The Link Between Teacher Quality
and Student Outcomes:
A Research Synthesis
October 2007
Laura Goe, Ph.D.
ETS

1100 17th Street N.W., Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036-4632
877-322-8700  202-223-6690
www.ncctq.org
Copyright © 2007 National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality, sponsored under
government cooperative agreement number S283B050051. All rights reserved.
This work was originally produced in whole or in part by the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality
with funds from the U.S. Department of Education under cooperative agreement number S283B050051. The content
does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Education, nor does mention or visual
representation of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the federal government.
The National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality is a collaborative effort of Education Commission of theStates, ETS, Learning Point Associates, and Vanderbilt University.
2234_10/07

Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Leslie Stickler, research assistant at ETS, for invaluable assistance inlocating and summarizing studies for consideration for this synthesis, as well as usefulsuggestions during the review and revision process.
The author also would like to thank the following for their helpful reviews of the manuscript:
Michael Allen, Jane Coggshall, Tricia Coulter, Stephanie Stoll Dalton, Carol Dwyer, Jon
Fullerton, Amy Jackson, Bonnie Jones, and Becky Smerdon.

Contents
Page
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................4
Other Research Syntheses on Teacher Quality..........................................................................4
Focus of This Research Synthesis.............................................................................................7
Defining Teacher Quality............................................................................................................8
Framework for Teacher Quality.............................................................................................8
Use of the Teacher Quality Framework in This Research Synthesis.....................................13
Using Students’ Test Scores to Determine Teacher Quality .......................................................15
Methods ....................................................................................................................................16
A Note on Effect Size................................................................................................................17
Research on Teacher Qualifications ..........................................................................................18
Focus...................................................................................................................................18
Findings ..............................................................................................................................18
Research Studies .................................................................................................................18
Research on Teacher Characteristics .........................................................................................28
Focus...................................................................................................................................28
Findings ..............................................................................................................................28
Research Studies .................................................................................................................28
Research on Teacher Practices ..................................................................................................31
Focus...................................................................................................................................31
Findings ..............................................................................................................................31
Research Studies .................................................................................................................31
Research on Teacher Effectiveness............................................................................................40
Focus...................................................................................................................................40
Findings ..............................................................................................................................40
Research Studies .................................................................................................................40

Summary and Recommendations ..............................................................................................43
Challenges...........................................................................................................................43
Findings ..............................................................................................................................43
Another Consideration: Teaching Context ...........................................................................44
Toward a New Definition of Teacher Quality............................................................................46
References ................................................................................................................................47
Appendixes
Appendix A. Teacher Quality Variables Utilized .................................................................57
Appendix B. Data Sources Used to Define Teacher Quality.................................................61
Appendix C. Summary Table of Studies Examined .............................................................64
Appendix D. Further Discussion of Effect Sizes ..................................................................72

Executive Summary
Federal law emphasizes the need for states and districts to ensure that all students—particularly
at-risk students, minority students, and students in high-poverty areas—have access to highly
qualified, experienced teachers. But is it sufficient for a teacher to have “paper” qualifications
and teaching experience? After all, appropriate degrees, certification, and experience may be
important at a minimum, but do they guarantee quality teaching? This synthesis of the researchon teachers and their contribution to student achievement found that a number of studies cite a
few areas of teacher quality in which research shows convincingly what matters, whereas theinconsistency of other findings indicates that much is still to be learned.

Key Questions
The key questions covered in this research synthesis are as follows: What is teacher quality?
How can it be measured? How important is it to student learning? Do certain aspects of teacher
quality have a stronger impact on student achievement for specific students, subjects, or gradelevels? How important is teacher experience? How can teacher quality be better understood?
What Is Teacher Quality?
Teacher quality has been defined and measured in many ways. There is nearly universal
agreement that teacher quality matters in terms of student achievement, but there has been noclear consensus on which aspects of teacher quality matter most or even what a useful definitionof teacher quality might be. One reason for this difficulty is that teacher quality may need to be
defined differently for different purposes. For example, the indicators of quality relevant tomaking initial hiring decisions may be different from the indicators used in granting tenure,rewarding excellent performance, or identifying and supporting struggling teachers. In addition
to teacher contributions to student achievement, teacher quality may be evidenced by teachers
who possess the following characteristics:•

Qualifications and experience appropriate to grade level and subject matter.

•

High expectations for students, particularly those at risk for poor outcomes.

•

Creation of a classroom environment that encourages all students to participate inworthwhile learning activities.

•

Desire to help students achieve at high levels.

•

Ability to motivate at-risk students to come to school and participate in class, even if theirachievement scores do not show significant gains.

•

Excellent skills in mentoring new teachers and acting as stabilizing forces in highturnover schools.

•

Willingness to work diligently with students with special needs, whose test scores may
not reflect teacher contributions.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—1

In this research synthesis, a one-size-fits-all definition of teacher quality is not used because avariety of occasions and purposes exist for which different definitions may be appropriate.
Rather, this synthesis puts forth a framework for both conceptualizing and measuring teacher
quality that allows for a number of interpretations. The framework includes two “inputs” (teacher
qualifications and teacher characteristics), a process measure (teacher practices), and an outcome
measure (teacher effectiveness). Within this framework, research conducted to measure teacher
quality is examined and summarized.
How Can Teacher Quality Be Measured?
Although teacher quality has been operationalized using inputs, processes, and outcomes in avariety of studies, the outcome measure used for this research synthesis is student achievement
on standardized tests. By limiting this synthesis to studies using standardized student achievement
test scores as the outcome measure, it is possible to make some comparisons across studies sothat a composite picture of the research emerges. For this reason, a number of studies were
excluded from the synthesis because they used some other type of outcome (such as student
grades, graduation rates, or student achievement on a local test rather than on a nationallynormed test).
Measuring teacher quality using standardized achievement test scores is challenging for thefollowing reasons:•Standardized achievement tests were intended to measure student achievement and were
not designed to measure teacher quality.

•

It is difficult to sort out teacher effects (i.e., the contribution of teachers) from classroom
effects (i.e., the contribution of peers, textbooks, materials, curriculum, classroom
climate, and other factors).

•

It is difficult to obtain linked student-teacher data that make it possible to connect
specific teachers to student achievement test scores.

How Important Is Teacher Quality to Student Learning?
A great deal of research has been done on teacher quality using student learning as the outcome
measure. Despite all the time and effort spent researching this topic, in only a few aspects ofteacher quality does strong and consistent evidence suggest that certain dimension make asignificant difference in student learning. Many aspects of teacher quality that have beenmeasured have resulted in findings that are inconsistent across studies or have such small effects
that they are of no practical significance, even when they are statistically significant. Much of
the research currently being reported purports to provide evidence for the importance of some
aspects of teacher quality; but when the studies are collected and synthesized, it becomesapparent that there is not a consistent message. Some studies report that a particular aspectmatters, and other studies report that the same aspect of teacher quality does not matter.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—2

Do Certain Aspects of Teacher Quality Have a Stronger Impact on Student Achievement
for Specific Students, Subjects, or Grade Levels?
There is one aspect of teacher quality where a consensus across studies has clearly emerged:
The effects of teachers with degrees in mathematics and appropriate certifications, and possibly
higher level mathematics courses, appear to be strongly and consistently related to student
achievement in mathematics. Although there is evidence for this result at both the elementary
and the secondary levels, the findings are strongest at the secondary level, suggesting that suchqualifications may be crucial for secondary teachers. Similar findings were not apparent for othersubjects. This situation may be because fewer studies were found that focus on the impact ofcertification and other indicators of teacher quality on English, social studies, science, and othercontent areas. Or it may be that particular teacher qualifications simply do not matter as much inthese other subjects. The reasons for this strong showing in mathematics will be further
discussed in this research synthesis.
How Important Is Teacher Experience?
The synthesis of research in which teacher experience is used as an aspect of teacher quality
suggests that experience matters, but it contributes differentially only in the first four or five
years of teaching. During this time, teachers appear to gain in effectiveness (contribution to
student achievement scores) but then they level off, which means that years of experiencebeyond the fifth year contribute little or no additional benefit in terms of student achievement.
Experienced teachers may contribute to their schools in other important ways, however, including
providing stability and serving as mentors to new or struggling teachers.
How Can Teacher Quality Be Better Understood?
As linked student-teacher data become more universally available and ways of measuring teacher
effectiveness are refined through improvements in both the means of measuring teacher
contributions to student learning and in the means of analyzing the resulting data, it should bepossible to achieve greater consensus on defining teacher quality for various purposes (such as
making hiring and tenure decisions, rewarding excellent teachers, and providing interventions for
struggling teachers).

Using This Synthesis
This research synthesis provides an up-to-date, comprehensive compilation and review of therecent research regarding teacher impact on student achievement outcomes. Organized using aframework of inputs, processes, and outcomes, this synthesis is a “one-stop shop” for researchersand policymakers interested in the science behind claims about the link between teacher quality
and student academic achievement. Although it is possible to locate references that support a
particular viewpoint, good decisions are based upon good data, and this synthesis of high-quality
studies is intended to support good decision making.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—3

Introduction
What is the relationship between teacher quality and student achievement? What are the best
ways to measure teacher quality? Is teacher quality the same as teacher effectiveness? How does
teacher quality relate to the “highly qualified” teacher definition developed for the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act? The answers to these questions vary depending on which report, study, or
policy brief is being examined. A clear consensus on the meaning of teacher quality has not yet
been reached, although teacher quality is almost universally believed to be the most importantschool-based factor in student learning.
Many reports, studies, and research articles published in recent years suggest that teacher quality
matters a great deal in terms of student learning. This research synthesis explores the evidence
for this relationship in an effort to help identify which teacher qualifications and characteristics
should be prioritized in educating and hiring those teachers who are most likely to have apositive impact on student learning. In addition, the framework developed for this research
synthesis, when applied, will help put into perspective the many different aspects of teacher
quality and how they have been measured.
The synthesis considers the various ways of defining teacher quality as well as the many ways it
has been measured. The studies that are the focus of the synthesis use standardized student
achievement test scores as outcome measures. The reason for focusing on teacher contributions
to student achievement test scores is that this approach allows results to be compared acrossstudies.

Other Research Syntheses on Teacher Quality
Before beginning this research synthesis, it is worthwhile to take a look at what other researchers
found when they examined the literature on teacher quality and its relationship to student
outcomes. As will be shown, this research synthesis differs from the others primarily in having amore comprehensive framework and a broader scope. Most other research syntheses in this area
have focused chiefly on inputs and their relationship to student outcomes. In this synthesis, theframework will describe a wider range of qualifications, characteristics, practices, and outcomes(effectiveness) and analyze their relationships in ways that extend ideas about the how teacher
quality is defined and measured.
Darling-Hammond and Youngs (2002)
Darling-Hammond and Youngs (2002) reviewed research on teaching qualifications and student
achievement in order to counter arguments made in the U.S. Secretary of Education’s annual
report on teacher quality (Office of Postsecondary Education, 2002). Darling-Hammond andYoungs believed that the secretary was essentially calling for a lowering of standards for teacher
qualifications.
Darling-Hammond and Youngs sought to refute the following specific assumptions: (1) teachers
matter for student achievement, but teacher education and certification are not related to teacher
effectiveness; (2) verbal ability and subject matter knowledge are the most importantNational Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—4

components of teacher effectiveness; (3) teachers who have completed teacher education
programs are academically weak and underprepared for their jobs; and (4) alternativecertification programs have academically stronger recruits who are highly effective and havehigh rates of retention.
In their review of the empirical literature, Darling-Hammond and Youngs found little support forthese four assumptions. They note that the second assumption is the most strongly supported
because many research studies have found that verbal ability and subject matter knowledge are
related to teacher effectiveness. They contend, however, that research also indicates thatpedagogical coursework and student-teaching experience are at least as important in producing
effective teachers. The fourth assumption also has some empirical support but only for select,well-designed alternative certification programs. Many other alternative certification programs
produce markedly less-effective teachers who have high rates of attrition from the profession.
Thus, the Darling-Hammond and Youngs review of the research confirms that some teacher
qualifications may matter more than others but indicates that these qualifications often are
mediated by the grade level and subject matter being taught.
Rice (2003)
Rice (2003) focused on five “teacher attributes”: experience, preparation programs and degrees,
certification, coursework, and teacher test scores. In discussing her findings, Rice makes asimple but important point: The findings “should be interpreted in the light of the availability of
empirical evidence” (p. 48). She points out that a lack of evidence for a relationship between
some attributes and student achievement may mean that empirical evidence was not readily
available, rather than that no relationship exists. Rice (2003) concludes the following:•

Teacher experience matters, particularly in the first few years of teaching. Moreexperience may be of greater importance for high school teachers than for teachers inearlier grades.

•

Teacher preparation studies provide limited evidence of how teacher preparation
programs improve teacher competency or student achievement. Program selectivity may
be related to student achievement at the high school level, and high-poverty students may
also gain more from teachers prepared in selective programs. Recent research on
advanced degrees shows some evidence that such degrees may improve student
achievement, but only in high school mathematics and to a lesser extent in high school
science.

•

Teacher certification seems to matter for high school mathematics, but there is little
evidence of its relationship to student achievement in lower grades. There was no
indication of a difference in student outcomes for teachers who gained certification
through an alternate route.

•

Teacher coursework, whether subject specific or in pedagogy, appears to have a positive
impact on student learning at all grade levels, but subject-specific coursework mattersmost in secondary education. There may be a limit, however, to this positive effect:
Requiring more courses for teachers does not translate into higher student achievement ina linear fashion.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—5

•

Tests that measure teacher literacy or verbal ability appear to correlate with both teacher
performance and student outcomes. Although evidence for the impact of other types oftest scores was mixed, there was an indication that teacher test scores are particularly
important for the achievement of at-risk students.

Rice concludes from the available evidence that “more refined measures of what teachers know
and can do (e.g., subject-specific credentials, special coursework taken) are better predictors ofteacher and student performance than are more conventional measures (e.g., highest degree
earned, undifferentiated course credits earned)” (p. 50). Rice’s synthesis is a valuable
contribution to the understanding about which qualifications matter most in terms of student
achievement, but its scope is limited—primarily due to the lack of availability of empirical dataon critical points.
Wayne and Youngs (2003)
Wayne and Youngs (2003) reviewed studies that related characteristics of teachers to student
achievement. Their criteria for inclusion were stricter than those of most other research syntheses
and are as follows:•

The collected data address teacher characteristics as well as the standardized test scoresof the teachers’ students.

•

The data were collected in the United States.

•

The design accounts for prior student achievement.

•

The design accounts for student socioeconomic status.

Wayne and Youngs reported several interesting findings from their synthesis. Working withthree studies, they found some evidence of a weak relationship between the selectivity (ranking)of teachers’ undergraduate programs and student achievement. Most of the studies theyexamined (five out of seven) found that students benefited (in areas such as reading) fromteachers with higher verbal scores. When degrees and coursework were examined, the authors
found that all studies were positive concerning mathematics; that is, mathematics degrees andcoursework appear to contribute to improved student achievement in mathematics. In addition,
the authors reported that certification appears to matter only when the certification is in thesubject area being taught and only for mathematics. It appears that the researchers were able to
make stronger inferences about the importance of mathematics credentials to student
mathematics achievement in part because there is a more substantial research base for thisparticular academic discipline.
Wilson and Floden (2003)
Wilson and Floden (2003) wrote an addendum to the report Teacher Preparation Research:
Current Knowledge, Gaps, and Recommendations (Wilson, Floden, Ferrini-Munday, 2001).
In this addendum, they synthesize research on teacher effectiveness in an effort to answer key
questions, such as these: “To what extent does subject knowledge contribute to the effectivenessof a teacher? Is there a significant advantage to having an advanced degree in the subject taught
as opposed to a subject major? To having a subject major as opposed to a minor?” Other

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—6

questions focus on pedagogical theory and knowledge, field-based experience, accreditation ofteacher preparation programs, and alternative versus traditional preparation programs.
Although the Wilson and Floden addendum is focused on teacher effectiveness rather thanteacher quality, the study is relevant because—for purposes of the synthesis—effectiveness is
considered a component (and an outcome) of teacher quality. The particular sections focusing on
the characteristics of new teachers that contribute to teaching effectiveness are of great interest
because they answer some of the same questions that this research synthesis addresses. Relevant
findings are summarized as follows:•

Findings on the impact of teachers’ level of education were inconsistent, based on 14
studies.

•

Findings on the relationship between teacher experience and student achievement
were inconsistent, based on 12 studies.

•

Findings on the relationship between teachers’ verbal or general ability and student
achievement were inconsistent, based on five studies.

•

Findings on the relationship between teacher race, student race, and student
achievement were inconsistent, based on six studies.

•

Findings on the relationship between teachers’ degrees and coursework and student
achievement were inconsistent, based on 11 studies.

•

Findings on the relationship between teacher preparation and student achievement
were inconsistent, based on three studies.

Wilson and Floden summarized the evidence and discussed many of the problems theyencountered in attempting to synthesize the research to answer the questions. One problem they
noted is that many studies they examined did not tie teacher qualification and characteristics
directly to student learning. Thus, although there was general agreement on what qualifications
and characteristics were important, there was little evidence to support these assumptions. The
authors also were relying on some older studies. Because linked teacher-student data havebecome more readily available and statistical software and methods have grown moresophisticated, more recent studies that will be discussed in this research synthesis add further
nuance to the excellent work done by these authors.

