Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Empirical Bayes’s (EB) estimation has become a popular procedure used to calculate teacher value added, often as a way to make imprecise estimates more reliable. In this article, we review the theory of EB estimation and use simulated and real student achievement data to study the ability of EB estimators to properly rank teachers. We compare the performance of EB estimators with that of other widely used value-added estimators under different teacher assignment scenarios. We find that, although EB estimators generally perform well under random assignment (RA) of teachers to classrooms, their performance suffers under nonrandom teacher assignment. Under non-RA, estimators that explicitly (if imperfectly) control for the teacher assignment mechanism perform the best out of all the estimators we examine. We also find that shrinking the estimates, as in EB estimation, does not itself substantially boost performance.

Keywords

empirical Bayes’s estimation best linear unbiased predictor nonrandom assignment shrinkage estimators value-added measures

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ballou

Sanders

Wright

(2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 37–65.

Chetty

Friedman

Rockoff

(2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. The American Economic Review, 104, 2593–2632.

Corcoran

S. P.

Jennings

J. L.

Beveridge

A. A.

(2011). Teacher effectiveness on high-and low-stakes tests. Unpublished draft.

Guarino

Reckase

M. D.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2015). Can value-added measures of teacher education performance be trusted? Education Finance and Policy, 10, 117–156.

Hansen

C. B.

(2007). Asymptotic properties of a robust variance matrix estimator for panel data when T is large. Journal of Econometrics, 141, 597–620.

Hsiao

(2003). Analysis of panel data. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jacob

B. A.

Lefgren

(2005). Principals as agents: Subjective performance measurement in education (No. w11463). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Jacob

B. A.

Lefgren

(2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 26, 101–136.

Kane

T. J.

Staiger

D. O.

(2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation (No. w14607). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

10.

Lockwood

J. R.

McCaffrey

D. F.

(2007). Controlling for individual heterogeneity in longitudinal models, with applications to student achievement. Electronic Journal of Statistics, 1, 223–252.

11.

McCaffrey

D. F.

Lockwood

J. R.

Koretz

Louis

T. A.

Hamilton

(2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 67–101.

12.

Rabe-Hesketh

Skrondal

(2012). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using stata. 3rd ed. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

13.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(2009). Adaptive centering with random effects: An alternative to the fixed effects model for studying time-varying treatments in school settings. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 468–491.

14.

Reardon

S. F.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(2009). Assumptions of value-added models for estimating school effects. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 492–519.

15.

Rothstein

(2009). Student sorting and bias in value-added estimation: Selection on observables and unobservables. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 537–571.

16.