We use data from Washington State to examine two stages of the teacher pipeline: the placement of prospective teachers into student teaching assignments and the hiring of prospective teachers into their first teaching positions. We find that prospective teachers are likely to complete their student teaching near their college and hometowns but that prospective teachers’ student teaching positions are much more predictive of their first teaching positions than their hometowns. This suggests that student teaching assignments may contribute to the “draw of home” in new teacher hiring. We also find that more qualified prospective teachers tend to student teach in more advantaged districts, suggesting that patterns in student teaching assignments may contribute to the inequitable distribution of teacher quality.
AndersonL. M.StillmanJ. A. (2013). Student teaching’s contribution to preservice teacher development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and high-needs contexts. Review of Educational Research, 83, 3–69.
2.
BacolodM. (2007). Who teaches and where they choose to teach: College graduates of the 1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 155–168.
3.
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2005). The draw of home: How teachers’ preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 113–132.
4.
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.
5.
BoydD. J.GrossmanP. L.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 416–440.
6.
CannataM. (2010). Understanding the teacher job search process: Espoused preferences and preferences in use. Teachers College Record, 112, 2889–2934.
7.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24, 377–392.
8.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2011). Teacher mobility, school segregation, and pay-based policies to level the playing field. Education Finance and Policy, 6, 399–438.
9.
EngelM.CannataM. (2015). Localism and teacher labor markets: How geography and decision makingmaycontribute to inequality. Peabody Journal of Education, 90, 84–92.
10.
EngelM.JacobB.CurranF. C. (2014). New evidence on teacher labor supply. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 36–72.
11.
GlazermanS.ProtikA.TehB.BruchJ.MaxJ. (2013). Transfer incentives for high performing teachers: Final results from a multisite experiment (NCEE 2014-4003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
12.
GoldhaberD. (2002). The mystery of good teaching. Education Next, 2(1), 50–55.
13.
GoldhaberD. (2007). Everyone’s doing it, but what does teacher testing tell us about teacher effectiveness?Journal of Human Resources, 42, 765–794.
14.
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, 42, 106–124.
15.
GoldhaberD.LaveryL.TheobaldR. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44, 293–307.
16.
GoldhaberD.LiddleS.TheobaldR. (2013). The gateway to the profession: Evaluating teacher preparation programs based on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29–44.
HinrichsP. (2014). What kind of teachers are schools looking for? Evidence from a randomized field experiment (Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Working Paper No. 14-36). Cleveland, OH: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
19.
IsenbergE.MaxJ.GleasonP.PotamitesL.SantillanoR.HockH.HansenM. (2013). Access to effective teaching for disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education.
20.
KaneT. J.RockoffJ. E.StaigerD. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27, 615–631.
21.
KilleenK.LoebS.WilliamsI. (2015). A double draw of proximity: The importance of geography in teacher application and hiring decisions. Manuscript submitted for publication.
22.
LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37–62.
23.
MaierA.YoungsP. (2009). Teacher preparation programs and teacher labor markets: How social capital may help explain teachers’ career choices. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 393–407.
24.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers (Report of the Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved Student Learning). Author: Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zzeiB1OoqPk%3d&tabid=715
25.
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.
26.
RichM. (2014, November10). U.S. to focus on equity in assigning of teachers. The New York Times, p. A18.
27.
RonfeldtM. (2012). Where should student teachers learn to teach? Effects of field placement school characteristics on teacher retention and effectiveness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 3–26.
28.
RonfeldtM. (2015). Field placement schools and instructional effectiveness. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 304–320.
29.
ThalerR.SunsteinC. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale 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.