Focus of This Research Synthesis
Although a number of research syntheses and reviews of the literature that focus on teacher
quality have already been published, this synthesis adds to the existing literature in several ways.
First, it focuses on the most recent studies, primarily those conducted since 2000. Second, itgroups studies into a framework for evaluating teacher quality that may make it easier to talkabout the components of teacher quality. Third, it provides summaries of the studies as well astables that sort the studies in ways that should be useful when focusing on particular aspects ofthe studies. Fourth, it provides a summary table that presents thumbnail sketches of the studies
examined for this synthesis.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—7

Defining Teacher Quality
Teacher quality is a complex phenomenon for which no general and absolute agreement exists
concerning an appropriate and comprehensive definition. One of the first dilemmas to resolve isthe difference between teacher quality and teaching quality. Teacher quality implies that there isa set of inputs (such as certification, teacher test scores, and college degrees) that serves as
indicators of who will be successful in the classroom. On the other hand, teaching quality
implies that it is not what the teachers have in terms of training and certification, it is what they
do in the classroom that indicates quality. Often, the two definitions are linked or even conflated,so that there is an assumption that teacher quality ensures teaching quality or that teachingquality is an outcome of teacher quality.
Perhaps more important, teaching quality can be broken down further into two dimensions: thetask of teaching (what teachers do) and achievement (the student learning that teachers foster).
Fenstermacher and Richardson (2005) elaborate on these concepts:
Quality teaching could be understood as teaching that produces learning. In otherwords, there can indeed be a task sense of teaching, but any assertion that suchteaching is quality teaching depends on students learning what the teacher isteaching. To keep these ideas clearly sorted, we label this sense of teaching
successful teaching. (p. 186)
This viewpoint is useful for thinking about teaching quality, particularly successful teaching.
Fenstermacher and Richardson’s analysis is useful in this important respect: It clearly
distinguishes what teachers do in classrooms from what students learn in classrooms. For
purposes of the present research synthesis, student learning is the focus for both teacher
quality and teaching quality. For that reason, all of the studies selected for examination aspart of this synthesis have as an outcome standardized student achievement test scores.
Although many other outcome measures could have been used, the one that is almost
universally used and that allows for comparability among studies is the standardized test.

Framework for Teacher Quality
For this synthesis, examining recent studies and revisiting older studies led to the development of
a new framework for determining teacher quality. The need for this framework stemmed from aneffort to make sense of the many ways in which researchers have been measuring teacher quality
over the years. This framework consists of four distinct but related ways of looking at teacher
quality that are grouped into three categories, as follows:
Inputs• Teacher qualifications• Teacher characteristics
Processes• Teacher practices
Outcomes• Teacher effectiveness

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—8

Figure 1 shows how these four ways of looking at teacher quality are related.
Figure 1. Graphic Representation of a Framework for Teacher Quality

Teacher Qualifications

Processes

Education, certification,
credentials, teacher testscores, and experience.

Teacher Practices(Teaching Quality)
Practices both in and out of theclassroom (impacted by school andclassroom context): planning,
instructional delivery, classroom
management, interactions with students.

InputsTeacher Characteristics
Attitudes, attributes, beliefs,
self- efficacy, race, gender

Teacher Quality

Student Achievement Test Scores(treated as indicator of teacher quality)
Outcomes

Student Achievement (predicted) –Student Achievement (actual) =Student Gain Score

Teacher Effectiveness
Empirically defined using value-added
measures, teachers are ranked by how
much students gained compared to
how much they were predicted togain in achievement.

Note that teacher qualifications, characteristics, and practices are all used to define teacher
quality and exist independently of student achievement, whereas teacher effectiveness is wholly
dependent on student achievement. In other words, teacher effectiveness cannot be determined
without outcomes such as standardized test scores. The other three ways of looking at teacher
quality can be theoretically connected to student learning and measured with standardized testscores, but they exist whether or not they are measured. For example, teacher certification exists
as a proxy for teacher quality, even if it is never connected to student outcomes. But teacher
effectiveness exists only as a function of the link between teachers and their students’standardized test scores. What follows is a more in-depth description of each of these ways oflooking at teacher quality.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—9

Teacher Qualifications
The first strand of the framework for defining teacher quality focuses on teacher qualifications(also commonly called teacher inputs). Teachers’ qualifications are among the resources theybring with them to the classroom and are considered important in establishing who should beallowed to teach. For determining teacher quality, however, the reliance on paper qualifications—for example, how many courses a teacher candidate took in a specific subject area or what score
was received on a licensing test—may simply reflect the limitations of the data and research
designs that are easiest to access. The reliance on paper qualifications as proxies for teacher
quality seems to hold sway currently; thus, since the advent of NCLB, teacher quality often has
been conflated with the idea of a highly qualified teacher.1 Meeting NCLB requirements, ofcourse, is no guarantee that teachers will be effective in their classrooms.
Qualifications also include teachers’ coursework, grades, subject matter education, degrees, testscores, experience, certification, and credentials, as well as evidence of participation in continued
learning such as internships, induction, supplemental training, and professional development.
Experience also can be considered in this category because it is counted as a qualification formany purposes, including NCLB requirements.
The advantage of focusing on qualifications is that it allows education decision makers to use
documents alone to estimate a teacher’s potential effectiveness for licensing and hiring purposes,
prior to any determination of the teacher’s suitability for a position or effectiveness in theclassroom. The major disadvantage of the qualifications definition of teacher quality is that ateacher can be deemed to be of high quality on paper yet perform poorly in the classroom.
Teacher Characteristics
The second strand of the framework for defining teacher quality focuses on teacher characteristics,
including attributes and attitudes of teachers as well as immutable (or assigned) characteristics
such as race and gender. Research in this area that links these characteristics to student outcomesis still relatively scarce. The advantage of viewing teacher characteristics in this way is that it
expands the scope of teacher quality and thus creates an opportunity for greater precision in thedefinition of it. The main drawback to defining teacher quality in this way is that it focuses on
characteristics that are often logically, ethically, or practically beyond the teacher’s (or school’s)
ability to change.
Teacher Practices
The third strand of the framework for defining teacher quality focuses on examining teachers’
actual classroom practices and correlating those practices with student learning outcomes.
Evaluating teachers’ questioning strategies and linking them to student learning is one example
of a classroom practices mechanism. By this definition, teacher quality is ascertained not by thequalifications teachers have on paper but by what they actually do in the classroom with their
1

For NCLB purposes, highly qualified teachers must possess the following inputs (paper qualifications): full statecertification, bachelor’s degree, and demonstrated subject matter competency in each of the academic subjects he or
she teaches.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—10

students, including instructional and classroom management practices, interactions with students,
and performance of tasks. Higher correlations with what are considered better practices thus
define good teaching. The focus, then, is not on assessing the connection between what
individual teachers do but on correlating certain recommended practices and student outcomes.
The advantage to this definition over qualifications is that it focuses on the classroom, where theteacher and student interact and where learning actually takes place. The chief disadvantage ofthis definition is that evaluating teachers in their classrooms is difficult, time consuming,
expensive, and subject to the complications of context (e.g., differences among urban and ruralschools, high-poverty and wealthy schools, schools serving large numbers of English language
learners, classrooms with students who have severe behavioral problems, and so on). Anotherdisadvantage is that while researchers may focus on looking only at whether teachers are using
one or two specific best practices, it is likely that teachers using these practices are also using
other best practices. Thus, linking student learning outcomes to a handful of practices (andexcluding all others) is virtually impossible. Similarly, another disadvantage is that studies
examining teacher practices often do not control for other contributions to student learning (suchas a classroom climate that is conducive to learning) or distractions that prevent students fromlearning (such as a disruptive classmate).
Teacher EffectivenessA fourth strand of the framework for defining teacher quality is teacher effectiveness—asdetermined by growth in student learning, typically measured by standardized achievement tests.
This strand most closely approximates a comprehensive measure of teaching quality rather thanteacher quality because teacher effectiveness would be the empirical evidence that defines
teacher quality and teaching quality, based on how much student learning a teacher fosters.
Teachers might be considered high quality if their students learn significantly more than would
have been predicted given those students’ prior achievement.
Earlier Definitions of Teacher Effectiveness. It is worth noting that there has been a substantial
shift during the past 30 years in how teacher effectiveness is defined and measured. At the 1978
Conference of the International Association for Educational Assessment, Schlusmans (1978)
described the following eight ways of measuring teacher effectiveness:•

Characteristics Deduced From a Theory. Starting from existing educational,
psychological or sociological theories, one deduces a number of characteristics of theeffective teacher.

•Characteristics Determined by the Pupils. The evaluation by the pupils is used as thecriterion for effectiveness.

•

Characteristics Defined by Specialists. Inspectors and directors determine thecharacteristics of effective teachers from their own experiences with teachers and fromtheir own theories.

•

Characteristics Derived From the Functional Analysis of the Teacher. From theresults of observation, surveys, and theory, a functional analysis of the teacher is made,on which conclusions about the characteristics of the effective teacher are based.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—11

•Characteristics Derived from a Role Analysis of the Teacher. On the basis of a set ofnorms and expectations about teachers, characteristics of the effective teacher are
formulated.

•

Characteristics Derived From Descriptive Research on the Teacher Population. On
the basis of characteristics discovered in the existing population of teachers,
characteristics of the effective teacher are determined.

•

Empirical Research on Teacher Characteristics. Characteristics of teachers, measured
by observation scales and questionnaires, are tested for a specific criterion, such as theevaluation of teaching, the judgment of inspectors, the opinion of pupils and—in some
exceptional cases—the achievement results of the pupils.

•

Predictive Research of Teacher Characteristics. One tries to determine to what degree
specific characteristics of trainees can predict a criterion of effectiveness, such as theobtaining of a diploma, the marks awarded, or the judgment of inspectors. (pp. 19–20)

Note that the seventh criterion describes measuring teacher effectiveness by the achievement
results of the pupils “in some exceptional cases.” Thus, teacher effectiveness was almost nevermeasured through attempts to link student achievement with specific teachers or teacher
characteristics. Now, however, using achievement results to determine teacher quality is
becoming commonplace.
The Influence of Technology in Determining Teacher Effectiveness. Technology has made itmuch easier to connect teachers with data on student achievement. The proliferation of such data,
the advent of powerful desktop computers, and advances in statistical software have made it
possible to look at such linked data in new ways. Also, the movement toward school-levelaccountability for student achievement has provided the impetus to do so. In recent years, thefocus has moved away from holding schools accountable for student achievement and towardholding teachers accountable. States and districts are increasingly experimenting with valueadded models in an attempt to establish some measure of teacher effectiveness. In some states(such as Tennessee), this information has been used for research purposes—and, to a much lesser
extent—as one of a number of factors a principal might use when evaluating teaching
performance. In some districts (such as one in Houston, Texas), however, teachers are receiving
substantial monetary rewards for improving student achievement. This situation has resulted inconsiderable turmoil, particularly when the rewards are accompanied by claims that therecipients are the very best teachers in the district (Associated Press, 2007). Not surprisingly,
teachers who were not rewarded were left to wonder and grumble. Clearly, teacher effectivenessas measured empirically by student achievement has not yet reached a level of public
approbation and acceptance.
Considering Teacher Quality Through a Lens of Teacher Effectiveness. Looking at teacher
quality through an effectiveness lens means focusing on results that theoretically can be attributed
to the other three strands of teacher quality (teacher qualifications, teacher characteristics, andteacher practices). However, it is impossible to determine from a value-added score which
combination of qualifications, characteristics, and practices have contributed to student
achievement. Using the effectiveness definition of teacher quality has the advantage ofdetermining teacher quality without regard to teachers’ paper qualifications, characteristics,

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—12

or practices. Thus, teachers who may not meet all (or any) of the qualifications for a particular
position theoretically may still be deemed high quality if their students are performing better than
expected.
On the other hand, a major disadvantage of the effectiveness definition is that it provides nomechanism for predicting high-quality teachers prior to their actual teaching. In other words, if
teacher quality is to be determined solely by effectiveness, how can one decide who should beallowed to teach in the first place—before any student gains can be assessed? How can students
be protected from ineffective teachers? This situation suggests that there is still a decided benefit
to using assessments or other mechanisms that require prospective teachers to demonstrate aminimum level of competency before they are given teaching responsibilities. This concern is thefundamental rationale for the existence of teacher licensing requirements.

Use of the Teacher Quality Framework in This Research Synthesis
As has been shown, the four ways of looking at teacher quality—qualifications, characteristics,
practices, and effectiveness—all have merit, but each also has drawbacks. In this research
synthesis, the author will consider what the evidence says about teacher quality as determined by
the four strands of the framework and attempt to put these findings into perspective.
Specifically, research that purports to measure teacher quality by linking paper qualifications(inputs), teacher practices, and characteristics with standardized tests scores will be examined.
Research on the fourth strand, teacher effectiveness as measured by growth in student test scores,
also will be examined. An attempt will be made to draw appropriate conclusions from theevidence that exists for these various types of measures, with the primary purpose of advancing
efforts to ensure that all students—particularly special-needs and at-risk students—have an
opportunity to learn at high levels. Clarifying exactly what constitutes teacher quality should
help to further those efforts.
Brief summaries of the research in these four areas can be found in Appendix C. Its purpose is toguide those whose mission it is to understand teacher quality at a practical level, particularly
those who educate teachers, hire teachers, or make policy decisions concerning teachers.
Before moving on to summaries of the evidence related to the four strands of teacher quality, it
should be pointed out that there are many other ways to define and examine teacher quality.
Most of the other options do not use student achievement as an outcome measure, however, andthus they do not fit into the framework created for this research synthesis. Another important lensthrough which to examine teacher quality is to evaluate the many ways that teachers contributeto their schools and thus to improving opportunities for teaching and learning throughout theseschools. A teacher may take a leadership role in the school; apply for and win grants foreducational innovations; serve as a mentor to new or struggling teachers; spearhead theimplementation of reforms; develop ways to promote teacher collegiality; and work during thesummer months to investigate the alignment between curriculum, materials, and tests.
One study that reviews a construct the authors call “collective teacher efficacy” illustrates anattempt to measure teacher quality as a group effect or aggregate of teachers within a particular

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—13

school, grade, or team, using student achievement as the outcome measure. Goddard, Hoy, andHoy (2000) found a strong association, but not a causal relationship, between collective teacher
efficacy and student achievement. Although teacher contributions such as these are crucial to theeducational success of schools generally, there are few if any studies that link the contributionsof individual teachers with student achievement as an outcome measure. Such alternative waysof looking at teacher quality are interesting and worthwhile; omitting them from the current
research synthesis was a utilitarian decision and not meant to suggest that they are unimportant.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—14

Using Student Test Scores to Determine Teacher Quality
Some important caveats should be considered before using standardized tests to measure teacher
quality, either through connecting various inputs (qualifications and characteristics) or processes(practices) to students’ scores, or through measuring teacher effectiveness using a value-added
model.
First, the types of standardized tests given to students to measure achievement were neverdesigned for the purpose of assessing teachers. They were not engineered to be particularly
sensitive to small variations in instruction or to sort out teacher contributions to student learningfrom other factors that impact learning—school and classroom climates; peers; alignment among
curriculum, standards, and tests; availability of materials that are aligned with what is tested;parental involvement in student learning; opportunities for teacher learning (such as high-quality
professional development); and other factors.
Second, the use of value-added models for determining teacher effectiveness is controversial—and for good reason. Some researchers (particularly William Sanders, who designed andimplemented value-added models for ranking Tennessee teachers) contend that because students’prior test scores are used as statistical controls in the formulas for calculating value added, there
is no need to take into account other variables such as class composition and peer effects (W. L.
Sanders & Horn, 1998). They believe that variables that might affect student test scores (such as
poverty and school climate) are already included in the prior years’ test scores, which are used to
predict students’ future achievement. However, many variables go into the making of a school orclassroom within a school, and it is hard to imagine that teachers are solely responsible forstudents’ test scores after controlling for students’ prior achievement. In addition, someresearchers (Braun, 2005; Kupermintz, 2003; Lockwood, Louis, & McCaffrey, 2002) are notconvinced that the current generation of value-added models is sufficiently valid and reliable touse for evaluating individual teachers’ effectiveness. In addition, using value-added models torank teachers and determine teacher quality remains highly controversial. McCaffrey,
Lockwood, Koretz, and Hamilton (2003) contend that major challenges to using value-added
models for determining teacher effectiveness include incomplete data and confounding
influences that impact student scores and that may not be included in the models (e.g., school
effects).
Third, when state standardized tests are not aligned with standards, curriculum, and materials
used in classrooms, student learning may not be reflected accurately in test scores. In otherwords, students may be learning plenty but what they are learning may not be what is being
tested. States vary in the degree to which tests are aligned with standards, curriculum, andmaterials, which means that some states may have more accurate measures of teacher
contributions to student learning than others. Because of this variability, teacher effectiveness asmeasured by student achievement tests may be useful for research purposes under someconditions, given that there are no other comparable outcome measures; however, it is more
problematic when used for rewarding teachers or comparing teachers across states.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—15

Methods
Because other useful research syntheses exist on the topic of teacher quality, it seemed mostimportant for this one to focus on recent studies that may not have been included in previous
research syntheses and literature reviews. Thus, most of the studies featured in this synthesis arefrom the past five or six years. However, a few older seminal studies have been included because
they provide interesting approaches or findings and they also provide needed context for studies
that came later.
Studies were selected based on the following criteria: (1) having as an outcome measure student
achievement on a standardized, nationally normed test; and (2) having some type of measure ofteacher quality, including those studies in which other factors contributing to student
achievement also were measured. In general, the studies link individual student achievement tomeasures of individual teacher quality. However, some studies have aggregated or averaged data
because linked student-teacher data were not available. Even now, obtaining such linked data
persists as a serious challenge to doing research on teacher quality.
Studies were identified using Internet resources as well as library resources. Recommendationsof suitable studies were solicited from experts, and research syntheses on teacher quality also
were examined for possible leads. Given that the focus was primarily on the most current studies,
the Internet proved to be the most useful source for identifying recently published studies.
Three appendixes provide at-a-glance overviews that may be helpful. Appendix A is an aid tounderstanding how the studies used different types of variables as indicators of teacher quality.
Appendix B is a table describing the various data sources used in these studies. Finally,
Appendix C is summary table of studies, included for quick reference, which highlights all of thestudies summarized in this research synthesis and provides a brief description of the research.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—16

A Note on Effect Size
In recent years, effect sizes have become increasingly important for describing research findings,
for three reasons. First, effect sizes are useful in determining the actual measurable impact of anintervention (such as professional development or whole-school reform) or of a particular input
into the classroom (such as teacher experience or certification). The effect size makes it easier tosee just how important that intervention or input was in terms of student gains in test scores.
Second, effect sizes allow for comparison across studies, meaning that studies reporting effectsizes can be evaluated to determine an average effect of a particular intervention or input or toattempt to rank the comparable worth of various interventions or inputs by larger or smaller
effect size. Third, effect size estimates make it possible to compare findings from studies thatused different methods and measures, making it possible to compare studies that used different
methods of gathering and analyzing data.
In this research synthesis, effect sizes are reported in summaries of research findings only when
the authors provide the effect size; no effect sizes were calculated independently for purposes ofthis research synthesis because of the difficulty of accurately calculating effect sizes in some
types of studies, particularly where all statistics are not reported. In this research synthesis, allreported effect sizes are the authors’ reports and have not been independently verified. Thissituation is important to clarify because, unfortunately, there is not a clear consensus in the
research community about what an effect size represents and how it should be calculated andreported. In addition, the research base does not yet exist to help us interpret effect sizes acrossstudies for most measures of teacher quality. There still are considerable gaps in theunderstanding of how to calculate effect sizes appropriately when looking at teacher effects,
particularly taking into consideration multilevel models. (For more discussion on effect sizes andtheir calculation, see Appendix D.)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—17

Research on Teacher Qualifications
Focus
This section focuses on the link between teachers’ paper qualifications (including experience)and student learning—an area of continuing controversy, with some studies finding no or small
effects of certification and experience and others finding significant positive effects.

