Our secondary analysis of Measures of Effective Teaching data contributes to growing evidence that observation ratings, used as part of comprehensive teacher evaluation systems across the nation, may measure factors outside of a teacher’s performance or control. Specifically, men and teachers in classrooms with high concentrations of Black, Hispanic, male, and low-performing students receive significantly lower observation ratings. By using various methodological approaches and a subsample of teachers randomly assigned to classrooms, we demonstrate that these differences are unlikely due to actual differences in teacher quality. These results suggest that policymakers consider the unintended consequences of using observational ratings to evaluate teachers and consider ways to adjust ratings to ensure they are fair.

Increasingly, states and teacher education programs are establishing minimum requirements for cooperating teachers’ (CTs’) years of experience or tenure. Undergirding these policies is an assumption that to effectively mentor preservice teachers (PSTs), CTs must themselves be instructionally effective. We test this assumption using statewide administrative data on nearly 2,900 PSTs mentored by over 3,200 CTs. We find the first evidence, of which we are aware, that PSTs are more instructionally effective when they learn to teach with CTs who are more instructionally effective. Specifically, when their CTs received higher observational ratings and value-added to students’ achievement measures (VAMs), PSTs also received higher observational ratings and VAM during their first years of teaching; CTs’ years of teaching experience, though, were mostly unrelated to these outcomes. These findings have implications for teacher education program leaders and policymakers who seek to recruit and set requirements for CTs who are more likely to support PSTs’ future instructional effectiveness.

The current teacher workforce is younger, less experienced, more likely to turnover, and more diverse in preparation experiences than the workforce of two decades ago. Research shows that inexperienced teachers are less effective, but we know little about the effectiveness of teachers with different types of preparation. In this study, we classify North Carolina public school teachers into portals—fixed and mutually exclusive categories that capture teachers’ formal preparation and qualifications upon first entering the profession—and estimate the adjusted average test score gains of students taught by teachers from each portal. Compared with undergraduate-prepared teachers from in-state public universities, (a) out-of-state undergraduate-prepared teachers are less effective in elementary grades and high school, (b) alternative entry teachers are less effective in high school, and (c) Teach For America corps members are more effective in STEM subjects and secondary grades.

Calls for evidence-based reform of teacher preparation programs (TPPs) suggest the question: Do the current indicators of progress and performance used by TPPs predict effectiveness of their graduates when they become teachers? In this study, the indicators of progress and performance used by one program are examined for their ability to predict value-added scores of program graduates. The study finds that rating instruments, including disposition surveys, clinical practice observation ratings, and portfolio assessments, each measure a single underlying dimension rather than the multiple constructs they were designed to measure. Neither these instruments nor teacher candidates’ scores on standardized exams predict their later effectiveness in the classroom based on value-added models of student achievement. Candidates’ grade point averages during their preparation program and number of math courses were positively associated with their students’ math score gains. These findings suggest a need for better instruments to measure prospective teachers’ progress toward proficiency.

No abstract