Teacher Skill Development: Evidence from Performance Ratings by Principals

Abstract

We examine the dynamic nature of teacher skill development using panel data on principals’ subjective performance ratings of teachers. Past research on teacher productivity improvement has focused primarily on one important but narrow measure of performance: teachers’ value‐added to student achievement on standardized tests. Unlike value‐added, subjective performance ratings provide detailed information about specific skill dimensions and are available for teachers in non‐tested grades and subjects. Using a within‐teacher returns‐to‐experience framework, we find, on average, large and rapid improvements in teachers’ instructional practices throughout their first 10 years on the job as well as substantial differences in improvement rates across individual teachers. We also document that subjective performance ratings contain important information about teacher effectiveness. In the district we study, principals appear to differentiate teacher performance throughout the full distribution instead of just in the tails. Furthermore, prior performance ratings and gains in these ratings provide additional information about teachers’ ability to improve test scores that is not captured by prior value‐added scores. Taken together, our study provides new insights on teacher performance improvement and variation in teacher development across instructional skills and individual teachers.

Examining Clinical Teaching Observation Scores as a Measure of Preservice Teacher Quality

“…To our knowledge, only a handful of studies have incorporated PST observation scores, in which these scores were one of a number of other measures that signaled an underlying construct of PST quality (Henry et al, 2013;Vagi et al, 2019aVagi et al, , 2019b. Instead, research on observation scores is almost exclusively confined to the in-service context, focusing on the reliability and validity of these scores as well as their connection to labor market outcomes (e.g., Bacher-Hicks et al, 2019;Cohen & Goldhaber, 2016;Doherty & Jacobs, 2013;Grissom & Bartanen, 2019;Kraft et al, 2020;Whitehurst et al, 2014). To date, there is mixed evidence as to whether these scores accurately measure teacher performance.…”

Teacher Careers in Education Systems That Are Coherent for Learning: Choose and Curate Toward Commitment to Capable and Committed Teachers (5Cs)

“…Novice teachers range from new entrants to those who have approximately 5 years of teaching experience. The novice phase is typically a period of rapid growth in teaching competencies (Araujo et al, 2016;Bau & Das, 2017;Hobbis et al, 2020;Kraft et al, 2020;Papay & Kraft, 2015;Podolskly et al, 2019). System-level goals specifically targeting novice teachers include continuing to equip them with instructional competencies; motivating novice teachers as they acclimate to classroom challenges; and encouraging the retention of promising teachers, alongside (tacit) mechanisms for encouraging the (overwhelmingly voluntary) turnover of teachers whose performance and motivation are incompatible with the education priorities of the system.…”

Linking Student Outcomes to School Administrator Discretion in the Implementation of Teacher Observations

“…We assumed that administrators considered teaching and teacher performance in terms of teacher observation scores and student achievement scores. Our analysis exploring the predictors of discretionary observations used predictors that prior work links to teacher observation scores: teacher (a) gender and (b) race/ethnicity; and student (c) gender, (d) race/ethnicity, and (e) prior achievement scores (Campbell & Ronfeldt, 2018;Steinberg & Garrett, 2016), (f) years of experience, (g) education levels, (h) measures of their prior-year performance (Jacob & Walsh, 2011;Kraft et al, 2020); and student (i) special education (SPED), (j) free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL), and (k) English as a second language (ESL) status (Campbell & Ronfeldt, 2018;Steinberg & Garrett, 2016).…”