Findings
Taking this group of studies as a whole, there appears to be strong consensus that mathematics
certification matters, particularly at the secondary teaching level. However, evidence is lacking
to support a similar relationship in other subjects. In addition, there is substantial evidence ofyearly growth in teachers’ ability as measured by their contribution to student learning in theirfirst five years of experience. After the first five years, there is no evidence that increasing
experience contributes additional impact.

Research Studies
Betts, Zau, and Rice (2003)
Betts, Zau, and Rice (2003) focused on the San Diego Unified School District for their research,which linked student and teacher data in elementary through high school, using 1998–2000 data.
The population for this study consisted of teachers and students in 123 elementary schools, 24
middle schools, 17 high schools, and 5 charter schools. Many variables were included in theiranalyses, including school, student, and teacher characteristics. The authors used teachers’ paper
qualifications as teacher quality variables, including experience, level of education, credentials,
and subject matter knowledge. They found that the correlations among these qualifications andstudent achievement varied substantially across grades and across subjects. According to theirfindings, elementary student gains in both mathematics and reading were higher when students
were taught by an emergency credential teacher or a teacher with one year or less of experience,compared with a fully credentialed teachers with 10 or more years of experience—certainly acounterintuitive finding! Teachers with master’s degrees contributed marginally more toincreased mathematics scores than teachers with only bachelor’s degrees. In middle school, gains
in reading were correlated with teachers holding Ph.D.s in any subject (for English teachers).
Students’ scores in middle school and high school were negatively impacted by having a teacher
who held only an emergency credential. In middle and high school mathematics, a teacher’smathematics authorization (a proxy for subject-area knowledge) was the best teacher-level
predictor of student achievement.
Taken together, these results suggest that the contributions of various paper qualifications vary
widely among subject areas and between grade levels. What matters in mathematics (subject
knowledge) may not matter in reading, and what matters in the secondary grades (teacher
credentials) may not matter in the primary grades.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—18

Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2005)
Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2005) used teacher preparation as their measureof teacher quality in a study examining different pathways into teaching in New York City. The
study used linked data for teachers and students in Grades 3–5 to examine differences in
effectiveness among teachers entering the teaching force through traditional or alternative
mechanisms. English and mathematics scores were used from New York’s statewide tests, which
are aligned to the state standards. More than a million student mathematics scores and more than
900,000 student English scores were used, along with data on more than 65,000 teachers.
The authors found differences in outcomes for teachers in their first year of teaching. For
mathematics teachers, temporary license holders were found to be similar to Teaching Fellows,2
while Teach for America teachers were similar to college-recommended (traditionally prepared)teachers in terms of their contribution to student achievement. For students’ English
achievement, the Teaching Fellows and Teach for America teachers performed worse thancollege-recommended teachers in terms of their contributions to student achievement.
Temporary-license teachers fell between the college-recommended and alternatively preparedteachers. Teach for America and Teaching Fellows teachers’ effectiveness in mathematics
increased with time, however; second-year teachers from these pathways caught up to
traditionally prepared teachers.
In the coming years, this ongoing study will provide a considerable amount of useful information
about how qualifications (in this case, type of preparation) matter in terms of student
achievement in both the short and long term. These preliminary results are interesting because
they suggest that there are differences in teacher quality among teachers prepared in different
ways. It is difficult to determine, however, whether these differences are due to the preparationand support (or lack of support) these teachers received or whether they are actually reflecting
differences in backgrounds, aptitude, and characteristics of people who enter teaching fromvarious alternative and traditional pathways. Additional research that may provide greater detailto help answer these questions in the future is currently underway.
Carr (2006)
Carr (2006) linked Ohio teachers’ experience, degree level, and designation as highly qualified
by NCLB requirements with student achievement as measured by Ohio’s standardized
proficiency tests. He used archival data from students and teachers in traditional and charterschools for the 2004–05 school year. Other variables linked by the author with student scores
included student attendance, mobility, and disciplinary referrals. Controls included student
socioeconomic status, learning disability status, race, and community type (urban versus
nonurban). He also considered policy alternatives that could be tied to results, including
increasing school funding, changing funding priorities, decreasing student-teacher ratios,increasing teacher quality, and improving student behavior.
2

Teaching Fellows (www.nycteachingfellows.org) is a program designed specifically to help alleviate teacher
shortages in New York City public schools. The program subsidizes candidates attaining master’s degrees inshortage areas, particularly mathematics, the sciences, bilingual education, special education, Spanish as a foreign
language, and English as a second language. The focus is on preparing teachers for high-needs school settings.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—19

Carr’s findings suggested that for public schools, teacher quality (i.e., highly qualified teacher
status) was significant in 18 of 21 models but teacher experience and advanced degrees did not
significantly contribute to student achievement (when controlling for highly qualified status).
Teacher variables made no statistically significant contribution in charter schools. Although theteacher quality effects in public schools were statistically significant, they were not large. Thisfinding suggests that NCLB-authorized paper qualifications alone account for only a small
percentage of teacher contributions to student learning as measured by student achievement testscores.
Cavalluzzo (2004)
Cavalluzzo (2004) focused on certification from the National Board for Professional TeachingStandards (NBPTS) as a measure of teacher quality. She used linked student and teacher data on
108,000 student records in the Miami-Dade County Public Schools to examine the contributionof teachers’ professional qualification in ninth- and tenth-grade mathematics. Teacher
characteristics included in the model were experience, type of mathematics teachingcertification, primary job assignment (mathematics or other), advanced degree, selectivity ofundergraduate school, and whether the teacher had obtained National Board Certification. The
study also controlled for a variety of student characteristics, including demographics; repeating
grades; identification as gifted; suspension record; attendance; grade point average in core
subjects; average teacher-assigned scores in mathematics for effort and for conduct, age, andgrade level; whether the course taken was above or below the student’s grade level; andenrollment in a limited-English-proficiency program.
The author found that with the exception of undergraduate school selectivity, each of the teacher
quality indicators was significant and correctly signed in terms of contribution to student
achievement. In addition, the author reported that compared with students whose teachers had
never attempted National Board Certification, those students whose otherwise similar teachers
passed the certification process had larger gains than those whose teachers had failed orwithdrawn from the NBPTS accreditation process.
Besides the NBPTS findings, the author reported that having an in-subject-area teacher andregular state certification in high school mathematics were the greatest contributors to student
achievement. However, the contributions of all of these qualifications were not of practicalimportance: Students with NBPTS teachers gained an average of 0.07 of a standard deviation
after including school effects. Another factor that may have impacted her findings was that
NBPTS teachers had better credentials overall than other teachers and were more likely to beteaching affluent, white, high-achieving, and gifted students.
Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2006)
Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2006) used linked data on nearly 4,000 North Carolina teachers
and their fifth-grade students to determine the contribution to students’ test scores of teacher
experience, licensure test scores, advanced degrees, National Board Certification, andundergraduate institution attended. They determined that teacher experience had a significant
positive effect on both reading and mathematics test scores and that teacher licensure test scores

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—20

had a statistically significant effect on mathematics scores; however, the regression coefficient of
0.012 with a standard error of 0.006 is of little practical importance. NBPTS status also had astatistically significant but not practically important effect on reading scores. In addition, theauthors found a negative effect on student achievement for teachers with a master’s degree, witha regression coefficient of –0.023 and a standard error of 0.012.
Although the authors confirm the contributions of a number of paper qualifications, theirfindings point to an issue that has appeared in many studies of this type: Results are different
depending on the subject matter. Moreover, their results suggest that more teacher education
does not necessarily result in improved performance for students. This finding calls into question
the policy of many states of increasing the salaries of teachers who have or obtain advanced
degrees.
Darling-Hammond (2000)
Darling-Hammond (2000) used National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading
and mathematics scores in her analysis of teacher qualifications and student achievement. She
examined the correlation between the percentage of well-qualified teachers in the state andstudents’ NAEP scores and determined that teacher qualifications are significantly and positively
correlated with student achievement. Although the findings are interesting, there are a number offactors that should be considered in evaluating these results. Most importantly, there may be
unknown differences among states that are tied to more rigorous requirements for teachers. For
example, in states where a surplus of highly qualified teachers exists, the state can set highstandards for teacher qualifications and still maintain a sufficient supply of teachers. Conversely,states that struggle to meet demands for teachers may lower teacher qualification requirements inorder to ensure that classrooms are staffed. In addition, given the limitations of the data, it is notpossible to make causal claims about the relationship between student achievement and teacher
qualifications. Although correlation may be determined, it is possible that both variables (teacher
qualifications and student achievement) are impacted by some other unknown variable.
Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, and Heilig (2005)
Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, and Heilig (2005) examined linked teacher and student
data in Houston to determine whether teacher certification made a difference in student
outcomes. Using a sample of 4,408 teachers in Grades 4 and 5 from the 1996–97 school year to
the 2001–02 school year, they compared certified teachers with uncertified teachers (both Teachfor America and non-Teach for America teachers). They found that uncertified teachers andthose with the most nonstandard certifications had negative effects on student achievement gains,regardless of whether or not they were Teach for America teachers. Student achievement gains
for Teach for America teachers were between one half to three months lower than student
achievement gains for fully certified teachers, except in mathematics. However, the authors
noted that Teach for America teachers who achieved full certification were about as effective asother fully certified teachers. For one group of alternatively certified teachers (those participating
in a Houston-based certification program), students gained more on one reading test (the Aprenda
reading test, a standardized Spanish language test). The authors theorize that because many of the

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—21

teachers in this program are Hispanic, the language match with Hispanic students may havecontributed to achievement gains.
Decker, Mayer, and Glazerman (2004)
Decker, Mayer, and Glazerman (2004) evaluated the achievement of students who had Teach forAmerica teachers compared with a control group of students with teachers who taught in thesame grades in the same schools. Control teachers thus included traditionally certified,alternatively certified, and uncertified teachers. Using Grades 1–5 data from 17 schools, 100classrooms, and nearly 2,000 students in Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, New
Orleans, and the Mississippi Delta during the 2002–03 school year, the authors found that Teachfor America teachers had a positive impact on their students’ mathematics achievement. The
difference in growth was statistically and practically significant, with Teach for America
teachers’ students gaining about one additional month of mathematics instruction compared with
control teachers. Furthermore, when comparing novice control teachers with Teach for America
teachers, the differences were even more pronounced. However, there was no significant
difference between student achievement in reading: Teach for America and control teachers
contributed about equally to students’ reading achievement. These results were stable acrossstudent subgroups, schools, and geographical regions.
Given that most Teach for America teachers are placed in hard-to-staff schools with high rates ofteacher turnover, it is worth noting that these teachers fare as well as do scarce certified teachers.
Thus, certification and teacher preparation may be less important as measures of teacher quality
than the background characteristics of Teach for America teachers. It should be noted, however,that Teach for America teachers are an exceptional group (in terms of the selectivity of theirundergraduate institutions and the rigorous screening process for acceptance) compared withother teachers entering the profession through an alternate route, and the findings may not holdfor them.
Goe (2002)
Goe (2002) conducted a study on California schools that focused on examining aggregatedschool-level achievement as reflected in the state’s Academic Performance Index for the school
and a number of school-level student, school, and teacher variables. Using multiple regression,
she found that two teacher quality factors showed small but significant negative correlations withstudent achievement: the percentage of emergency-permit teachers in the school and thepercentage of first-year teachers in the school (controlling for credential status).
The study is hampered by the fact that it uses aggregated student and teacher data rather thanlinking individual student achievement scores with teachers. In addition, given that hard-to-staff
schools typically have all three factors—low student achievement, many first-year teachers, andmany uncertified teachers—it is possible that an unspecified (hidden) variable might explain therelationship. Thus, no causal claims can be made and the generalizability of the findings islimited by the study design.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—22

Goldhaber and Anthony (2005)
Goldhaber and Anthony (2005) used North Carolina teacher data linked to student achievementscores to examine the relationship between National Board Certification and student
achievement. Using elementary school records from 1996 to 1999, the authors matched 32,399
teachers to 609,160 reading students’ test scores and 32,448 teachers to 611,517 mathematics testscores. The authors found statistically significant, but not practically important, student
achievement gains for students whose teachers had completed National Board Certification (0.05
standard deviation in reading and 0.09 standard deviation in mathematics). However, they notedthat students of these teachers were higher achieving and more affluent. The authors also notedthat student achievement gains for teachers who would become National Board certified in the
future (as determined with the longitudinal data) were just as effective as those who had alreadyattained NBPTS certification.
Goldhaber and Brewer (1999)
Goldhaber and Brewer (1999) conducted a study examining teacher certification status andsubject major and their relationships to student achievement using data from the National
Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. They found that students of teachers who had anundergraduate or graduate degree in mathematics performed better than students whose teachers
did not have a mathematics degree (by 0.08 standard deviation, not of practical significance). In
addition, they found that students of teachers with any type of certification to teachmathematics—including emergency, alternative, or standard certification—outperformed
students whose teachers had no certification or who were certified in a subject other thanmathematics. These results suggest that subject knowledge of mathematics may be more
important than the type of certification in terms of the contribution to student achievement.
Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, and Rivkin (2005)
Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, and Rivkin (2005)3 used teacher certification exam scores, educational
attainment, teacher race, and years of experience to determine the links between thesecharacteristics and student achievement in mathematics on the Texas Assessment of Academic
Skills (TAAS). Data were archival records for school years 1989–90 through 2001–02 andincluded fourth- through eighth-grade students and teachers in one large urban district (about
230,000 student records). Using a value-added model, the authors found that experience
predicted higher student achievement gains but only for the first few years of teaching. The
authors determined that advanced degrees and certification exam scores were unrelated to
student achievement scores on TAAS. In addition, they found that a match between student andteacher race improved achievement scores for minority students only. Moreover, they found thatteachers who leave schools have significantly lower test score gains than those who stay in theirplacements.

