Educators raise concerns about what happens to students when they are exposed to new or new-to-school teachers. However, even when teachers remain in the same school they can switch roles by moving grades and/or subjects. We use panel data from New York City to compare four ways in which teachers are new to assignment: new to teaching, new to district, new to school, or new to subject/grade. We find negative effects of having a churning teacher of about one third the magnitude of the effect of a new teacher. However the average student is assigned to churning teachers four times more often than to new teachers, and historically underserved students are slightly more likely to be assigned to churning teachers.
AtteberryAllison. (2012). “Corroborating Value-Added Estimation Against Expert, In-Class Assessment of Teacher Quality.”Annual Edu-cational Research Association (AERA). Session: Measuring Growth: Challenges, Possibilities and Political. Vancouver BC.
2.
AtteberryA.BrykA. S. (2010). Analyzing the role of social networks in school-based professional development initiatives. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 51–76). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press.
3.
AtteberryA.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2015). Do first impressions matter? Predicting early career teacher effectiveness. AERA Open, 1(4). doi:10.1177/2332858415607834
4.
BlazarD. (2015). Grade assignments and the teacher pipeline: A low-cost lever to improve student achievement?Educational Researcher, 44, 213–227.
5.
BoydD. J.GrossmanP.IngM.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 303–333.
6.
BoydD. J.GrossmanP. L.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 416–440.
7.
BoydD. J.LankfordH.LoebS.RockoffJ. E.WyckoffJ. (2008). The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 793–818.
8.
BoydD. J.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2003). Understanding teacher labor markets: Implications for equity. In PleckiM. L.MonkD. H. (Eds.), School finance and teacher quality: Exploring the connection (pp. 55–84). New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
BrykA. S.SchneiderB. L. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY: Russell Sage.
10.
BrykA. S.SebringP.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.RockoffJ. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. American Economic Review, 104, 2593–2632.
12.
ChingosM. M.WestM. R. (2011). Promotion and reassignment in public school districts: How do schools respond to differences in teacher effectiveness?Economics of Education Review, 30, 419–433.
13.
ClotfelterC.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24, 377–392.
14.
ClotfelterC.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26, 673–682.
15.
Cohen-VogelL. (2011). “Staffing to the test” are today’s school personnel practices evidence based?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 483–505.
16.
GoldhaberD.LaveryL.TheobaldR. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44, 293–307.
17.
GrissomJ. A. (2011). Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? Linking principal effectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staff environments. Teachers College Record, 113, 2552–2585.
18.
GrissomJ. A.KalogridesD.LoebS. (2014, November). Strategic staffing: Examining the class assignments of teachers and students in tested and untested grades and subjects. Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (APPAM) Annual Meeting, Albuquerque, NM.
19.
GrossmanP. L.LoebS.CohenJ.WyckoffJ. (2013). Measure for measure: The relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English Language Arts and teachers’ value-added scores. American Journal of Education, 119, 445–470.
20.
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2006). Teacher quality. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 2, 1051–1078.
21.
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2010). Constrained job matching: Does teacher job search harm disadvantaged urban schools? Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED510551
22.
HarrisD. N.SassT. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 798–812.
23.
IsenbergE.MaxJ.GleasonP.PotamitesL.SantillanoR.HockH.HansenM. (2013). Access to effective teaching for disadvantaged students (NCEE 2014–4001). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544345
24.
JacksonC. K.BruegmannE. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4), 85–108.
25.
JacobB. A.LefgrenL. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26, 101–136.
26.
KalogridesD.LoebS. (2013). Different teachers, different peers the magnitude of student sorting within schools. Educational Researcher, 42, 304–316.
27.
KalogridesD.LoebS.BéteilleT. (2013). Systematic sorting teacher characteristics and class assignments. Sociology of Education, 86, 103–123.
28.
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.
KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED540960.
31.
KaneT. J.TaylorE. S.TylerJ. H.WootenA. L. (2011). Identifying effective classroom practices using student achievement data. Journal of Human Resources, 46, 587–613.
32.
KraftM. A.PapayJ. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 476–500.
33.
McCaffreyD. F.SassT. R.LockwoodJ.MihalyK. (2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 572–606.
34.
MilanowskiA. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 33–53.
35.
OstB. (2009). How do teachers improve? The relative importance of specific and general human capital. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6, 127–151.
36.
PapayJ. P.KraftM. A. (2015). Productivity returns to experience in the teacher labor market: Methodological challenges and new evidence on long-term career growth. Journal of Public Economics, 130(October), 105–119.
RockoffJ. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94, 247–252.
39.
RockoffJ. E.StaigerD. O.KaneT. J.TaylorE. S. (2012). Information and employee evaluation: Evidence from a randomized intervention in public schools. The American Economic Review, 102, 3184–3213.
40.
RonfeldtM.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 4–36.
41.
YoonK. S. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
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.
