public schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 31, 373–427.
GiulianoL.LevineD. I.LeonardJ. (2011). Racial bias in the manager-employee relationship: An analysis of quits, dismissals, and promotions at a large retail firm. Journal of Human Resources, 46, 26–52. doi:10.1353/jhr.2011.0022
27.
GlazermanS.SeifullahA. (2012). An evaluation of the Chicago Teacher Advancement Program (Chicago TAP) after four years. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
28.
GoldhaberD.GrossB.PlayerD. (2011). Teacher career paths, teacher quality, and persistence in the classroom: Are public schools keeping their best?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 57–87. doi:10.1002/pam.20549
29.
GoldringR.GrayL.BittermanA.BroughmanS. (2013). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2011-12 Schools and Staffing Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013314.pdf
30.
GrissomJ. A.KeiserL. R. (2011). A supervisor like me: Race, representation, and the satisfaction and turnover decisions of public sector employees. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 557–580. doi:10.1002/pam.20579
31.
GrissomJ. A.LoebS. (2017). Assessing principals’ assessments: Subjective evaluations of teacher effectiveness in low- and high-stakes environments. Education Finance and Policy, 12, 369–395. doi:0.1162/EDFP_a_00210
32.
GrissomJ. A.Nicholson-CrottyJ.KeiserL. (2012). Does my boss’s gender matter? Explaining job satisfaction and employee turnover in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 649–673. doi:10.1093/jopart/mus004
33.
GrissomJ. A.ReddingC. (2015). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 2332858415622175.
34.
HallingerP.HeckR. H.MurphyJ. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: An analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26, 5–28. doi:10.1007/s11092-013-9179-5
35.
HanushekE. (2011a). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics of Education Review, 30, 466–479. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.006
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G.SchimanJ. C. (2016). Dynamic effects of teacher turnover on the quality of instruction. Economics of Education Review, 55, 132–148. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.08.004
38.
HarrisD. N.IngleW. K.RutledgeS. A. (2014). How teacher evaluation methods matter for accountability: A comparative analysis of teacher effectiveness ratings by principals and teacher value-added measures. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 73–112. doi:10.3102/0002831213517130
39.
HoltS. B.GershensonS. (2015). The impact of teacher demographic representation on student attendance and suspensions (IZA Discussion Paper No. 9554). Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp9554.pdf
KraftM. A.GilmourA. F. (2017). Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Education Researcher, 46, 234–249. doi:10.3102/0013189X17718797
MarshJ. A.Bush-MecenasS.StrunkK. O.LincoveJ. A.HuguetA. (2017). Evaluating teachers in the big easy: How organizational context shapes policy responses in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39, 539–570. doi:10.3102/0162373717698221
McGrathK.SinclairM. (2013). More male primary-school teachers? Social benefits for boys and girls. Gender and Education, 25, 531–547. doi:10.1080/09540253.2013.796342
MilanowskiA. (2017). Lower performance evaluation practice ratings for teachers of disadvantaged students: Bias or reflection of reality?AERA Open, 3(1), 1–16. doi:10.1177/2332858416685550
55.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Elementary/Secondary Information System. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/
56.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). The high cost of low educational performance: The long-run economic impact of improving PISA outcomes. Retrieved from www.oecd.org/pisa/44417824.pdf
57.
PapayJ. P. (2012). Refocusing the debate: Assessing the purposes and tools of teacher evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 123–141.
RaudenbushS. W. (2009). Adaptive centering with random effects: An alternative to the fixed effects model for studying time-varying treatments in school settings. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 468–491. Retrieved from www.jstor.org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/stable/educfinapoli.4.4.468
60.
RonfeldtM.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 4–36. doi:10.3102/0002831212463813
61.
RothsteinJ. (2014). Teacher quality policy when supply matters. American Economic Review, 105, 100–130. doi:10.1257/aer.20121242
62.
SartainL.SteinbergM. P. (2014). Teachers’ labor market responses to performance evaluation reform: Experimental evidence from Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Human Resources, 51, 615–655. doi:10.3368/jhr.51.3.0514-6390R1
63.
SchunckR. (2013). Within and between estimates in random-effects models: Advantages and drawbacks of correlated random effects and hybrid models. The Stata Journal, 13, 65–76. Retrieved from www.stata-journal.com/article.html?article=st0283
64.
SportS. E.JiangJ. Y.LuppescuS. (2016). Teacher evaluation in practice: Exploring relationships between school characteristics & evaluation scores. Evanston, IL: Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. doi:10.3102/0162373713506552
StaufferJ. M.BuckleyR. M. (2005). The existence and nature of racial bias in supervisory ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 586–591. Retrieved from www.apa.org/pubs/journals/apl/
68.
SteinbergM. P.GarrettR. (2016). Classroom composition and measured teacher performance: What do teacher observation scores really measure?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 293–317. doi:10.3102/0162373715616249
69.
SteinbergM. P.KraftM. A. (2017). The sensitivity of teacher performance ratings to the design of teacher evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, 46, 378–396. doi:10.3102/0013189X17726752
70.
SunM. (2018). Black teachers’ retention and transfer patterns in North Carolina: How do patterns vary by teacher effectiveness, subject, and school conditions?AERA Open, 4(3), doi:10.1177/2332858418784914.
WeisbergD.SextonS.MulhernJ.KeelingD. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: New Teacher Project. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515656.pdf
YarnellL. M.BohrnstedtG. W. (2018). Student-teacher racial match and its association with black student achievement: An exploration using multilevel structural equation modeling. American Educational Research Journal, 55, 287–324. doi:10.3102/0002831217734804
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.
