Racial gaps in teacher performance ratings have emerged nationwide across newly implemented educator evaluation systems. Using Chicago Public Schools data, we quantify the magnitude of the race gap in teachers’ classroom observation scores, examine its determinants, and describe the potential implications for teacher diversity. Between-school differences explain most of the race gap and within-school classroom-level differences—poverty, incoming achievement, and prior-year misconduct of a teacher’s students—explain the remainder of the race gap. Teachers’ value-added scores explain none of the race gap. Leveraging within-teacher variation in the teacher–evaluator race match, we find that racial mismatch does not influence observation scores. Adjusting observation scores for classroom and school context will generate more equitable ratings of teacher performance and mitigate potential adverse consequences for teacher diversity.
AllensworthE.PonisciakS.MazzeoC. (2009). The schools teachers leave: Teacher mobility in Chicago Public Schools. Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.
2.
BaileyJ.BocalaC.ShakmanK.ZweigJ. (2016). Teacher demographics and evaluation: A descriptive study in a large urban district (REL 2017–189). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
3.
BoserU. (2014, May). Teacher diversity revisited: A state-by-state analysis. Center for American Progress.
4.
CampbellS.RonfeldtM. (2018). Observational evaluation of teachers: Measuring more than we bargained for?American Educational Research Journal, 55(6), 1233–1267.
ClotfelterC.LaddH.VigdorJ. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. The Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), 778–820.
8.
DanielsonC. (2011). Enhancing professional practice. A framework for teaching (3rd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
9.
DeeT. S. (2004). Teachers, race and student achievement in a randomized experiment. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 195–210.
10.
DeeT. S. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter?The American Economic Review, 95(2), 158–165.
11.
DrakeS.AulettoA.CowenJ. (2019). Grading teachers: Race and gender differences in low evaluation ratings and teacher employment outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 56(5), 1800–1833.
12.
EgaliteA.KisidaB.WintersM. (2015). Representation in the classroom: The effect of own-race teachers on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 45, 44–52.
13.
GarrettR.SteinbergM. P. (2015). Examining teacher effectiveness using classroom observation scores: Evidence from the randomization of teachers to students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(2), 224–242.
14.
GershensonS.HartC.HymanJ.LindsayC.PapageorgeN. (2018). The long-run impacts of same-race teachers (NBER Working Paper No. 25254). https://www.nber.org/papers/w25254
15.
GillB.BruchJ.BookerK. (2013). Using alternative student growth measures for evaluating teacher performance: What the literature says (REL 2013–002). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Midatlantic. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
16.
GillB.ShojiM.CoenT.PlaceK. (2016). The content, predictive power, and potential bias in five widely used teacher observation instruments (REL 2017–191). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory MidAtlantic. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
17.
GiulianoL.LevineD.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(1), 26–52.
18.
GoldhaberD.LaveryL.TheoboldR. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293–307.
19.
GrissomJ.KeiserL. (2011). A supervisor like me: Race, representation, and the satisfaction and turnover decisions of public sector employees. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 557–580.
20.
IngersollR. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534.
21.
JiangJ. Y.SporteS. E.LuppescuS. (2014). Analytic memo: Evaluation data from the first year of REACH. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
22.
KalogridesD.LoebS. (2013). Different teachers, different peers: The magnitude of student sorting within schools. Educational Researcher, 42(6), 304–316.
23.
KalogridesD.LoebS.BeteilleT. (2013). Systematic sorting: Teacher characteristics and class assignments. Sociology of Education, 86(2), 103–123.
24.
KaneT. J.McCaffreyD.MillerT.StaigerD. (2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation MET Project research paper). Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
LindsayC.HartC. (2017). Exposure to same-race teachers and student disciplinary outcomes for black students in North Carolina. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 485–510.
27.
MihalyK.McCaffreyD. F.StaigerD.LockwoodJ. R. (2013). A composite estimator of effective teaching [Technical report for the Measures of Effective Teaching project]. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
28.
MonkD. H. (1987). Assigning elementary pupils to their teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 166–187.
29.
PolikoffM. S.PorterA. C. (2014). Instructional alignment as a measure of teaching quality. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 399–416.
30.
RossE.WalshK. (2019). State of the states 2019: Teacher and principal evaluation policy. National Council of Teacher Quality.
31.
SartainL.StoelingaS. R.BrownE. R. (2011). Rethinking teacher evaluation in Chicago: Lessons learned from classroom observations, principal-teacher conferences, and district implementation. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
32.
SebringP.AllensworthE.ByrkA.EastonJ.LuppescuS. (2006). The essential supports for school improvement. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
33.
SporteS. E.StevensW. D.HealeyK.JiangJ.HartH. (2013). Teacher evaluation in practice: Implementing Chicago’s REACH students. University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
34.
SteinbergM. P.DonaldsonM. (2016). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 340–359.
35.
SteinbergM. P.GarrettR. (2016). Classroom composition and measured teacher performance: What do teacher observation scores really measure?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(2), 293–317.
36.
SteinbergM. P.KraftM. (2017). The sensitivity of teacher performance ratings to the design of teacher evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 378–396.
37.
SteinbergM. P.SartainL. (2015a). Does better observation make better teachers?Education Next, 15(1), 70–76.
38.
SteinbergM. P.SartainL. (2015b). Does teacher evaluation improve school performance? Experimental evidence from Chicago’s excellence in teaching project. Education Finance and Policy, 10(4), 535–572.
WatsonJ. G.KraemerS. B.ThornC. A.2009. The other 69 percent: Fairly rewarding the performance of teachers of nontested subjects and grades. Washington, DC: Center for Educator Compensation Reform, U.S. Department of Education.
42.
WeisburgD.SextonS.MulhernJ.KeelingD. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. The New Teacher Project.
43.
WhitehurstG.ChingosM.LindquistK. (2014). Evaluating teachers with classroom observations: Lessons learned in four districts. Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings.
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.