3

This study also could have been sorted into the Teacher Characteristics category because the authors examinedteacher race and student achievement as well as paper qualifications.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—23

Harbison and Hanushek, 1992
Harbison and Hanushek (1992) conducted a study using data from a Brazilian governmentsponsored project. One focus of the research was an examination of whether resources would
improve learning achievement. To ascertain this situation, they looked at teacher salary,education level, years of experience, participation in either of two inservice programs, andsubject matter knowledge as determined by scores on the same tests (in Portuguese andmathematics) that were administered to their students. The study used a random sample ofschools in the 218 high-poverty rural counties of northeast Brazil. The authors found that teacher
education had a small, positive effect on second-grade mathematics students only. Teacher
experience did not have a significant effect on students’ test scores, and teacher participation intraining did not contribute to improved student achievement.
Harris and Sass (2007)
Harris and Sass (2007) investigated the effects of teacher education and training using student,
school, and teacher fixed effects. The authors used panel data on all public school students andteachers in Florida for two time periods (1995–96 and 2003–04), resulting in nearly 1 million
matched student-teacher records in middle school alone. They found that preservice teacher
training had little impact on student achievement. Further, they found that teachers’ own testscores on the SAT verbal and quantitative sections had no impact on student achievement.
Advanced degrees did not contribute to teachers’ effectiveness and were even associated with
reduced effectiveness in high school mathematics and middle school reading. However, theauthors did find that that content-focused professional development seemed to make teachers
more effective in middle and high school mathematics. Pedagogical content knowledge waspositively associated with student test scores at the elementary and middle school levels but only
in mathematics. In addition, there appeared to be a relationship between teacher experience andreading achievement in middle and elementary school students.
One particularly interesting finding from this study related to the impact of professional
development on teacher effectiveness. According to the data, the effects from professional
development participation were greatest three years after the professional development took
place, meaning that it may take several years for the effects of such teaching learning
experiences to have an impact on teaching. The authors found that content-oriented professional
development had the strongest effect on student achievement.
Hill, Rowan, and Ball (2005)
Hill, Rowan, and Ball (2005) examined the effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge forteaching on first- and third-grade students’ achievement, controlling for student and teacher
covariates. In 115 schools, 699 teachers participated in the study and were followed over three
years. A survey instrument designed by the authors to assess teachers’ knowledge of teachingmathematics was used to score teachers. Using their instrument, which differentiated between
pedagogy and mathematical knowledge for teaching, the authors determined that significantly
better student results were linked to higher levels of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. Of
particular interest was that the scores on this instrument were better predictors of student

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—24

achievement than were teacher background variables such as preparation and certification or thelength of time spent on teaching mathematics each day.
Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006)
Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006) estimated the effects of teacher certification status (certified,uncertified, and alternatively certified) as well as the effects of teacher education and experienceon student achievement scores on the New York City standardized mathematics and readings
tests for Grades 3–8. Their sample consisted of 9,849 mathematics and reading teachers matchedto elementary and middle school students (95 percent match rate), excluding “mobile” teachers
and those teaching high proportions of students with special needs. Using an educational
production function, the researchers found that variations in teacher contributions to student
scores: Students of internationally recruited teachers scored 0.02 standard deviations lower onmath tests than students taught by regularly certified teachers, whereas Teach for America
teachers scored 0.02 standard deviations higher on mathematics tests than regularly certified
teachers. Students of New York City Teaching Fellows teachers scored 0.01 standard deviations
lower than regularly certified teachers’ students in reading. The authors also found that teacher
effectiveness improved in the first years of teaching. The chief finding was that large withingroup differences in effectiveness for each certification group surpassed the smaller betweengroup effects, meaning that the certification appeared to matter much less than other,
unmeasured teacher characteristics independent of certification status.
McColsky, Stronge, Ward, Tucker, Howard, Lewis, and Hindman (2005)
McColsky et al. (2005)4 examined the relationship between National Board Certification andstudent achievement. The study required several phases and was conducted on linked fifth-gradestudent and teacher data in three school districts in North Carolina. In the first phase, the researchused two-level hierarchical linear modeling to develop effectiveness scores for each teacher,based on student test scores. In this phase, no significant differences were found between theaggregate student gains of NBPTS teachers and other teachers.
In the second phase, the researchers recruited the most and least effective teachers, based on theireffectiveness scores and compared them to NBPTS teachers, using the following: (1) teachers’
surveys of their own efficacy; (2) interviews about planning and assessment practices; (3)classroom observations focused on the level of cognitive demand of student and teacher
questions, student behavior, and classroom management and intervention strategies; (4) analysisof the quality of reading comprehension assignments; and (5) teacher effectiveness ratings bytrained classroom observers. For this phase, there were 25 NBPTS teachers and 282 non-NBPTS
teachers. The researchers found that NBPTS teachers had slightly higher ratings on theirplanning practices and significantly higher ratings on the cognitive challenge of reading
comprehension assignments. There were no significant differences in terms of the cognitive
demands of student and teacher questions, classroom management strategies, or the numbers ofdisengaged or disruptive students. The most effective non-NBPTS teachers were rated
significantly higher on the following four (of 15) teacher effectiveness dimensions than the least
4

This study also could be sorted into the Teacher Practices category because it focuses on measuring specificteacher practices as well as paper qualifications (NBPTS certified).

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—25

effective non-NBPTS teachers: classroom management, classroom organization, positive
relationships, and encouragement of responsibility.
In this study, it appears that what divides the most effective from the least effective non-NBPTS
teachers is their ability to create and maintain a classroom climate conducive to learning rather
than their use of specific instructional strategies.
Monk (1994)
Monk (1994) related the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics andscience scores for three years with four teacher qualifications related to subject-matter expertise:mathematics and science coursework, major, degree, and experience. He found that teachers’
subject matter expertise increases student learning gains but the benefit decreases after the fifth
mathematics course. In science, student achievement was tied to teachers having taken at least
four physical science courses or completing a science major. Mathematics pedagogy courses also
were found to contribute to student achievement, as was the match of teachers’ experience to theclasses they taught. Teacher experience alone contributed to student achievement only for 11th
graders. Teacher degree level was not significantly related to student achievement, with the
exception that teacher degrees at the master’s level and beyond appeared to be negatively related
to student achievement.
Rockoff (2004)
Rockoff (2004) determined teacher quality by calculating the value added to student achievement
in reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, mathematics computation, and mathematics
concepts. Data from approximately 10,000 elementary students and 300 teachers in two New
Jersey school districts were used in this study. The results of the analysis suggest that teacher
fixed effects (teacher quality) have a small but significant effect on student achievement.
Rockoff also found that teacher experience was positively related to student test scores in reading
and mathematics but leveled off quickly in mathematics after the first two years of teaching.
Rowan, Correnti, and Miller (2002)
Rowan, Correnti, and Miller (2002)5 sought to test various definitions of teacher quality against
data from the Prospects National Longitudinal Study, a study mandated by Congress as part of
the government evaluation of the Title I program. The authors used a three-level hierarchicallinear growth model for each cohort of students (Grades 1–6) to examine “presage” variables(such as a certification status, advanced degrees, and experience) as well as “process” variables(such as use of active teaching methods and alignment of content coverage with assessments).
The authors found the following effect sizes6 for presage teacher quality variables: teachingexperience and reading growth in Grades 1–3, d = 0 .07; experience and reading growth inGrades 3–6, d = 0.15; experience and mathematics growth in Grades 3–6, d = 0.18; and5This study could be sorted into the Teacher Practices category as well, given the “process” variables described.

6

A common way to express effect size is Cohen’s d, in which the difference of the means of the treated and control
groups is standardized by dividing by the pooled variance of the two groups. The resulting estimate expresses themagnitude of the effect in terms of standard deviations.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—26

advanced degree in mathematics and mathematics growth for both cohorts, d = –0.25. They
found the following effect sizes for process variables: time spent on whole-class instruction andreading growth, d = 0.09; time spent on whole-class instruction and mathematics growth, d =0.12; alignment of content with assessments and reading growth, d = 0.10 to 0.18 for word
analysis skills, reading comprehension, and writing process emphasis, respectively; and content
alignment and mathematics growth in Grades 3–6, d = 0.09. Note that many of these effect sizes
are too small to have practical significance.
Sanders, Ashton, and Wright (2005)
W. L. Sanders, Ashton, and Wright (2005) compared teachers with National Board Certification
to other teachers, using more than 260,000 student records in mathematics and reading in twolarge North Carolina school districts. Of the more than 4,600 teachers included in the study, 281
were NBPTS mathematics teachers and 306 were NBPTS reading teachers. The authors tested
four hierarchical models to examine student test data as a function of six fixed effects (year inschool, previous year’s test scores, race, sex, teacher experience, and NBPTS certification status)
and a random teacher effect. They found that NBPTS teachers were not reliably more effective
than the non-NBPTS teachers. In addition, they found that the variation among teachers with thesame certification status was sufficiently large so that the small average differences between
categories were trivial.
Vandevoort, Amrein-Beardsley, and Berliner (2004)
Vandevoort, Amrein-Beardsley, and Berliner (2004) also investigated the relationship between
National Board Certification and student achievement. The authors administered surveys toteachers and principals and analyzed student tests scores for students in Grades 3–6 in 14
districts in Arizona. Thirty-five out of 80 (44 percent) of the NBPTS early childhood and middle
childhood generalists agreed to participate. Test scores were collected for all students in theschools where these teachers taught. The authors found differential gains for students of NBPTS
teachers equivalent to about 1.3 additional months of academic growth compared to studentstaught by non-NBPTS teachers.
The authors calculated pretest to posttest effect sizes independently for NBPTS-certified andnon-NBPTS teachers and then converted the difference into grade equivalents using the work of
Glass (2005), which found that an effect size of 1.0 is roughly equivalent to one year’s academic
growth on a standardized test. The authors estimate that an effect size of 0.10 is thus equal to one
month of academic growth, and they report impacts of NBPTS-certified and non-NBPTS
teachers accordingly. Differences in effect sizes between NBPTS-certified and non-NBPTS
teachers ranged from 0.335 in third-grade reading to –0.230 (i.e., nothing) in fifth-grade
mathematics.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—27

Research on Teacher Characteristics
Focus
This category of looking at teacher quality focuses on characteristics such as (1) attitudes andbeliefs, many of which are difficult to change; (2) immutable or assigned characteristics, such as
race, ethnicity, and gender; and (3) characteristics that are potentially changeable, such as theability to communicate in a second or third language.

Findings
There is not a clear consensus that any of the measured characteristics among these studies has
an impact on student achievement. The data and research varied greatly. Some authors foundsignificant relationships, but other authors researching the same characteristic did not find evidence
for these relationships. Clearly, there is much more research to be done in this area.

Research Studies
Dee (2004)
Dee (2004) compared the achievement of students assigned to teachers of the same race withsimilar students who were assigned to teachers of a different race. All of the students werecompared with those in the same grade and in the same school who were randomly assigned toteachers’ classrooms. The authors contrasted same-race achievement results with different-raceachievement results, using data from Tennessee’s Project STAR (Student Teacher Achievement
Ratio) class-size experiment. There were 23,883 cases for mathematics and 23,544 cases forreading, linked to teachers. The author found that, for black children, having a black teacher for
one year was correlated with 3–5 percentile point increases in mathematics achievement.
Similarly, reading scores for black pupils with a black teacher were 3–6 percentile points higher.
White students placed with a white teacher scored 4–5 percentile points higher in mathematics,
whereas the difference in reading was mixed by gender, with boys scoring 2–6 points higher andgirls scoring about the same. Thus, students in the same teachers’ classroom could havesomewhat different educational outcomes based on whether they were the same race as theteacher.
This study is interesting because of the experimental design: Random assignment of students
means that the possibility of students being sorted along race or other characteristics was
avoided. This design lends additional credence to the findings, supporting Dee’s contention that
more efforts need to be made to recruit black teachers. Dee noted that the positive effects ofbeing assigned to a teacher of the same race appeared to be cumulative, and he suggests thatthree to four consecutive years with a same-race teacher might contribute to closing theachievement gaps for black students.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—28

Ehrenberg, Goldhaber, and Brewer (1995)
Ehrenberg, Goldhaber, and Brewer (1995) examined data from the National Education
Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS 88) to determine whether teacher race, gender, and ethnicity
matter in terms of student achievement. The authors found little evidence of an association withany of these teacher characteristics and student achievement, but they did find interesting
evidence that teachers may have evaluated their students differently based on gender.
Specifically, they found that in mathematics and science, white female teachers evaluated whitefemale students more favorably than did white male teachers. This finding suggests better
rapport among some combinations of teachers and students but does not directly support
differential effects on student achievement.
Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000)
Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000) focused their analysis on collective efficacy among teachers,
measured by assessing group competence and task analysis orientations, aggregated to the schoollevel. They linked these scores to aggregated student achievement scores. Forty-seven randomly
selected schools in a Midwestern urban school district provided names of faculty members to be
surveyed (452 teachers responded). Achievement data on 7,016 students taught by these teachers
also were obtained from the district. Using hierarchical linear modeling with student race,
gender, socioeconomic status, and school size as covariates, the authors found a significant
association between collective teacher efficacy and student achievement.
Because data for this study were collected by surveying a small number of teachers in eachschool, and because both teacher and student data were aggregated to the school level, it isdifficult to determine whether the authors’ claims of an association are justified. There may beother excluded variables at work that cause both the increased sense of efficacy and better
student achievement.
This study also is instructive as one of the more recent examinations of the impact of teacher
efficacy on student achievement. This construct, and the related construct of teacher
expectations, appears to be the chief teacher personality characteristic that has been associatedwith student achievement in the empirical literature (e.g., Armor et al., 1976; Ashton & Webb,
1986; Moore & Esselman, 1992; Ross, 1992). Although teacher dispositions or personality
characteristics may contribute to effectiveness, there does not appear to be any research that
directly investigates the relationship between teacher personality characteristics (e.g., efficacy,authority, management style, persistence, and positive and negative feelings) and student
achievement on standardized tests. Thus, the relationship between teacher personality
characteristics and student achievement lacks an empirical research base.
Leana and Pil (2006)
Leana and Pil (2006) focused on examining social capital as operationally defined in a survey
constructed by the authors. Survey items assessed teachers’ information sharing, trust, andshared vision. The quality of teachers’ instruction was rated through a survey in which parents
reported their satisfaction with teaching methods, materials, and opportunities to learn. The

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—29

authors also included years of teaching experience in their analysis. Student achievement wasmeasured using state standardized tests on mathematics and reading achievement, aggregated tothe school level. They used a variety of qualitative data-collection strategies, including teacher
and administrator interviews, observations of school processes and instructional quality, focus
groups, teacher surveys (80 percent response rate), principal “diaries” (93 percent response rate),
and archival data on student test scores. Using data from 88 out of 95 schools (elementary andsecondary) in an urban Northeastern district, the authors performed a regression analysis withaverage mathematics and reading scores as the dependent variable and student poverty andaverage teacher experience as covariates.
The authors found that internal social capital—defined as teachers’ information sharing, trust,and shared vision in a collaborative professional community—was significantly associated withboth parental satisfaction with the quality of instruction and student achievement in mathematics
and reading. They also found that instructional quality appeared to mediate the relationshipbetween internal social capital and mathematics achievement. In reading, instructional quality
predicted achievement but did not appear to mediate the relationship between internal social
capital and reading achievement.
This study is particularly interesting because it takes a sociological perspective on schoolinteractions and uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to develop the argument that howteachers relate to each other collaboratively—not just what they do instructionally—is importantfor student achievement,.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—30

Research on Teacher Practices
Focus
The focus of this category of looking at teacher quality is on the connection between what
teachers do in their classrooms—teaching practices and behaviors—and student learning. Manyof these studies used observation protocols to document and evaluate what teachers did with theirstudents.

Findings
Although most of the studies summarized in this section found some positive correlation
between what teachers practice and student achievement, the results generally are not statisticallyor practically significant. In addition, a number of the studies have questionable research designs
or use data, methods, or instruments that may not be appropriate to the goals of the research.
Thus, there is an overall lack of findings that are both strong (i.e., significant) and convincing(i.e., appropriate design, methods, and instrumentation).

Research Studies
Borman and Kimball (2005)
Borman and Kimball (2005) adapted a standards-based teacher evaluation system from Charlotte
Danielson’s (1996) Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching7 and used it tocorrelate teachers’ scores with student achievement. They used data from 131 Grade 4 teachers
linked with 2,527 students, 135 Grade 5 teachers linked with 2,176 students, and 131 Grade 6teachers linked with 2,632 students in a Nevada school district. Teacher experience was included
as a covariate. Hierarchical linear modeling was used to estimate teacher effects on classroom
mean achievement. The authors increased sample size by using only Domain 1 (planning andpreparation) and Domain 3 (instruction) of the evaluation system because only probationary
teachers had evaluations on all four domains.
The authors found that teacher quality as determined by standards-based evaluation contributed
slightly to student achievement. Teachers in the 84th percentile and above taught students whose
average achievement was one tenth of a standard deviation higher than that of students ofteachers in the 16th percentile and below. One possible confounding variable in the study was

7

Written by Charlotte Danielson, the Framework for Teaching is founded on a research base developed by Carol
Dwyer (1994) for the creation of the ETS Praxis III. The Framework for Teaching was explicitly created to provide
a mechanism for assessing experienced teachers and is aligned with accepted standards for teaching, including thoseof Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC) and NBPTS. The Framework for
Teaching defines 22 components of practice within four domains: planning and preparation, the classroom
environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities. The developmental stages of each component arearticulated across four levels of performance that illustrate unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguishedpractice.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—31

that teachers of less advantaged students may be unfairly evaluated as being less effective.8
Given the challenging conditions in many high-poverty schools, this situation is an importantconsideration.
The very small differences found among the “best” and “worst” teachers in the sample might beinterpreted in a number of ways:•

It is possible that the evaluation framework was not sensitive enough to pick up key
differences in teaching practices, at least when limited to only two of the four domains.

•

The student assessment may not have been sensitive to instructional differences; that is,the differences in instruction may not have greatly influenced students’ responses on thetests.

•

There may be other contributors to students’ scores that were not measured by theevaluation instrument and which would account for additional variance among students’scores.

Cohen and Hill (1998)
D. K. Cohen and Hill (1998) used teachers’ self-reported instructional practices through a
14-item survey consisting of questions about conventional practices and practices relating to the1985 Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools: Kindergarten Through Grade
Twelve. (California Department of Education, 1985) to determine their impact on students’mathematics scores in California. Of particular importance in this study is that the test used tomeasure student achievement was the California Learning Assessment System (CLAS)
mathematics test, which was aligned to the 1985 Mathematics Framework. The study focused ondetermining whether the higher level of usage of Mathematics Framework practices was related
to improved student achievement on CLAS. The results of the study suggested that there was amodest relationship between using Mathematics Framework practices and student scores on
CLAS. Moreover, teachers’ attendance at curriculum workshops, use of replacement units, andlearning about CLAS also were related to higher CLAS scores.
The findings from this study provide important evidence on two fronts. First, the findings
provide evidence that what teachers do instructionally matters. Second, the findings indicate thatteachers’ participation in professional development activities designed to change instructional
practice may impact student achievement. There has been little research that provides evidenceof a link between professional development and student learning, so this is a particularly
important finding.
Limitations of the study included design and methodological issues, such as self-reports ofteacher practices, use of absolute rather than gain scores, questions about the technical quality of
the CLAS test, attrition among study participants, and difficulty in interpretation because of theeffects of aggregating data. However, this study remains important because of the large sample

8This concern is substantiated by Jacob and Lefgren’s (2005) finding that administrators appeared to discriminate
against untenured teachers in their evaluations.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—32

size and the direct links among professional development, teacher practices, and student
outcomes that were studied.
Frome, Lasater, and Cooney (2005)
Frome, Lasater, and Cooney (2005)9 used information on teacher characteristics for middle
school teachers linked with eighth graders’ achievement test scores in Georgia. Using data onteacher experience and education along with results from a survey administered to eighth
graders, they found that of 11 teacher quality measures, the following four were significantly andpositively related to student achievement:•

Teacher Motivation and Expectations for Students. Higher (student) ratings for
motivation and expectations correlated with higher achievement.

