Theories of market-based school reform suggest that teacher labor markets may be inefficient because schools lack autonomy to incentivize performance in hiring, retention, and compensation. We test this empirically by comparing teacher exits in the deregulated market of New Orleans with neighboring traditional school districts. We find that the relationship between teacher performance and retention is stronger in the deregulated market. We also find positive associations between salary and performance, but only when teachers transfer from one charter school to another. While teacher retention is more closely tied to performance in New Orleans, this did not yield a net gain in teacher quality, because new teachers in New Orleans were of lower average quality than their peers in neighboring districts.
BarrettN.HarrisD. N. (2015). Significant changes in the New Orleans teacher workforce [Policy Brief]. Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, Tulane University.
2.
BarrettN.StrunkK. O.LincoveJ. (2021). When tenure ends: The short-run effects of the elimination of Louisiana’s teacher employment protections on teacher exit and retirement. Education Economics, 1–21.
3.
BiasiB. (2021). The labor market for teachers under different pay schemes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 13(3), 63–102.
4.
BrossW.HarrisD. N.LiuL. (2016). Extreme measures: When and how school closures and charter takeovers benefit students [Technical Report]. Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, Tulane University.
5.
BruhnJ.ImbermanS.WintersM. (2020). Regulatory arbitrage in teacher hiring and retention: Evidence from Massachusetts charter schools (NBER Working Paper 27607). doi: 10.3386/w27607.
6.
CampbellC.HeywardG.GrossB. (2017). Stepping up: How are American cities delivering on the promise of public school choice?Center for Reinventing Public Education.
7.
CarruthersC. K. (2012). The qualifications and classroom performance of teachers moving to charter schools. Education Finance and Policy, 7(3), 233–268.
8.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.RockoffJ. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2633–2679.
9.
ChiangH.SperoniC.HerrmannM.HallgrenK.BurkanderP.WellingtonA. (2017). Evaluation of the teacher incentive fund: Final report on implementation and impacts of pay-for-performance across four years (NCEE 2018-4004). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
10.
ChubbJ. E.MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Brookings Institution Press.
11.
CowenJ. M.WintersM. A. (2013). Do charters retain teachers differently? Evidence from elementary schools in Florida. Education Finance and Policy, 8(1), 14–42.
12.
FriedmanM. (1955). The role of government in education. In SoloR. A. (Ed.), Economics and the public interest. Rutgers University Press.
13.
GoldhaberD.QuinceV.TheobaldR. (2016). Reconciling different estimates of teacher quality gaps based on value added (Brief No. 14). National Center for the Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
14.
GuarinoC. M.ReckaseM. D.WooldridgeJ. M. (2015). Can value-added measures of teacher performance be trusted?Education Finance and Policy, 10(1), 117–156.
15.
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100(2), 267–271.
16.
HarrisD. N. (2020). Charter school city: What the end of traditional public schools in New Orleans means for American education. University of Chicago Press.
17.
HarrisD. N.SassT. R. (2006). Value-added models and the measurement of teacher quality [unpublished manuscript].
18.
HarrisD. N.SassT. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 798–812.
19.
HenemanH. G.KimballS. M.WorthR.ArrigoniJ. S.MarlinD. (2019). Compensation practices of school districts when collective bargaining disappears. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(4), 544–559.
20.
HillP. T.CampbellC.GrossB. (2013). Strife and progress: Portfolio strategies for managing urban schools. Brookings Institution Press.
21.
JabbarH. (2015). “Every kid is money” market-like competition and school leader strategies in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 638–659.
22.
JabbarH. (2018). Recruiting “talent”: School choice and teacher hiring in New Orleans. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(1), 115–151.
23.
JacksonC. K. (2012). School competition and teacher labor markets: Evidence from charter school entry in North Carolina. Journal of Public Economics, 96(5–6), 431–448.
24.
JacobB. A. (2011). Do principals fire the worst teachers?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 403–434.
25.
KraftM. A. (2018). Federal efforts to improve teacher quality. In HessF. M.McShaneM. Q. (Eds.), Bush-Obama school reform: Lessons learned (pp. 69–86). Harvard Education Press.
26.
KraftM. A.BrunnerE. J.DoughertyS. M.SchwegmanD. J. (2020). Teacher accountability reforms and the supply and quality of new teachers. Journal of Public Economics, 188, Article 104212.
27.
LakeR.PosamentierJ.DeniceP.HillP. (2016). Sticking points: How school districts experience implementing the portfolio strategy. Center for Reinventing Public Education.
28.
LincoveJ. A.BarrettN.StrunkK. O. (2018). Lessons from Hurricane Katrina: The employment effects of the mass dismissal of New Orleans teachers. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 191–203.
29.
LincoveJ. A.CarlsonD.BarrettN. (2020). The effects of school closure on the teacher labor market: Evidence from portfolio management in New Orleans [Technical Report]. Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, Tulane University.
30.
LincoveJ. A.ValantJ.CowenJ. (2018). You can’t always get what you want: Capacity constraints in a choice-based school system. Economics of Education Review, 67, 94–109.
31.
MariannoB. D. (2015). Teachers’ unions on the defensive? How recent collective bargaining laws reformed the rights of teachers. Journal of School Choice, 9(4), 551–577.
32.
MoeT. M. (2011). Special interest: Teachers unions and America’s public schools. Brookings Institution Press.
33.
MurnaneR.CohenD. (1986). Why most merit pay plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Education Review, 56, 1–18.
34.
PhamL. D.NguyenT. D.SpringerM. G. (2020). Teacher merit pay: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3), 527–566.
35.
RivkinS. G.HanushekE. A.KainJ. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.
36.
RockoffJ. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.
37.
RockoffJ. E.StaigerD. O.KaneT. J.TaylorE. S. (2012). Information and employee evaluation: Evidence from a randomized intervention in public schools. American Economic Review, 102(7), 3184–3213.
38.
RothsteinJ. (2015). Teacher quality policy when supply matters. American Economic Review, 105(1), 100–130.
39.
SartainL.SteinbergM. P. (2016). Teachers’ labor market responses to performance evaluation reform: Experimental evidence from Chicago public schools. Journal of Human Resources, 51(3), 615–655.
40.
StrunkK. O.CowenJ. M.GoldhaberD.MariannoB. D.KilbrideT.TheobaldR. (2018). It is in the contract: How the policies set in teachers’ unions’ collective bargaining agreements vary across states and districts. Educational Policy, 32(2), 280–312.
41.
StuitD. A.SmithT. M. (2012). Explaining the gap in charter and traditional public school teacher turnover rates. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 268–279.
42.
WeixlerL. B.HarrisD. N.BarrettN. (2018). Teachers’ perspectives on the learning and work environments under the New Orleans school reforms. Educational Researcher, 47(8), 502–515.
43.
WiswallM. (2013). The dynamics of teacher quality. Journal of Public Economics, 100, 61–78.
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.
