Although substantial evidence from the United States suggests that more qualified teachers are disproportionately concentrated in the schools and classrooms of academically and socioeconomically advantaged children, it is not clear whether the problem of teacher sorting is global in scope. This study uses data from the 2013 Teaching and Learning International Survey to examine whether and how school- and classroom-level teacher distribution patterns vary across 32 education systems with diverse national contexts and education policies. We find that cross- and within-school teacher sorting is common in most countries but within-school sorting is more pronounced in higher income countries. We also identify several national policy variables that are significantly related to both cross-school and cross-classroom sorting of teachers.
AkibaM.LeTendreG. (2009). Improving teacher quality: The U.S. teaching force in global context. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
2.
AkibaM.LeTendreG. K.ScribnerJ. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387.
3.
BacolodM. (2007). Who teaches and where they choose to teach: College graduates of the 1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(3), 155–168.
4.
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2003). Understanding teacher labor markets: Implications for educational equity. In PleckiM.MonkD. (Eds.), School finance and teacher quality: Exploring the connections (pp. 68–97). Larchmont, NY: Yearbook of the American Education Finance Association, Eye on Education.
5.
CarnoyM. (2007). Cuba’s academic advantage: Why students in Cuba do better in school. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6.
ChudgarA.ChandraM.RazzaqueA. (2014). Alternative forms of teacher hiring in developing countries and its implications: A review of literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 150–161.
7.
ChudgarA.LuscheiT. F. (2016). Understanding teacher distribution cross-nationally: Recent empirical evidence. Teachers College Record.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 377–392.
10.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2006). Teacher–student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, XLI(4), 778–820.
11.
Cohen-VogelL. (2011). “Staffing to the test” are today’s school personnel practices evidence based?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 483–505.
12.
CoxC. (2010). Educational inequality in Latin America: Patterns, policies, and issues. In AttewellP.NewmanK. S. (Eds.), Growing gaps: Educational inequality around the world (pp. 33–58). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
13.
Darling-HammondL. (2004). Inequality and the right to learn: Access to qualified teachers in California’s public schools. Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1936–1966.
14.
Darling-HammondL. (2006). Securing the right to learn: Policy and practice for powerful teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 13–24.
15.
DeeT. S. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 42(3), 528–554.
16.
FengL. (2010). Hire today, gone tomorrow: New teacher classroom assignments and teacher mobility. Education Fnance and Policy, 5(3), 278–316.
17.
FullerS. C.LaddH. F. (2013). School-based accountability and the distribution of teacher quality across grades in elementary school. Education Finance and Policy, 8(4), 528–559.
18.
GoldhaberD. D.LaveryL.TheobaldR. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293–307.
19.
GreenwaldR.HedgesL. V.LaineR. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361–396.
20.
GrissomJ. A.KalogridesD.LoebS. (2015). The micropolitics of educational inequality: The case of teacher–student assignments. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(5), 601–614.
21.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2004). The revolving door. Education Next, 4(1), 76–82.
22.
HarrisD. N. (2010). How do school peers influence student educational outcomes? Theory and evidence from economics and other social sciences. Teachers College Record, 112(4), 1163–1197.
23.
IngersollR. M. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commitment: A multilevel analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
24.
IngersollR. (2006). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
IngersollR.MayH. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 435–464.
26.
JeongD. W.LuscheiT. F. (in press). Teacher sorting within and across schools and nations: A comparative study of South Korea and the United States. Teachers College Record, 121(8).
27.
KalogridesD.LoebS.BéteilleT. (2013). Systematic sorting: Teacher characteristics and class assignments. Sociology of Education, 86(2), 103–123.
28.
KangN. H.HongM. (2008). Achieving excellence in teacher workforce and equity in learning opportunities in South Korea. Educational Researcher, 37(4), 200–207.
29.
LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.
30.
LongJ. S. (1997). Advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences series, Vol. 7. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
LongJ. S.FreeseJ. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
32.
LuscheiT. F. (2012). In search of good teachers: Patterns of teacher quality in two Mexican states. Comparative Education Review, 56(1), 69–97.
33.
LuscheiT. F.CarnoyM. (2010). Educational production and the distribution of teachers in Uruguay. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(2), 169–181.
34.
LuscheiT. F.ChudgarA.RewW. J. (2013). Exploring differences in the distribution of teacher qualifications in Mexico and South Korea: Evidence from the Teaching and Learning International Survey. Teachers College Record, 115(5).
35.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
36.
OrfieldG. (2014). Tenth annual Brown lecture in education research: A new civil rights agenda for American education. Educational Researcher, 43(6), 273–292.
37.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What makes schools successful? Resources, policies and practices (Volume IV). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing.
38.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014a). PISA 2012 technical report. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing.
39.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2014b). TALIS 2013 technical report. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing.
40.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2015). Education at a glance 2015. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing.
41.
RockoffJ. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.
42.
SahlbergP. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147–171.
43.
Tschannen-MoranM.BarrM. (2004). Fostering student learning: The relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189–209.
44.
WhiteP. A. (1992). Teacher empowerment under “ideal” school-site autonomy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 69–82.
45.
ZhouY. (2014). The relationship between school organizational characteristics and reliance on out-of-field teachers in mathematics and science: Cross-national evidence from TALIS 2008. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23(3):483–497.