•

Instructional Practices. Higher (student) ratings for practices considered to be effectiveby the researchers were correlated with higher student achievement. Practices included
group work on challenging assignments, oral presentations and written reports onmathematics projects, and explanations of solutions to the class.

•

Mentoring/Induction Experiences. The percentage of teachers within a school who
participated in mentoring/induction was significantly and positively correlated withstudents’ mathematics achievement scores.

•

Content and Pedagogical Coursework. The percentage of teachers within a school witha major in mathematics education was significantly correlated with students’ mathematics
achievement scores.

Although this study utilized an interesting source of evidence—student surveys combined withpaper qualifications for teachers—it is limited in generalizability because results are aggregatedto the school level, rather than linking individual teachers with their students’ own survey
ratings.
Gallagher (2004)
Gallagher (2004) conducted an in-depth, mixed-methods study of one Los Angeles elementary
charter school serving approximately 1,200 students. Thirty-four teachers were evaluated on
three occasions during the school year across 10 domains, including lesson planning, classroom
management, special education inclusion, technology, and subject-specific areas. The evaluation
rubric was based on Danielson’s (1996) Framework for Teaching. These scores were then linked
with students’ value-added scores (growth compared to predicted growth). The author found that
there were significant differences in student achievement relative to teachers’ evaluation scores.
In particular, literacy and composite evaluation scores were significantly related to student
achievement, whereas mathematics and language arts scores were not. Gallagher also correlatedteacher certification and experience data with student achievement and found no relationshipwith student test scores.

9This study also may fall under the categories of Teacher Qualifications and Teacher Characteristics.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—33

In the qualitative component of the study, the author analyzed documents and conductedinterviews with 12 teachers and three evaluators to try to understand the differences between
evaluation scores and effects in reading and mathematics. Based on these interviews, heconcluded that alignment and consistency in the pedagogical approach were factors in thecorrelation between literacy evaluation scores and student achievement.
Heneman, Milanowski, Kimball, and Odden (2006)
Heneman, Milanowski, Kimball, and Odden (2006) used a standards-based evaluation system toconduct a multiyear mixed-methods study investigating the validity of teacher evaluation
systems. They worked with four sites throughout the country: Cincinnati, Ohio; Los Angeles,
California; Reno/Sparks, Nevada; and Coventry, Rhode Island. The evaluation instruments weremodifications of Danielson’s (1996) Framework for Teaching and encompassed all four of its
domains: planning and preparation, the classroom environment, instruction, and professional
responsibilities.
Using linked student and teacher data, the authors assessed the relationship between student
achievement and teachers’ performance evaluation scores. They used a value-added model inwhich achievement was estimated based on prior achievement and other student characteristics.
The authors found positive relationships between teacher evaluation scores and student
achievement gains, although there was considerable variability across sites. In the VaughnCharter School (Los Angeles), the correlation over three years averaged 0.37 in reading and 0.26
in mathematics. In Cincinnati, the correlation averaged 0.35 in reading and 0.32 in mathematics.
Smaller correlations were found at the other two sites, with averages of 0.22 for reading and 0.21
for mathematics in Reno/Sparks (Nevada) and 0.23 for reading and 0.11 for mathematics inCoventry (Rhode Island).
Although the goal of the study was focused on the evaluation instruments themselves, it is worth
noting that there was a fairly high correlation (at least in two of the schools) between what theteachers were observed to be doing in their classrooms and their students’ achievement gains.
The authors speculated that the higher correlations in two of the sites were likely due to using
multiple evaluators and, in Cincinnati, highly trained evaluators. Moreover, teachers at VaughnCharter School had a shared understanding of what constituted good teaching. At the sites withlower correlations, the evaluations were conducted by a single evaluator who had less training.
Holtzapple (2003)
Holtzapple (2003) used a standards-based teacher evaluation system based on Danielson’s(1996) Framework for Teaching to compare student achievement with teachers’ evaluation
scores. Focusing on 246 comprehensively evaluated Cincinnati Public School teachers in
Grades 3–8 in 2000–02, the author examined the achievement of students linked to the teachers
in the study using a value-added model of predicted achievement versus actual achievement. The
author found that teachers who received low ratings on the instructional domain of the teacher
evaluation system had students with lower achievement scores than would have been predictedby prior achievement. She also found that teachers with “advanced” or “distinguished” rankings

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—34

on this instrument generally had students with higher than expected test scores, whereas teachers
rated “proficient” had students with average gains.
Jacob and Lefgren (2005)
Jacob and Lefgren (2005)10 compared subjective principal assessments of 202 teachers withpaper qualifications such as education and experience, and they linked these ratings andqualifications to value-added student scores. They found that the principals’ assessments ofteacher effectiveness were significantly better at predicting student achievement (based on apredicted score) than teacher experience or education, particularly in mathematics. However, theresearchers also found that principals rated male teachers and untenured teachers lower thanwould be expected given their students’ achievement gains; that is, those teachers were often
more effective than the principals’ evaluations would have suggested.
Kannapel and Clements (2005)
Kannapel and Clements (2005) conducted research designed to determine what made highperforming, high-poverty schools different from other high-poverty schools. They examined 26
high-poverty elementary schools in Kentucky using a standardized school audit instrument
developed by the state. They selected eight of these schools based on high ratings on the audit.
When these schools were compared with low-performing, high-poverty schools, differences werenoted in a number of areas. In terms of teacher quality, the authors reported that teachers in thehigh-performing, high-poverty schools were more likely to conduct frequent assessments andoffer students feedback; deliver instruction aligned to learning goals, assessments, and diverse
learning styles; demonstrate high expectations for student performance; participate incollaborative decision making and ongoing, job-embedded professional development; and use
student achievement data for staff development purposes.
Kimball, White, Milanowski, and Borman (2004)
Kimball, White, Milanowski, and Borman (2004)11 examined the relationship between teacher
evaluation scores and student achievement in nine grade-test combinations in Washoe County.
The evaluation system used was adapted from Danielson’s (1996) Framework for Teaching andrated teachers on the following: (1) pedagogical and content knowledge, (2) coherent lesson
design and sequencing that correspond to student assessment, (3) adaptability to meet student
learning needs, and (4) ability to engage students cognitively with strategies appropriate tolearning goals. The teachers included 123 third-grade teachers, 87 fourth-grade teachers, and 188
fifth-grade teachers. Data included about 43 percent to 45 percent of all students in the district
with pretest and posttest scores, and 50 percent to 70 percent of all evaluated district teachers
who could be linked to qualifying students. Using a two-level hierarchical linear model, theauthors estimated teacher effects on student achievement after regressing out student
demographic characteristics and pretest scores.
10

This study also could be sorted into the Teacher Qualifications category because it focuses on paper qualifications
as well as teacher practices.
11

This study also could be sorted into Teacher Qualifications category because paper qualifications are considered.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—35

The authors found that teacher practices, as measured by the evaluation instrument, contributed
slightly to student achievement. Although all of the correlations were positive, only two gradetest combinations were statistically significant. The authors also concluded that evaluation scores
were stronger predictors of student achievement than were teacher education and experience.
Marcoulides, Heck, and Papanastasiou (2005)
Marcoulides, Heck, and Papanastasiou (2005) examined student perceptions of school culture
and related them to student achievement. The authors used data from 1,026 eighth-grade students
in secondary schools in Cyprus, which was collected as part of the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). As part of the assessment, students completed asurvey in which a number of questions were asked about their teachers’ strategies and practices
used to help students learn. Students answered questions about the extent to which they worked
on projects, discussed practical problems, and worked on problems relevant to their everyday
life, as well as the extent to which teachers checked and discussed homework assignments, andaligned assessment and curricular practices. The authors found a 0.32 correlation between
student perceptions of classroom practices and achievement. Interpretation of these findings issomewhat hampered by the lack of controls for student and school prior performance.
Matsumura, Garnier, Pascal, and Valdés (2002)
Matsumura, Garnier, Pascal, and Valdés (2002) reported on the technical quality of a measureexamining the quality of classroom assignments. Developed as part of Los Angeles Unified
School District’s (LAUSD) proposed accountability system, the instrument was tested on 181
teachers randomly selected from 35 LAUSD schools. Fifty teachers submitted three language
arts assignments, including four student work samples. Raters then scored the assignments along
a number of dimensions (cognitive challenge, clarity of goals, clarity of grading criteria, andoverall quality). Each submission was scored by five raters using a rubric. The researchers thenperformed hierarchical linear modeling with scores from the Stanford Achievement Test, 9thedition (SAT-9) as the dependent variable and effects estimated at the teacher level. They foundthat the quality of secondary teacher assignments as measured by their instrument predicted 0.08
of the variance in language arts achievement scores.
Matsumura, Slater, Junker, Peterson, Boston, Steele, and Resnick (2006)
Matsumura et al. (2006) conducted a pilot study of the Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA)
toolkit in five urban middle schools. The IQA provides protocols to rate teachers’ instruction
through observations as well as through an analysis of the teachers’ assignments and related
student work samples. The authors found that the quality of instruction was highly variable
within schools. They also determined that teacher observations were significantly related toscores on ratings of assignments in mathematics but not in reading. The relationship between the
IQA and student achievement also was examined using linear regression. After controlling forstudents’ prior achievement, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, language, and individualized
education program status, the IQA rating predicted several reading and vocabulary subscores on
the Stanford Achievement Test, 10th edition (SAT-10)). However, only the observation
component of the IQA, the procedures subscore, predicted mathematics achievement.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—36

The authors’ findings suggest that evaluations of teacher quality (through observations or
through examining lessons and work samples) are more or less valid, depending on the subject
matter. It is possible that there are differences in mathematics and reading instruction that are notaccounted for in the design of the instrument. However, there are some correlations between the
instrument ratings and student outcomes, suggesting that the researchers are on the right track.
McCaffrey, Hamilton, Stecher, Klein, Bugliari, and Robyn (2001)
McCaffrey, Hamilton, Stecher, Klein, Bugliari, and Robyn (2001) used a teacher questionnaire
to correlate self-reported instructional practices with student achievement scores among 10th
grade mathematics students. In a large, urban school district, 220 of 225 teachers of 10th-grade
mathematics students returned questionnaires. The authors designed the questionnaire to assessteachers’ use of instructional practices aligned to the standards of the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).12 Using ordinary least-squares regression, the authors
determined that more frequent use of practices aligned to the NCTM standards was associatedwith higher test scores among students in integrated mathematics courses—that is, courses
designed to be consistent with the reforms recommended by the NCTM. However, there was no
significant relationship between greater use of NCTM practices and mathematics achievement inother courses.
Milanowski (2004)
Milanowski (2004) analyzed the relationship between teacher evaluation scores and student
achievement in a large Midwestern district using value-added measures. He used an evaluation
system based on Danielson’s (1996) Framework for Teaching, with 212 teachers in Grades 3–8
in Cleveland. He found small to moderate correlations between teacher evaluation scores andstudent growth. The average correlations were 0.27 in science, 0.32 in reading, and 0.43 inmathematics.
Newmann, Bryk, and Nagaoka (2001)
Newmann, Bryk, and Nagaoka (2001) examined teacher quality by looking at the intellectual
demands of assignments given to students. They scored each assignment by the degree to which
it required the construction of knowledge (through disciplined inquiry) in a way that gave it
value beyond classroom learning. The authors collected 2,017 assignments—rated as either
typical or challenging—from third-, sixth- and eighth-grade Chicago teachers. Trained scorers
rated the intellectual demands of the assignments. These scores were subsequently matched to
student achievement scores and analyzed using a three-level hierarchical linear model.
Covariates used in the analyses were prior-year test scores, as well as student race, gender, andsocioeconomic status.
The authors determined that in classrooms with high intellectual-demand assignments, students’learning gains were 20 percent higher than the national average for the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.
In classrooms with low intellectual-demand assignments, the gains were 22 percent to 25 percent
12

For a complete list of the NCTM standards, visit http://standards.nctm.org/document/appendix/numb.htm.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—37

lower than the average in reading and in mathematics. The impact on the Illinois Goals
Assessment Program (IGAP) was even greater, with high-demand assignments adding “standard
effect sizes” of 0.43, 0.64, and 0.52 for the reading, mathematics, and writing portions,
respectively. Use of high-demand assignments was not related to student demographics andbenefited both high- and low-achieving students. However, high-achieving students benefited
more from high-demand assignments in reading whereas low-achieving students benefited morefrom high-demand assignments in mathematics.
Rowan, Chiang, and Miller (1997)
Rowan, Chiang, and Miller (1997)13 applied a general model about employee performance to the
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS 88)to explain the effects of teachers on
student achievement in 10th-grade mathematics. They focused on the variables of teacher ability,
motivation, and work situation. The authors operationalized these variables by focusing on
NELS 88 items that related to teachers’ subject-matter knowledge, use of higher-order thinking
instructional strategies, self-efficacy as applied to teacher expectations for student outcomes, andwhether teachers worked in a restructured school environment. The authors found small effects
on mathematics achievement related to teachers’ subject-matter knowledge, their expectations
for student outcomes, and their placement in school environments with shared decision making
and common planning periods.
Schacter and Thum (2004)
Schacter and Thum (2004) examined 12 dimensions of teacher practices to try to determine
between-teacher variation in student achievement gains. The 12 dimensions are teacher content
knowledge, clarity of lesson objectives, presentation, lesson structure and pacing, relevance andchallenge of activities, questioning skill, feedback, effective use of grouping, encouragement of
thinking, motivation, environment, and teacher knowledge of students. The teachers were rated
on these dimensions by trained graduate students using rubrics during two scheduled and six
unscheduled visits during the course of a school year. Fifty-two elementary school teachers in
Arizona volunteered to participate, and student achievement data were collected from theirstudents in Grades 3–6 for reading, mathematics, and language arts. They used a mixed statisticalmodel to determine the relationship between teachers’ rating and student gains. They found that84 percent of variation among teachers could be accounted for by the ratings on these
dimensions.
Smith, Lee, and Newmann (2001)
Smith, Lee, and Newmann (2001) examined instructional approaches used by Chicago
elementary teachers and their relationship to student achievement in mathematics and reading on
the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Data from more than 5,500 teachers and 110,000 students wereused. The authors used hierarchical linear modeling, controlling for student gender, race,poverty, retention history, grade level, average ability level, problem behaviors, attendance,
average income for students’ parents, average achievement, racial composition, school
instability, and school size. They found that didactic instruction is more common in higher
13This study could be sorted with the Teacher Qualifications category as well.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—38

grades, low-level classes, “problem” classes, large schools, low-income schools, schools withlow prior achievement, and predominantly African-American schools. They determined that theuse of didactic versus interactive teacher methods was related to negative achievement growth(0.04 below average) and higher levels of interactive instruction were related to higher
achievement score gains (about 0.05 above average).
Wenglinsky (2000)
Wenglinsky (2000) examined how teacher practices were associated with student achievementon the 1996 NAEP. Classroom practices were measured by survey during the administration ofthis national examination, particularly the use of small-group instruction and hands-on learning
activities. The author also considered the contributions to student achievement of teacher
education and experience as well as teacher professional development. He found that a teacher’smajor or minor in the subject taught correlated with higher student scores (0.09), as did the useof hands-on learning activities (0.25 for mathematics and 0.18 for science). Emphasis on higherorder thinking skills (0.13 for mathematics) was associated with increased student performance,
but no significant differences were found for teachers’ use of small-group instruction.
Professional development that addressed working with special populations (0.21) and higherorder thinking skills (0.12) was related to higher scores in mathematics. Professional
development in laboratory skills (0.13) was associated with higher scores in science. Lack offrequent point-in-time testing was related to lower scores in mathematics (–0.18), and regularassessment appeared to contribute to science scores (0.21).
Wenglinsky (2002)
Wenglinsky (2002) once again used NAEP survey data to examine how teachers’ classroom
practices, professional development, and qualifications (education level, mathematics subject
area major or minor, and years of experience) relate to student achievement. He used multilevelstructural equation modeling to distinguish between school- and student-level effects, to evaluate
relationships among independent variables, and to model measurement error explicitly.
Professional development in higher-order thinking skills and dealing with special populations
was found to have significant effects. The school-level path model for classroom practices
identified hands-on learning, solving unique problems, and avoiding reliance on authentic
assessments as positively related to student achievement. The classroom practices investigated(20 variables) also were associated with higher student achievement.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—39

Research on Teacher Effectiveness
Focus
The focus of this category of viewing teacher quality is on how linked teacher and student data
are used to determine teacher effectiveness as measured by growth in student learning. Valueadded measures are the most prominent of the methods used to assess teacher effectiveness in thestudies summarized in this section.
Teacher effectiveness is becoming a topic of great interest among those interested in teacher
quality. A number of policymakers and researchers have suggested that effectiveness, asmeasured by teachers’ contribution to their students’ learning, should be an important componentof assessing teacher quality. Gordon, Kane, and Staiger (2006) wrote a discussion paper that uses
their analysis of Los Angeles teacher-student linked data to suggest that teaching credentials
matter little in terms of student achievement. The paper is interesting but is not included in thelist below because it does not provide sufficient information about how the research design,
methodology, and results meet the criteria for this research synthesis. The authors make a casefor judging teachers on their effectiveness rather than on the basis of paper qualifications.

