An Examination of the Impact of Selected Teacher Variables on Student Achievement

The relationship between selected teacher variables and high school student achievement was analyzed. Using the Pearson Correlation analysis, this paper tries to: 1) determine the relationship between teachers’ teaching experience and high school student achievement, 2) determine the relationship between teacher turnover rate and high school student achievement, 3) determine the relationship between teachers with advanced degree and high school student achievement, and 4) determine the relationship between teachers with National Board certification and high school student achievement. Results from the analysis showed that teachers’ teaching experiences and teachers with National Board certification were significant in explaining changes in high school student achievement in English 1, and SAT total score. In an era of economic recession and accountability in the use of educational resources, it is important to conduct a study that can provide information on the relationship that may exist between selected teacher variables and high school achievement scores of students. Peevely, Hedges, and Nye (2005) stated that the issue of allocating resources to effectively improve the achievement of students is one of the major problems facing educational researchers and policymakers. Researchers have also identified the need to focus on the internal allocation of resources among buildings within school districts, or other micro-levels of analysis (Monk, 1996; Monk & Underwood, 1988, Odden, 2003). Kirps, Yudof, Geel, and Levin (1982) emphasized that the greatest variations in student achievement were found within schools. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of selected teacher characteristics on high school achievement of students in a low-wealth school district in southeastern United States for 2006-2007. This study, with its emphasis on intra-district analysis, provided a more critical view of the relationship between selected teacher variables and high school achievement of students. Also, the significance of this study could help in expanding the current knowledge base regarding the relationship between national board certified teachers and student achievement. 1 Okpala: An Examination of the Impact of Selected Teacher Variables on Stu Published by Digital Commons@Georgia Southern, 2015 The key questions that guided the structure of this study were as follows: 1. Is there a significant relationship between teachers’ teaching experience and high school student achievement? 2. Is there a significant relationship between teacher turnover rate and high school student achievement? 3. Is there a relationship between teachers with advanced degree and high school student achievement? 4. Is there a relationship between teachers with National Board certification and high school student achievement? Theoretical Framework In this study, the researcher utilized a synthesis of constructs from education production function research. The concept of the production function is a powerful pedagogical tool that appears applicable in a wide range of areas that includes educational performance studies (Hanushek, 1987; Krueger, 1999; Lazear, 2001; Odden & Clune, 1995). Greenwald, Hedges, and Laine (1996) emphasized that over the past decades, education production function has become the dominant paradigm used to analyze the impact of education resources on student achievement. Basically, these type of studies attempts to develop a model of the relationship between educational inputs and outcomes. Inputs were defined to include school characteristics, teacher characteristics, facilities, and student characteristics. Outcomes were defined as achievement measured by standardized tests, future educational patterns, and adult learning (Greenwald, et al. 1996). Applying the production function in this study, the variables that were examined are those that literature indicated should impact student achievement. A simplified production equation model can be expressed as follows: Q = f (T, P). Where Q represents educational outcome variable (dependent variables), which can be used to measure the student’s end-of-course tests scores in English 1, and Algebra 1. Student’s average SAT score (math and reading only) was also used in the analysis. T represents teacher characteristics which is an input (independent) variable. Four teacher characteristics were used in this study – teachers’ teaching experience, teacher turnover rate, percentage of teachers with advanced degrees, and the percentage of National Board certified teachers in the school. Teachers are an integral part of schools, and schools and school districts have some control over the characteristics of teachers they hire. Many studies have concluded that teachers’ years of education affect students’ achievement (Kupermintz, 2003; Klingele & Warrick, 1990). Researchers have concluded that teachers teaching experiences lead to greater teaching proficiency (Wilson, Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2001). Koppich, Humphrey and Hough (2007) noted in their mixedmethod research that attaining national board certification reinforces individual and professional efficacy. Saunders, Ashton and Wright (2005) concluded that the relationship between teachers with national board certification and students’ achievement is mixed. Then, P represents educational processes which is not part of this study. 2 Georgia Educational Researcher, Vol. 7 [2015], Iss. 2, Art. 2 http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/gerjournal/vol7/iss2/2 Method Sample The sample for this study was composed of public high school students and teachers in a low performing school district in southeastern North Carolina during 20062007 school year. There were 18 public high schools in this school district of study, but only 17 schools were selected for the study. One high school was an alternative school with incomplete data. While almost all the production function studies used achievement test scores as a proxy (Ferguson, 1991; Hanushek, 1987; Hartman, 1994, Monk, 1992), others used an average test scores from all school grades tested. This study examined high school student achievement in English 1 and Algebra 1 based on their composite scores on the End-of-Course tests, and SAT total score. Procedures Data for this study was obtained from several sources within the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction after a permission to conduct the study was granted by the Institutional Research Board (IRB) and the school district in the study. State-level and district-level data collected annually by the North Carolina State Department of Public Instruction and the School District Improvement Plan on students’ end-of-course scores, school expenditures, and school demographics available online were used. Information on school and teacher characteristics was obtained from the North Carolina School Building Improvement Report for each school. The SAT total score data was obtained from the school district’s statistical profile available online. According to Unger (1999), top quality high schools are those whose students consistently perform at or above grade levels as determined by objectively administered standardized achievement tests. North Carolina is among states that use statewide assessment (end-of-course test) to measure the achievement of students in public high schools. In its drive for higher standards, the State Department of Public Instruction developed its own end-of-course and end-of-grade tests for students in grades 3-12. The end-of-grade tests are given to elementary and middle school students, while the end-of-course tests are given to high school students. School districts in the state are required to have a record of achievement scores of students scoring at different levels. There are four levels that a student can achieve. Level I students did not achieve at the basic level; Level II students met the basic level; Level III students achieved at a proficient level; and Level IV students achieved at an advanced level. In this study, the percentage of students who achieved at Levels III and IV, which represent the percentage of students who mastered the subjects according to North Carolina state policy (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, 1995/96) were used.