Findings
In general, these studies sought to demonstrate that differences in teacher effectiveness exist. In
this goal, they generally were successful. However, taken as a whole, these studies were not able
to arrive at convincing conclusions about which teacher qualifications, practices, or characteristics
contributed to the differences in teacher effectiveness.

Research Studies
Aaronson, Barrow, and Sanders (2003)
Aaronson, Barrow, and Sanders (2003) conducted a study using Chicago public high school datawith linked students and teachers. Using a value-added model and focusing on eighth- and ninthgrade standardized test scores for mathematics, the authors found that having an instructor who
was rated two standard deviations higher than other teachers in quality (as determined by valueadded scores) could add 25 percent to 45 percent of an average school year’s growth to a
student’s mathematics score.
The authors also tried to correlate teachers’ value-added scores with teacher characteristics forwhich they had data (age, experience, degree level, certification, and undergraduate major). They
found that very little of the variance in teacher quality could be accounted for by theseobservable characteristics (except having an undergraduate major in mathematics or science).
They concluded that teacher quality is largely attributable to characteristics not measured in thisstudy. This finding suggests that variation in paper qualifications may matter little (with the
exception perhaps of the undergraduate major, at least when mathematics is the subject beingtaught). Another implication from these findings is that what high-quality teachers do in theirclassrooms may be more important than their initial qualifications. Unfortunately, value-added
National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—40

models tell nothing about why teachers vary in quality; nothing is known about their classroom
activities that could help predict which teachers’ students would gain the most.
As with all studies using value-added models, there may be issues with the interpretation of thefindings. Some have argued that there is a problem with circularity in using value-added
scores—which are largely based on student achievement scores—to then determine teacher
contributions to student achievement gains (Kupermintz, 2003). Others have expressed concernsthat what is being measured using such value-added models could more accurately becharacterized as classroom effects, rather than teacher effects (Braun, 2004; National
Association of State Boards of Education, 2005). The authors argue that it is not possible toseparate the effects of other classroom-level contributors to student achievement using thesemodels. For example, peer effects, availability of materials and books, school climate, and othereffects could contribute to student learning at the classroom level, and these factors are largely
outside the control of the teacher.
Noell (2006)
Noell (2006) used value-added scores for Louisiana students to examine the efficacy of teacher
preparation programs. In the first phase of the research, value-added scores were calculated forstudents in Grades 4–9 in 66 of the 68 Louisiana public school districts, and then linked withteachers. Databases were constructed to allow separation of subject tests so that teacher
effectiveness could be examined based on scores in specific subjects (English language arts,
mathematics, science, and social studies). Not surprisingly, the single largest predictor of student
achievement was the student’s prior test score in the content area, followed by prior achievementin other subject areas. In the next phase of the study, teachers’ preparation programs wereidentified and ranked according to estimates of effectiveness. Although the author found a
relationship between teacher preparation programs and teacher effectiveness, large overlapping
confidence intervals meant that the relationships could not be reliably determined with the data.
Nye, Konstantopoulos, and Hedges (2004)
Nye, Konstantopoulos, and Hedges (2004) wanted to determine the actual degree of teacher
effects on student achievement. They defined teacher effects as the portion of student
achievement that remains unaccounted for after controlling for student demographics, class size,and school fixed and random effects. To examine achievement gains, the authors also controlled
for lagged test scores. The authors used data from the four-year Tennessee Project STAR
(Student Teacher Achievement Ratio) experiment in which students and teachers were randomly
assigned to classrooms with a range of teacher-pupil ratios. Their sample included 79 elementary
schools in Tennessee. They found that between-classroom effects on achievement gains ranged
from 0.123 (third grade) to 0.135 (second grade) for mathematics tests and from 0.066 (first
grade) to 0.074 (third grade) for reading tests. All effects were significant. The betweenclassroom effects on achievement status were similar. The authors’ examinations of teacher
experience and education effects through hierarchical linear modeling, for the most part, were
not significant or of small magnitude; some were even negative.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—41

Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005)
Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005)14 sought to sort out the impact of teachers (and schools) onachievement. Using matched panel data from Texas, the authors examined observable
components (teacher education and experience) and unobservable components (residuals) andtheir relationship to student achievement gains on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills inreading and mathematics. Focusing on Grades 3–7, the number of student scores ranged from
143,314 to 455,438 depending on the year and grade. The authors found that observable teacher
characteristics have small but significant effects on student achievement gains but that most ofteacher effectiveness is due to unobserved differences in instructional quality. They also
determined that teacher effectiveness increased during the first year but leveled off after the thirdyear.
Thum (2003)
Thum (2003) conducted research using linked archival data for elementary students and teachers
in Arizona. He tested his production-function15 model on 75 teachers and 1,276 students in
Grades 3–6 in elementary schools in Arizona. He used student- and classroom-level covariates in
the analysis, including sex, race, English proficiency, prior achievement, special education
status, and grade level. He found that the mean growth for student test scores was positive andsignificant in all three grades. Using a teacher productivity profile (a function of targeted gains,degree of confidence, and model), he ascertained that only 17 of the 65 teachers who had 10 ormore students in their classrooms achieved at least a 5 percent gain in student achievement intheir classrooms at the 70 percent confidence level, and only 12 achieved that gain at the 80
percent confidence level.
Thum’s findings suggest that while teachers are certainly contributing to student learning, it may
be difficult to measure teachers’ contributions with a high degree of certainty. Although manyteachers had students who gained at least 5 percent, the confidence levels were too low to knowwhether such gains could be attributed to the teacher, to other sources, or merely to chance. For
those who believe that teacher contributions to student learning are a measure of teacher quality,
this question remains: How much confidence is enough for certainty that the gains are truly
attributable to the teacher: 80 percent? 70 percent? less?

14

This study also could be sorted with the Teacher Qualifications category because of the focus on teacher
education and experience.

15

An educational production function is a function in which a quantity of some educational input (such as years ofteacher experience or per-pupil spending) yields a student output (such as test scores). There are many examples of
production functions in the literature; good examples of the use of such functions include those by Hanushek, Kain,and Rivkin, (1998); Duncombe, Ruggiero, and Yinger (1996); and Monk (1994).

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—42

Summary and Recommendations
Challenges
Sensitivity of Measurement Tools
In some studies, factors that would logically be related to student achievement may appear to be
only weakly related or not related at all. It might be a sample size issue because smaller sample
sizes make it difficult to determine effects. Or it could be that the logic is wrong. But it also
could be that the measurement tools and statistical analyses being conducted are not sensitive or
precise enough to capture the effects. For example, statewide standardized student achievement
tests are not ideal for measuring the effects of changes in instructional practice. Given that suchtests occur once a year in most states and that teachers have the students in their classrooms for
only six or seven months before the tests, subtle but important changes in practice may not show
up as effects on achievement test scores. Similarly, increasing sophistication in database
construction and the development of analytical approaches (such as hierarchical linear modeling)
are rapidly changing the precision with which teacher effects are measured. However, it is likelythat even better data systems and more precise statistical methods will be developed in the future.
Development of More Accurate Measurement Instruments
Another issue raised by evaluating these studies is that measurement instruments may not beappropriate for detecting subtle differences in teacher practices. For example, most of the scales
used for teacher evaluation or for survey research are four-point Likert scales.16 When a teacher
is evaluated with such a scale, it is unlikely that he or she will score an average of 1 or 4. Instead,a teacher will probably score a few 1s, mostly 2s and 3s, and a few 4s. As a result, the averagescore will probably fall between 2.5 and 3.5. When the spread of the teacher’s scores on this
instrument is so constrained, it is very difficult to correlate the scores with student achievement
and find meaningful, statistically significant effects. Thus, improving instruments to increase therange and precisions in scores from surveys and evaluations may produce more useful results.

Findings
Subject Matter and Grade-Level Differences in What Matters
The research highlighted in this synthesis clearly suggests that licensing for mathematics
teaching and a degree in mathematics are positively correlated with mathematics achievement inall grades but particularly in secondary school. However, social studies, science, and otherimportant school subjects have not been the focus of as much research as has mathematics. It
remains to be seen whether subject-specific degrees and licensing in these other areas are
essential for high levels of student learning.
16

Likert scales indicate a level of agreement with a particular statement, usually on a four- or five-point scale from“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Problems with use of these scales include the tendency of respondents to(1) avoid the “extreme” answers and choose only the middle answers, and (2) be unwilling to answer in ways thatmight be considered “wrong” to others.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—43

Why is mathematics apparently more sensitive to instruction in the classroom than reading?
Nye, Konstantopoulos, and Hedges (2004) have theorized that “mathematics is mostly learned inschool and thus may be more directly influenced by teachers.… Reading, on the other hand, ismore likely to be learned (in part) outside of school” (p. 247). Thus, if students are exposed tomathematics concepts and given opportunities to explore and practice mathematics in only one
place—the classroom—it is very important that the teachers be fully competent to guide theirstudents’ discovery. It may be less important for teachers in other subjects to have the kind of
focused competence and course taking in their subjects. This finding suggests that tighter
regulation of entry into mathematics teaching positions and more relaxed regulation of entry into
teaching positions in other subjects might be appropriate.
In spite of the apparent importance of mathematics degrees and certification for student learning,
there is an issue of supply and demand that must be resolved before moving to tighten
requirements for mathematics teachers. Mathematics teachers are in short supply (National
Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, 2000; Office ofPostsecondary Education, 2005; Urban Teacher Collaborative, 2000). The supply of mathematics
teachers is unlikely to increase as long as there are (1) few salary incentives to become
mathematics teachers, and (2) many salary incentives to go into other careers where mathematics
skills are highly valued. If entry requirements into the teaching field are tightened formathematics teachers, the supply of mathematics teachers may be reduced even more. Thus,
there is an existing tension that must be resolved. One possibility is differential pay—paying
properly trained and certified mathematics teachers salaries that are competitive with what theywould earn if they took other career paths. This approach would be difficult to institute, however,given teacher organizations’ lack of support for differential pay strategies.
Teacher Experience Matters, but Only in the First Few Years of Teaching
The finding that teachers reach their peak performance by increments within the first four or five
years of teaching suggests that to continue efforts are needed to ensure that the mostinexperienced teachers are not disproportionately assigned to schools where the challenges are
greatest: schools with large percentages of low-income students, minority students, English
language learners, and low-achieving students. As part of the NCLB highly qualified teacher
requirements, states are under increasing pressure to ensure that highly qualified, experienced
teachers are equitably distributed in schools. Few, if any, states have demonstrated that they haveeffective policies in place to ensure that beginning teachers are not disproportionately placed in
hard-to-staff schools. But because of the pressure to demonstrate improvements in teacher
distribution, states will be compelled to develop and implement a variety of strategies to address
the problem. Evaluating the effectiveness of these strategies will be an important next step.

Another Consideration: Teaching Context
Another consideration is the context of the teaching. Should a teacher who is working in achallenging school with at-risk students be measured by the same yardstick as a teacher who is
working in a high-achieving school in a middle-class suburb? Should the teaching context
matter? Perhaps that is the wrong question. A better question might be as follows: “Within agiven context—say, an at-risk urban school—what are the qualifications and characteristics

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—44

associated with teachers who are effective at producing student achievement?” By the same
token, ask, “What are the practices that effective teachers in at-risk schools engage in that ensurehigh levels of student learning?”
Earlier in this synthesis, the point was made that there may be different definitions of teacher
quality depending on the purpose at hand. Similarly, the set of inputs and processes that defineteacher quality in one context may not be the same as those that define it in another. A highly
successful, effective teacher in a suburban middle-class suburb may fail to be effective in an
at-risk school in an urban setting, and vice versa. This situation does not mean that teachers
should be judged by different standards according to their teaching context. Rather, it suggests
the importance of learning more about what successful teachers do in every context.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—45

Toward a New Definition of Teacher Quality
Given the significant advantages and disadvantages of the different mechanisms for determining
teacher quality as reflected in these studies, it seems reasonable to suggest that a definition ofteacher quality (and perhaps teacher certification) should encompass two components: (1) an
initial set of qualifications tied to the subject matter and grade level being taught that must be
met before a teacher is allowed to take charge of a classroom, and (2) some mechanisms forevaluating a teacher’s effectiveness in producing student learning. With this combined definition,a two-stage process for assessing teacher quality may be needed: one based on paper
qualifications and the other based on measures of teacher effectiveness that occur after theteacher has begun instructing students in the classroom. This assessment may involve somecombination of expert or peer evaluation, teacher portfolios, and value-added scores.
Given the research analyzed through this framework, it seems apparent that defining teacher
quality solely through paper qualifications is not sufficient for ascertaining teacher quality.
Because the means are at hand to evaluate teachers’ characteristics, practices, and effectiveness,reliance on paper qualifications as proxies for teacher quality is simply not sufficient for valid
determinations of high- and low-quality teachers. This is not to say that paper qualifications—such as scores on a test of content knowledge—are useless. However, scores on tests cannot
always predict which teachers will be most successful in the classroom. The challenge, therefore,
is ensuring that licensure tests and other paper qualifications are in fact measuring what is mostimportant: what the best teachers know and do that results in greater student learning in theclassroom.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—46

References
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sanders, W. (2003). Teachers and student achievement in the
Chicago public high schools (Working Paper Series No. WP 02-28). Chicago: Federal
Reserve Bank of Chicago.
Algina, J., Keselman, H. J., & Penfield, R. D. (2005). An alternative to Cohen’s standardized
mean difference effect size: A robust parameter and confidence interval in the two
independent groups case. Psychological Methods, 10(3), 317–328.
Armor, D., Conroy-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., et al. (1976).
Analysis of the school preferred reading programs in selected Los Angeles minority
schools (No. R-2007-LAUSD). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy andstudent achievement. New York: Longman.
Associated Press. (2007, January 31). Houston doles out bonuses to teachers of core subjects.
Education Week, 26(21), 8.
Ballou, D., Sanders, W., & Wright, P. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added
assessment of teachers. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 37–65.
Betts, J. R., Zau, A. C., & Rice, L. A. (2003). Determinants of student achievement: New
evidence from San Diego. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved
October 1, 2007, from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_803JBR.pdf
Borman, G. D., & Kimball, S. M. (2005). Teacher quality and educational equality: Do teacherswith higher standards-based evaluation ratings close student achievement gaps? The
Elementary School Journal, 106(1), 3–20.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). How changes in entry
requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Albany, NY:
Teacher Policy Research.
Braun, H. (2004). Value-added modeling: What does due diligence require? Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Braun, H. I. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added
models. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
California Department of Education. (1985). Mathematics framework for California publicschools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Carr, M. (2006). The determinants of student achievement in Ohio’s public schools (Policy
Report). Columbus, OH: Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—47

Cavalluzzo, L. C. (2004). Is National Board Certification an effective signal of teacher quality?
(Report No. IPR 11204). Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and theassessment of teacher effectiveness (NBER Working Paper No. 11936). Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The
mathematics reform in California (CPRE Research Report No. RR-39). Philadelphia:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1).
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does teacher
preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher
effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42). Retrieved October 1, 2007,
from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42/v13n42.pdf
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining ‘highly qualified teachers’: What does
‘scientifically-based research’ tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13–25.
Decker, P. T., Mayer, D. P., & Glazerman, S. (2004). The effects of Teach for America on
students: Findings from a national evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy
Research.
Dee, T. S. (2004). The race connection: Are teachers more effective with students who share
their ethnicity? Education Next, 2, 52–59.
Duncombe, W., Ruggiero, J., & Yinger, J. (1996). Alternative approaches to measuring the costof education. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based
reform in education (pp. 327–356). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—48

Dwyer, C. A. (1994). Development of the knowledge base for the Praxis III: Classroom
performance assessments criteria. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Ehrenberg, R. G., Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Do teachers’ race, gender, andethnicity matter? Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(3), 547–561.
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality inteaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186–213.
Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money
matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(457), 465–498.
Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama
schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance based reform in
education (pp. 265–298). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Fetler, M. (1999). High school staff characteristics and mathematics test results. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 7(9). Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n9/
Frome, P., Lasater, B., & Cooney, S. (2005). Well-qualified teachers and high-quality teaching:
Are they the same? (Research Brief). Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board.
Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/briefs/05V06_Research_Brief_high-quality_teaching.pdf
Gallagher, H. A. (2004). Vaughn Elementary's innovative teacher evaluation system: Are teacher
evaluation scores related to growth in student achievement? Peabody Journal of
Education, 79(4), 79–107.
Glass, G. V. (2005). Teacher characteristics. In A. Molnar (Ed.), School reform proposals: The
research evidence (Chapter 8). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal,
37(2), 479–507.
Goe, L. (2002). Legislating equity: The distribution of emergency permit teachers in California.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(42), 1–50. Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n42/
Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2005). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National
Board Certification as a signal of effective teaching (Working Paper). Seattle, WA:
Center on Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved September 11, 2007, fromhttp://www.crpe.org/workingpapers/pdf/NBPTSquality_report.pdf

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—49

Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1996, July). Evaluating the effect of teacher degree level on
educational performance. Paper presented at the NCES State Data Conference.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1999). Teacher licensing and student achievement. In M.
Kanstoroom & C. E. Finn, Jr. (Eds.), Better teachers, better schools (pp. 83–102).
Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://www.edexcellence.net/doc/btrtchrs.pdf
Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New York:
Longman.
Gordon, R., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using
performance on the job: The Hamilton Project (Discussion Paper 2006-01). Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institution.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student
achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361–396.
Grissom, R. J., & Kim, J. J. (2005). Effect sizes for research: A broad practical approach.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hancock, G. R. (2001). Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured meansmodeling and MIMIC approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on asingle latent construct. Psychometrika, 66, 373–388.
Hanushek, E. (1971). Teacher characteristics and gains in student achievement: Estimation using
micro data. American Economic Review, 61, 280–288.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., O’Brien, D. M., & Rivkin, S. G. (2005). The market for teacher
quality (Working Paper No. 11154). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau for Economic
Research.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (1998). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement (Working Paper No. 6691). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Harbison, R. W., & Hanushek, E. A. (1992). Educational performance of the poor: Lessons fromrural northeast Brazil. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2007). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement(Working Paper No. 3). Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal
Data in Education Research. Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://www.caldercenter.org/PDF/1001059_Teacher_Training.pdf
Hattie, J. A. (1992). Towards a model of schooling: A synthesis of meta-analysis. Australian
Journal of Education, 36, 5–13.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—50

Hawk, P., Coble, C. R., & Swanson, M. (1985). Certification: It does matter. Journal of Teacher
Education, 36(3), 13–15.
Heneman, H. G., Milanowski, A., Kimball, S. M., & Odden, A. (2006). Standards-based teacher
evaluation as a foundation for knowledge- and skill-based pay (CPRE Policy Brief No.
RB-45). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved October
1, 2007, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/cpre/publications/rb45.pdf
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge forteaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2),317–406.
Holtzapple, E. (2003). Criterion-related validity evidence for a standards-based teacher
evaluation system. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 17(3), 207–219.
Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2005). Principals as agents: Subjective performance measurementin education (Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP05-040). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University.
Jesse, D., Davis, A., & Pokorny, N. (2004). High-achieving middle schools for Latino students inpoverty. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(1), 23–45.
Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2006, March). What does certification tell us aboutteacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City (NBER Working Paper No. 12155).
New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Kannapel, P. J., & Clements, S. K. (with Taylor, D., & Hibpshman, T.) (2005). Inside the blackbox of high-performing high-poverty schools. Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for
Academic Excellence. Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://www.prichardcommittee.org/Ford%20Study/FordReportJE.pdf
Kimball, S. M., White, B., Milanowski, A. T., & Borman, G. (2004). Examining the relationshipbetween teacher evaluation and student assessment results in Washoe County. Peabody
Journal of Education, 79(4), 54–78.
Kupermintz, H. (2003). Teacher effects and teacher effectiveness: A validity investigation of theTennessee Value-Added Assessment System. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 25(3), 287–298.
Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). The effectiveness of “Teach for America” andother under-certified teachers on student academic achievement: A case of harmful public
policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(37). Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37/

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—51

Leana, C. R., & Pil, F. K. (2006). Social capital and organizational performance: Evidence fromurban public schools. Organization Science, 17(3), 353–366.
Lockwood, J. R., Louis, T. A., & McCaffrey, D. F. (2002). Uncertainty in rank estimation:
Implications for value-added modeling accountability systems. Journal of Educationaland Behavioral Statistics, 27(3), 255–270.
Marcoulides, G. A., Heck, R. H., & Papanastasiou, C. (2005). Student perceptions of school
culture and achievement: Testing the invariance of a model. International Journal of
Educational Management, 19(2), 140–152.
Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Pascal, J., & Valdés, R. (2002). Measuring instructional quality
in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational
Assessment, 8(3), 207–229.
Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., Junker, B., Peterson, M., Boston, M., Steele, M., et al. (2006).
Measuring reading comprehension and mathematics instruction in urban middle schools:
A pilot study of the Instructional Quality Assessment (CSE Technical Report No. 681).
Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Bugliari, D., & Robyn, A.
(2001). Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum, and student achievement:
The case of standards-based high school mathematics. Journal for Research in
Mathematics Education, 32(5), 493–517.
McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating valueadded models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
McColsky, W., Stronge, J. H., Ward, T. J., Tucker, P. D., Howard, B., Lewis, K., et al. (2005).
Teacher effectiveness, student achievement, and National Board Certified teachers.
Arlington, VA: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
Mendro, R. L., Jordan, H. R., Gomez, E., Anderson, M. C., Bembry, K. L., & Schools, D. P.
(1998, April). An application of multiple linear regression in determining longitudinalteacher effectiveness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores andstudent achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4),33–53.
Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachersand student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—52

Moore, W., & Esselman, M. (1992). Teacher efficacy, power, school climate and achievement:
A desegregating district’s experience. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco.
Mullens, J. E., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (1996). The contribution of training and subject
matter knowledge to teaching effectiveness: A multilevel analysis of longitudinalevidence from Belize. Comparative Education Review, 40(2), 139–157.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (2005). Evaluating value-added: Findings
and recommendations from the NASBE Study Group on value-added assessments.
Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000).
Before it’s too late: A report to the nation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education. Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://www.ed.gov/inits/Math/glenn/report.pdf
Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work andstandardized tests: Conflict or coexistence? Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School
Research. Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/p0a02.pdf
Noell, G. H. (2006). Value added assessment of teacher preparation [Annual report]. Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University.
Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257.
Office of Postsecondary Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge(The Secretary’s Annual Report on Teacher Quality). Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education. Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://title2.ed.gov/ADATitleIIReport2002.pdf
Office of Postsecondary Education. (2005). A highly qualified teacher in every classroom(The Secretary’s Fourth Annual Report on Teacher Quality). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://title2.ed.gov/TitleIIReport05.pdf
Perkes, V. A. (1967). Junior high school teacher preparation, teaching behaviors, and student
achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Raymond, M., Fletcher, S. H., & Luque, J. (2001). Teach for America: An evaluation of teacher
differences and student outcomes in Houston, Texas. Stanford, CA: Center for Researchon Education Outcomes. Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://credo.stanford.edu/downloads/tfa.pdf

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—53

Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes.
Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence frompanel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.
Ross, J. A. (1992). Teacher efficacy and the effect of coaching on student achievement.
Canadian Journal of Education, 17(1), 51–65.
Rowan, B., Chiang, F. S., & Miller, R. J. (1997). Using research on employees’ performance tostudy the effects of teachers on students’ achievement. Sociology of Education, 70,
256–284.
Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us aboutteacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of elementary
schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525–1567.
Sanders, J. C. R. (1999). The impact of teacher effects on student math competency achievement.
Unpublished dissertation, University of Tennessee–Knoxville.
Sanders, S. L., Skonie-Hardin, S. D., Phelps, W. H., & Minnis, T. L. (1994, November). The
effects of teacher educational attainment on student educational attainment in four
regions of Virginia: Implications for administrators. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association.
Sanders, W. L., Ashton, J. J., & Wright, S. P. (2005). Comparison of the effects of NBPTS
certified teachers with other teachers on the rate of student academic progress.
Arlington, VA: National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Retrieved October
1, 2007, fromhttp://www.nbpts.org/UserFiles/File/SAS_final_NBPTS_report_D_-_Sanders.pdf
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added
Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation andresearch. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12(3), 247–256.
Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future
student academic achievement (No. R11-0435-02-001-97). Knoxville: University ofTennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
Schacter, J., & Thum, Y. M. (2004). Paying for high- and low-quality teaching. Economics of
Education Review, 23, 411–430.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—54

Schlusmans, K. (1978). What is an effective teacher? Paper presented at the conference of theInternational Association for Educational Assessment, Baden, Austria.
Smith, J. B., Lee, V. E., & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Instruction and achievement in Chicago
elementary schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved
October 1, 2007, from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/publications/p0f01.pdf
Strauss, R. P., & Sawyer, E. A. (1986). Some new evidence on teacher and student
competencies. Economics of Education Review, 5(1), 41–48.
Thum, Y. M. (2003). Measuring progress toward a goal estimating teacher productivity using a
multivariate multilevel model for value-added analysis. Sociological Methods &Research, 32(2), 153–207.
The Urban Teacher Collaborative. (2000). The urban teacher challenge: Teacher demand andsupply in the Great City schools. Belmont, MA: Council of the Great City Schools.
Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://www.cgcs.org/pdfs/utc.pdf
Valentine, J., & Cooper, H. (2006). Effect size substantive interpretation guidelines: Issues in theinterpretation of effect sizes. Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse.
Vandevoort, L. G., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Berliner, D. C. (2004). National Board certified
teachers and their students’ achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(46).
Retrieved October 1, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n46/v12n46.pdf
Walberg, H. J., & Lai, J.-S. (1999). Meta-analytic effects for policy. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.),
Handbook of educational policy (pp. 419–453). New York: Academic Press.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). What helps students learn? Educational
Leadership, 51(4), 74–79.
Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A
review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89–122.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions ofteacher quality (Policy Information Center Report). Princeton, NJ: ETS. Retrieved
October 1, 2007, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICTEAMAT.pdf
Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices andstudent academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved
October 1, 2007, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/
Wiley, D. E., & Yoon, B. (1995). Teacher reports on opportunity to learn: Analyses of the 1993
California Learning Assessment System (CLAS). Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 17(3), 355–370.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—55

Willett, J. B., Yamashita, J. J. M., & Anderson, R. D. (1983). A meta-analysis of instructional
systems applied in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20(5),405–417.
Wilson, S. M., & Floden, R. (2003). Creating effective teachers: Concise answers for hardquestions (Addendum to the report, Teacher preparation research: Current knowledge,
gaps, and recommendations.) Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for
Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED476266). Retrieved
October 1, 2007, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/
content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/0a/48.pdf
Wilson, S. M., Floden, R., & Ferrini-Munday, J. (2001). Teacher preparation research: Current
knowledge, gaps, and recommendations. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy. Retrieved October 1, 2007, fromhttp://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/TeacherPrep-WFFM-02-2001.pdf
Wright, S. P., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on
student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel
Evaluation in Education, 11, 57–67.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—56

Appendix A. Teacher Quality Variables Utilized
Teacher Effectiveness
Aaronson, Barrow, and Sanders (2003)
Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, and Rivkin (2005)
Noell (2006)
Nye, Konstantopoulos, and Hedges (2004)
Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005)
Rockoff (2004)
Thum (2003)
Teacher Experience
Aaronson, Barrow, and Sanders (2003)
Betts, Zau, and Rice (2003)
Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2005)
Carr (2006)
Cavalluzzo (2004)
Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2006)
Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, and Heilig (2005)
Decker, Mayer, and Glazerman (2004)
Goldhaber and Brewer (1999)
Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, and Rivkin (2005)
Harris and Sass (2007)
Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006)
Leana and Pil (2006)
Nye, Konstantopoulos, and Hedges (2004)
Rockoff (2004)
Rowan, Correnti, and Miller (2002)
Wenglinsky (2002)
Teacher Education—Certification
Aaronson, Barrow, and Sanders (2003)
Betts, Zau, and Rice (2003)
Carr (2006)
Darling-Hammond (2000)
Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, and Heilig (2005)
Decker, Mayer, and Glazerman (2004)
Goe (2002)
Goldhaber and Brewer (1999)
Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, and Rivkin (2005)
Hill, Rowan, and Ball (2005)
Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006)
Rowan, Correnti, and Miller (2002)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—57

Teacher Education—National Board Certification
Cavalluzzo (2004)
Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2006)
Goldhaber and Anthony (2005)
McColsky et al. (2005)
Sanders, Ashton, and Wright (2005)
Vandevoort, Amrein-Beardsley, and Berliner (2004)
Teacher Education—Academic Major/Minor
Aaronson, Barrow, and Sanders (2003)
Darling-Hammond (2000)
Harris and Sass (2007)
Monk (1994)
Wenglinsky (2000)
Wenglinsky (2002)
Teacher Education—Advanced Degrees
Aaronson, Barrow, and Sanders (2003)
Betts, Zau, and Rice (2003)
Carr (2006)
Cavalluzzo (2004)
Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2006)
Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, and Heilig (2005)
Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, and Rivkin (2005)
Harris and Sass (2007)
Nye, Konstantopoulos, and Hedges (2004)
Rowan, Correnti, and Miller (2002)
Wenglinsky (2000)
Wenglinsky (2002)
Teacher Education—Preparation Experiences/Programs
Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2005)
Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, and Heilig (2005)
Decker, Mayer, and Glazerman (2004)
Frome, Lasater, and Cooney (2005)
Harbison and Hanushek (1992)
Harris and Sass (2007)
Hill, Rowan, and Ball (2005)
Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006)
Noell (2006)
Teacher Education—Undergraduate Institution Attended
Aaronson, Barrow, and Sanders (2003)
Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2006)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—58

Teacher Education—Teachers’ Test Scores
Cavalluzzo (2004)
Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2006)
Harbison and Hanushek (1992)
Harris and Sass (2007)
Teacher Education—Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Betts, Zau, and Rice (2003)
Frome, Lasater, and Cooney (2005)
Harris and Sass (2007)
Hill, Rowan, and Ball (2005)
Monk (1994)
Rowan, Chiang, and Miller (1997)
Teacher Education—Professional Development
Harris and Sass (2007)
Wenglinsky (2000)
Teacher Evaluation Scores—Standards-Based Ratings
Borman and Kimball (2005)
Gallagher (2004)
Heneman, Milanowski, Kimball, and Odden (2006)
Holtzapple (2003)
Kimball, White, Milanowski, and Borman (2004)
Milanowski (2004)
Schachter and Thum (2004)
Teacher Evaluation Scores—Principal Assessments
Jacob and Lefgren (2005)
Instructional Practices
D. K. Cohen and Hill (1998)
Frome, Lasater, and Cooney (2005)
Kannapel and Clements (2005)
Marcoulides, Heck, and Papanastasiou (2005)
McCaffrey, Hamilton, Stecher, Klein, Bugliari, and Robyn (2001)
Rowan, Correnti, and Miller (2002)
Smith, Lee, and Newmann (2001)
Wenglinsky (2000)
Wenglinsky (2002)
Instructional Quality
Leana and Pil (2006)
Matsumura, Garnier, Pascal, and Valdés (2002)
Matsumura et al. (2006)
Newmann, Bryk, and Nagaoka (2001)
Smith, Lee, and Newmann (2001)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—59

Teacher Attitudes—Expectations for Students
Frome, Lasater, and Cooney (2005)
Rowan, Chiang, and Miller (1997)
Teacher Attitudes—Teacher Collaboration
Leana and Pil (2006)
Rowan, Chiang, and Miller (1997)
Teacher Attitudes—Teacher Efficacy
Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000)
McColsky et al. (2005)
Teacher Race
Aaronson, Barrow, and Sanders (2003)
Dee (2004)
Ehrenberg, Goldhaber, and Brewer (1995)
Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, and Rivkin (2005)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—60

Appendix B. Data Sources Used to Define Teacher Quality
Surveys—Author-Developed Teacher Surveys
Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2000)—teacher efficacy
Hill, Rowan, and Ball (2005)—mathematical knowledge for teaching
Leana and Pil (2006)—teacher social capital
McCaffrey, Hamilton, Stecher, Klein, Bugliari, and Robyn (2001)—NCTM-aligned instructional
practices
McColsky et al. (2005)—efficacy
Smith, Lee, and Newmann (2001)—instructional methods
Vandevoort, Amrein-Beardsley, and Berliner (2004)—NBPTS status
Surveys—NAEP Questionnaires
Darling-Hammond (2000)
Monk, 1994
Wenglinsky (2000)
Wenglinsky (2002)
Surveys—TIMSS Questionnaires
Marcoulides, Heck, and Papanastasiou (2005)
Surveys—National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988
Ehrenberg, Goldhaber, and Brewer (1995)
Goldhaber and Brewer (1999)
Rowan, Chiang, and Miller (1997)
Surveys—Prospects National Longitudinal Survey
Rowan, Correnti, and Miller (2002)
Surveys—California Basic Education Data System (CBEDS)
Betts, Zau, and Rice (2003)
Surveys—Brazilian EduRural Project
Harbison and Hanushek (1992)
Surveys—Student Surveys
Frome, Lasater, and Cooney (2005)—teacher attitudes and instructional methods
Marcoulides, Heck, and Papanastasiou (2005)—school culture
Surveys—Parental Surveys
Leana and Pil (2006)—satisfaction
Teacher Interviews
Jacob and Lefgren (2005)
Kannapel and Clements (2005)
Noell (2006)
Nye, Konstantopoulos, and Hedges (2004)
Rockoff (2004)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—61

Instructional Artifacts
Matsumura, Garnier, Pascal, and Valdés (2002)
Matsumura et al. (2006)
McColsky et al. (2005)
Newmann, Bryk, and Nagaoka (2001)
Observations—Researcher
Matsumura et al. (2006)
McColsky et al. (2005)
Schacter and Thum (2004)
Observations—Administrator
Borman and Kimball (2005)
Gallagher (2004)
Heneman, Milanowski, Kimball, and Odden (2006)
Holtzapple (2003)
Jacob and Lefgren (2005)
Kimball, White, Milanowski, and Borman (2004)
Milanowski (2004)
Observations—Auditor
Kannapel and Clements (2005)
Observations—Based on Charlotte Danielson’s Framework for Teaching
Borman and Kimball (2005)
Gallagher (2004)
Heneman, Milanowski, Kimball, and Odden (2006)
Holtzapple (2003)
Kimball, White, Milanowski, and Borman (2004)
Milanowski (2004)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—62

Archival Data—State or District Administrative Records
Aaronson, Barrow, and Sanders (2003)
Boyd, Grossman, Lankford, Loeb, and Wyckoff (2005)
Carr (2006)
Cavalluzzo (2004)
Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor (2006)
D. K. Cohen and Hill (1998)
Decker, Mayer, and Glazerman (2004)
Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, and Heilig (2005)
Frome, Lasater, and Cooney (2005)
Goe (2002)
Goldhaber and Anthony (2005)
Harbison and Hanushek (1992)
Harris and Sass (2007)
Jacob and Lefgren (2005)
Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger (2006)
Kannapel and Clements (2005)
Leana and Pil (2006)
Noell (2006)
Rockoff (2004)
Sanders, Ashton, and Wright (2005)
Smith, Lee, and Newmann (2001)
Archival Data—Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System
Dee (2004)
Nye, Konstantopoulos, and Hedges (2004)
Archival Data—Texas Schools Project
Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien, and Rivkin (2005)
Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain (2005)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—63

Appendix C. Summary Table of Studies Examined17
Part 1. Research Studies Summarized in the Synthesis
Summary in Synthesis

How Teacher Quality Matters 18

Teacher qualifications

Teacher credentials, education, experience,and subject-matter knowledge contributed
to middle and high school student gains on
the SAT-9, especially in mathematics, but
actually detracted from elementary
students’ learning.

Teacher qualifications

Teacher preparation, as reflected bytraditional or alternative pathways into
teaching, mattered to student gains on New
York state achievement tests.

Teacher qualifications“Highly qualified” designation of teachers
made a small contribution to traditional
public school students’ Ohio state
proficiency test gains, but not to charterschool students’ gains.

Teacher qualifications

Teacher education, experience, andcertifications, including National Board
Certification, influenced student gains on
Florida state proficiency tests inmathematics.

Clotfelter, Ladd, andVigdor (2006)

Teacher qualifications

Teachers’ experience, licensure test scores,
and National Board Certification status
mattered to North Carolina proficiency testscores in reading and mathematics, justmathematics, and just reading, respectively.

Darling-Hammond (2000)

Teacher qualifications

Teacher major and subject-area certification
mattered to state-level NAEP mathematics
and reading test scores.

Darling-Hammond,
Holtzman, Gatlin, andHeilig (2005)

Teacher qualifications

Teacher certification influenced student
achievement gains on TAAS, SAT-9, andAprenda (a standardized Spanish-languagetest) in mathematics and reading.

Decker, Mayer, andGlazerman (2004)

Teacher qualifications

Teacher participation in Teach for America
program influenced student achievement inmathematics.

Authors (Year)

Betts, Zau, and Rice (2003)

Boyd, Grossman, Lankford,
Loeb, and Wyckoff (2005)

Carr (2006)

Cavalluzzo (2004)

17

Many studies were examined in the course of identifying appropriate studies to include in this research synthesis
but were not summarized in the narrative for a number of reasons, including length of time since the study was
published, whether the methodology fit the criteria for inclusion (i.e., student achievement on standardized tests usedas outcome variable), and whether the type of study (i.e., meta-analysis or descriptive study or summary that did notinclude data) was appropriate.

18

Only those variables reported by the authors to have statistically significant associations are mentioned.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—64

Authors (Year)

Summary in Synthesis

How Teacher Quality Matters

Goe (2002)

Teacher qualifications

Teachers’ certification status and experience
mattered to school-level student
achievement on California’s Academic
Performance Index (API).

Goldhaber and Anthony(2005)

Teacher qualifications

National Board Certification statuscontributed to students’ state proficiency
test scores.

Goldhaber and Brewer(1999)

Teacher qualifications

Teacher subject-matter certification (inmathematics) mattered to students gains onmathematics proficiency tests.

Hanushek, Kain, O’Brien,and Rivkin (2005)

Teacher qualifications

Teacher experience influenced student gains
on TAAS.

Teacher qualifications

Teachers’ education had a small, positiveeffect on Brazilian students’ mathematics
achievement; teacher scores on the sametests administered to their students mattered
to Portuguese and mathematics test scores.

Teacher qualifications

Teachers’ experience, content-oriented
professional development, and pedagogicalcontent knowledge predicted students’
Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test
(FCAT) scores, especially in middle schoolmathematics.

Teacher qualifications

Teachers’ mathematical knowledge forteaching influenced student scores on theComprehensive Test of Basic Skills(CTBS)/TerraNova mathematics test.

Kane, Rockoff, and Staiger(2006)

Teacher qualifications

While there were small differences ingroups of teachers related to certification
status (certified, uncertified, andalternatively certified), there were greater
differences within groups, suggesting thatvariation among teachers’ contributions tostudent achievement that is not accounted
for by certification status. Teachers’
contributions to student learning improvesin the first few years of teaching.

McColsky et al. (2005)

Teacher qualifications

Teachers’ National Board Certification did
not predict students’ achievement test gains.

Teacher qualifications

Teachers’ subject-matter expertise, as
reflected by academic course taking,contributed to students’ NAEP mathematics
and science scores but with diminishingreturns after the fifth course.

Harbison and Hanushek,(1992)

Harris and Sass (2007)

Hill, Rowan, and Ball(2005)

Monk (1994)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—65

Authors (Year)

Summary in Synthesis

How Teacher Quality Matters

Rockoff (2004)

Teacher qualifications

Teacher experience influenced student
CTBS and Metropolitan Achievement Test
scores in mathematics and reading.

Rowan, Correnti, andMiller (2002)

Teacher qualifications

Teacher experience mattered to students’
CTBS scores in reading and mathematics.
Among practices also investigated, wholeclass instruction and alignment of
instruction with assessments mattered to
students’ learning.

Sanders, Ashton, andWright (2005)

Teacher qualifications

Teachers’ National Board Certification
status did not reliably predict student
achievement.

Vandevoort, AmreinBeardsley, and Berliner(2004)

Teacher qualifications

National Board Certification status was
associated with student gains on the SAT-9
tests.

Dee (2004)

Teacher characteristics

Student-teacher racial matching influenced
SAT-9 scores in mathematics and reading.

Ehrenberg, Goldhaber, andBrewer (1995)

Teacher characteristics

Teachers’ race, gender, and ethnicity did notcontribute to students’ scores on NELS
assessments.

Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy(2000)

Teacher characteristics

Teachers’ collective efficacy for teachinginfluenced students’ Metropolitan
Achievement Test scores.

Teacher characteristics

School internal social capital—defined asteachers’ information sharing, trust, andshared vision—influenced student scores onstate tests of mathematics and reading
proficiency.

Borman and Kimball(2005)

Teacher practices

Teacher evaluations of instructional
planning and instruction interactions(adapted from the Danielson [1996]
Framework for Teaching) slightly
influenced students’ gains on Nevada
proficiency tests and on CTBS/TerraNova
tests.

D. K. Cohen and Hill
(1998)

Teacher practices

Teachers’ use of practices aligned to the1985 Mathematics Framework contributed
to student CLAS scores.

Teacher practices

Teachers’ instructional practices (such asgroup work on challenging assignments,
oral and written reports on mathematics
projects, and explaining solutions to theclass) influenced Georgia proficiency testscores.

Leana and Pil (2006)

Frome, Lasater, andCooney (2005)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—66

Authors (Year)

Summary in Synthesis

How Teacher Quality Matters

Teacher practices

Teachers’ literacy and composite evaluation
scores (adapted from the Danielson [1996]
Framework for Teaching) mattered to student
achievement gains on the SAT-9.

Teacher practices

Teachers’ evaluation scores (adapted from theDanielson [1996] Framework for Teaching)influenced student achievement gains,
especially when schools used trained andmultiple observers.

Holtzapple (2003)

Teacher practices

Teachers’ evaluation scores (adapted from theDanielson [1996] Framework for Teaching)mattered to student achievement on Ohio state
proficiency tests.

Jacob and Lefgren (2005)

Teacher practices

Teachers’ subjective assessments byprincipals contributed to student gains on coreexams, especially in mathematics.

Teacher practices

Teachers’ frequent assessments and feedback;use of student achievement data for staff
development; instruction aligned to learning
goals, assessments, and diverse learning
styles; high expectations for student
performance; and ongoing professional
development differentiated between high- andlow-performing high-poverty schools in
Kentucky.

Teacher practices

Teachers’ evaluation scores (adapted from theDanielson [1996] Framework for Teaching)
contributed slightly to student gains on CTBS/
TerraNova and Nevada proficiency tests.

Marcoulides, Heck, andPapanastasiou (2005)

Teacher practices

Student reports that teachers assigned
projects, had students discuss practicalproblems, assigned work relevant to students’
daily lives, checked and discussed homework,and aligned the curriculum to assessments
contributed to Greek students’ achievement on
TIMSS assessments.

Matsumura, Garnier,
Pascal, and Valdés (2002)

Teacher practices

Teachers’ use of high-quality assignments
influenced student achievement on SAT-9
language arts tests.

Matsumura et al. (2006)

Teacher practices

Teachers’ use of high-quality instruction andassignments mattered to achievement gains onsome subscores of the SAT-10.

Teacher practices

Teachers’ use of practices aligned to NCTM
standards mattered to SAT-9 mathematics testscores for students in integrated/reform
mathematics courses only.

Gallagher (2004)

Heneman, Milanowski,
Kimball, and Odden(2006)

Kannapel and Clements(2005)

Kimball, White,
Milanowski, and Borman(2004)

McCaffrey, Hamilton,
Stecher, Klein, Bugliari,and Robyn (2001)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—67

Authors (Year)

Summary in Synthesis

How Teacher Quality Matters

Milanowski (2004)

Teacher practices

Teachers’ evaluation score (adapted from theDanielson [1996] Framework for Teaching)influenced student CTBS and state proficiency
test scores in mathematics and reading.

Newmann, Bryk, andNagaoka (2001)

Teacher practices

Teachers’ use of intellectually demanding
assignments mattered to Iowa Test of Basic
Skills (ITBS) and state proficiency test scores.

Rowan, Chiang, and Miller(1997)

Teacher practices

Teachers’ subject-matter knowledge,
expectations for student outcomes, andplacement in a collaborative school
environment were associated with student
achievement on NELS mathematics tests.

Schacter and Thum (2004)

Teacher practices

Teachers’ performance ratings on 12
dimensions mattered to SAT-9 scores inmathematics, reading, and language arts.

Smith, Lee, and Newmann(2001)

Teacher practices

Teachers’ use of interactive (rather thandidactic) instruction contributed to student
ITBS scores in mathematics and reading.

Teacher practices

Teachers’ use of hands-on learning activities,emphasis of higher-order thinking skills, andprofessional development mattered to
students’ scores on NAEP assessments inmathematics and science.

Teacher practices

Classroom practices (especially hands-on
learning, solving unique problems and not
relying on authentic assessments) influenced
NAEP mathematics test scores.

Teacher effectivenessBlack box teacher “value-added” influenced
students’ ITBS to state proficiency test score
gains in mathematics. A small amount of thisvariance could be attributed to the observed
variable of undergraduate major.

Noell (2006)

Teacher effectivenessTeachers’ effectiveness varied according towhich teacher preparation programs theyattended, but relationships could not be
determined with a high degree of certainty.

Nye, Konstantopoulos, andHedges (2004)

Teacher effectivenessTeacher effectiveness had small effects on
student SAT-9 scores in mathematics andreading.

Rivkin, Hanushek, andKain (2005)

Teacher effectiveness

Unobserved variables accounted for most of
the difference in teacher effectiveness on
students’ gains on TASS.

Thum (2003)

Teacher effectivenessTeacher effectiveness was difficult to measurewith a high degree of certainty.

Wenglinsky (2000)

Wenglinsky (2002)

Aaronson, Barrow, andSanders (2003)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—68

Part 2. Research Studies Not Summarized in the Synthesis
Authors (Year)

Summary in Synthesis

How Teacher Quality Matters

Not summarized(see footnote 17)

Black box teacher effectiveness mattered to
students’ gains on CTBS/TerraNova tests ofreading, language arts, and mathematics.
Lagged year test score was an appropriate
proxy for student background variables.

Ferguson (1991)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ recertification exam scores
influenced students’ Texas Educational
Assessment of Minimum Skills test scores andgains. Teachers’ experience, up to five years,
mattered to student dropout and SAT
participation rates.

Ferguson and Ladd (1996)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ education mattered slightly to
student test score gains, as did class size.

Fetler (1999)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ experience and certification status
mattered to students’ SAT-9 scores.

Goldhaber and Brewer(1996)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ mathematics and science subjectspecific degrees influenced student test scoreson NELS assessments of those subjects.

Good, Grouws, andEbmeier (1983)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ use of active teaching process
methods mattered differentially for the gainsof students with low and high socioeconomic
status (SES) on Science Research Associates
tests of mathematics.

Greenwald, Hedges, andLaine (1996)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ ability and experience mattered to
student achievement.

Hanushek (1971)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ verbal ability and recentness ofeducation contributed to students’ Stanford
Achievement Test scores.

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Mathematics teachers’ in-field certification
mattered to students’ gains on Stanford
Achievement Tests of general mathematics
and algebra.

Jesse, Davis, and Pokorny(2004)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

A strong sense of guiding purpose, focus onachievement, supportive relationships among
students and teachers, common goals, sharednorms, consistent messages, and practices
consistent with beliefs characterized nine
Texas schools in which low-SES Hispanic
students performed exceptionally well on TAAS.

Laczko-Kerr and Berliner(2002)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

New teachers’ certification status mattered to
students’ SAT-9 test scores.

Ballou, Sanders, andWright (2004)

Hawk, Coble, and Swanson(1985)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—69

Authors (Year)

Summary in Synthesis

How Teacher Quality Matters

Mendro, Jordan, Gomez,
Anderson, Bembry, andSchools (1998)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Black box teacher effectiveness mattered to
students’ gains on the ITBS.

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ mathematics scores on theirprimary school exit exams and high school
completion influenced students’ gains onmathematics tests developed by the Belize
Ministry of Education. Teachers’ completionof pedagogic training did not significantly
contribute to students’ learning.

Perkes (1967)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ instructional methods, college grade
point averages in science, and recentness ofcollege-level study in science mattered to
students’ scores on tests of science knowledge
and applications.

Raymond, Fletcher, andLuque (2001)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ Teach for America program
participation contributed to students’ gains on
TAAS.

J. C. R. Sanders (1999)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Students’ probability of passing the ninthgrade competency exam depended on theeffectiveness of their teachers.

S. L. Sanders, SkonieHardin, Phelps, and Minnis(1994)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ educational degree level did not
influence student dropout or postsecondary
education enrollment rates.

W. L. Sanders and Rivers(1996)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teacher effectiveness made both additive andcumulative contributions to students’ gains on
TCAP achievement tests.

Strauss and Sawyer (1986)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

District average National Teacher Evaluation
scores mattered to students’ rates of failingstate reading and mathematics competency
exams.

Walberg and Lai (1999)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

The effects of behavioral elements, teachingpatterns, instructional systems, and teaching
methods contributed to student outcomesaccording to this inclusive meta-analysis.

Wang, Haertel, andWalberg (1993)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ instructional quality and practices
mattered to student achievement.

Wiley and Yoon (1995)

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ implementation of instruction
requiring higher level skills contributed to
students’ scores on CLAS tests.

Mullens, Murnane, andWillett (1996)

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—70

Author (Year)

Willett, Yamashita, andAnderson (1983)

Wright, Horn, and Sanders(1997)

Summary in Synthesis

How Teacher Quality Matters

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Teachers’ use of innovative instructional
systems (computer-simulated experiments,
Bloom’s Mastery Learning, and Keller’s
Personalized System of Instruction) was
associated with students’ scienceachievement.

Not discussed(see footnote 17)

Effective teachers contributed to the gains ofstudents at all achievement levels—but
especially to those of the lowest achieving
group—on TCAP achievement tests.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—71

Appendix D. Further Discussion of Effect Sizes
Effect size is commonly expressed with Cohen’s d, where the difference of the means of thetreated and control groups is standardized by dividing them by their pooled variance (J. Cohen &P. Cohen, 1983). This transformation results in an estimate of the magnitude of the effect interms of standard deviations, allowing for meaningful comparisons of the size of different
studies’ results. In education research, typical effect sizes of interventions on student learning
vary considerably, ranging from around 0.10 standard deviations to 0.70 standard deviations. In
many cases, authors of research studies report the effect size; but when they do not, it sometimes
can be approximated from the authors’ reported test statistics (Grissom & Kim, 2005). Using
effect sizes from various studies (either provided by the authors or calculated after the fact), a
researcher developing a quantitative research synthesis can consider a key question: “Does thetreatment help?” (Cooper & Hedges, 1994).
J. Cohen (1988) has pointed out that researchers often make the mistake of concluding that if afinding is statistically significant, it must be important. According to Cohen, what is reallycrucial is the size of the effects. As a rule of thumb, and accepted by many researchers today, hedefined effect sizes as follows: small, d = 0.2; medium, d = 0.5; and large, d = 0.8. It is worth
noting that Hattie (1992) conducted a meta-analysis of school interventions and discovered that
simply spending a year in school has an effect size of approximately 0.40 on student learning(although that number may be somewhat inflated because it is difficult to take into account thelength and intensity of the various interventions that were compared).
For an excellent discussion of some of the challenges related to calculating and reporting effectsizes in educational research, see Valentine and Cooper (2006). Progress is being made inunderstanding how best to calculate effect sizes, including an interesting alternative to Cohen’s d(Algina, Keselman, & Penfield, 2005), and elaborations of some of the ways effect sizes aremeasured (Hancock, 2001). However, much more work remains in establishing the appropriate
calculation of effect sizes before they will allow for true comparability across studies.

National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality

The Link Between Teacher Quality and Student Outcomes—72