Evidence-Based Staffing in High Schools: Using Student Achievement Data in Teacher Hiring, Evaluation, and Assignment

References

• Abernathy, T., Forsyth, A., & Mitchell, J. (2001). The bridge from student to teacher: What principals, teacher education faculty and students value in a teaching applicant. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(4), 109–119.
   Google Scholar
• Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Agresti, A., & Kateri, M. (2011). Categorical data analysis. Berlin Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Almy, S., & Theokas, C. (2010). Not prepared for class: High-poverty schools continue to have fewer in-field teachers. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.
   Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association. (2015). AERA statement on use of value-added models (VAM) for the evaluation of educators and educator preparation programs. Educational Researcher, 44(8), 448–452. doi:10.3102/0013189X15618385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Statistical Association. (2014). ASA statement on using value-added models for educational assessment. Retrieved from https://www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Anagnostopoulos, D. & Rutledge, S. (2007). Making sense of school sanctioning in urban high schools. Teachers College Record 109(5), 1261–1302.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, S., Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9(3), 292–327. doi:10.1080/15700761003731492
   Google Scholar
• Baker, B., & Cooper, B. (2005). Do principals with stronger academic backgrounds hire better teachers? Policy implications for improving high-poverty schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 449–479. doi:10.1177/0013161X04269609
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballou, D. (2000). Contractual constraints on school management: Principals’ perspectives on teacher contracts. In D. Ravitch, & J. Viteritti (Eds.), City schools: Lessons from New York (pp. 89–116). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Hanushek, E. (2005). The draw of home: How teacher preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), 113–132. doi:10.1002/pam.20072
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannata, M., & Engel, M. (2012). Does charter status determine preferences? Comparing the hiring preferences of charter and traditional public school principals. Education Finance and Policy, 7(4), 455–488. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cannata, M., Rubin, M., Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Neumerski, C., Drake, T., & Schuermann, P. (2017). Using teacher effectiveness data for information rich hiring. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(2).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Center for Education Policy. (2005). From the capital to the classroom: Year Three of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from htpp://www.cep- dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=539&nodeID=1
   Google Scholar
• Chingos, M. M., & West, M. R. (2011). Promotion and reassignment in public school districts: How do schools respond to differences in teacher effectiveness? Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 419–433. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. O. (2011). Research on data use: A framework and analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research & Perspective, 9(4), 173–206.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen-Vogel, L. (2005). Federal role in teacher quality: “Redefinition” or policy alignment? Educational Policy, 19(1), 18–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen-Vogel, L. (2011). Staffing to the test: Are today’s school personnel practices evidence based? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 483–505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen-Vogel, L. & Harrison, C. (2013). Leading with data: Evidence from the National Center on Scaling Up Effective Schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(2), 122–145.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen-Vogel, L. & Osborne-Lampkin, L. (2007). Allocating quality: Collective bargaining agreements and administrative discretion over teacher assignment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 433–461.
   Google Scholar
• DeArmond, M., Gross, B., & Goldhaber, D. (2010). Is it better to be good or lucky? Decentralized teacher selection in 10 elementary schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(3), 322–362. doi:10.1177/0013161X10365824
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLany, B. (1991). Allocation, choice, and stratification within high schools: How the sorting machine copes. American Journal of Education, 99(2), 181–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond, J., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176. doi:10.1111/tcre.2004.106.issue-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellsasser, C. W. (2008). Teaching educational philosophy: A response to the problem of first-year urban teacher transfer. Education and Urban Society, 40(4), 476–493. doi:10.1177/0013124507304690
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engel, M. (2012). Problematic preferences? A mixed method examination of what principals look for when hiring teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(1), 52–91. doi:10.1177/0013161X12451025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engel, M., & Cannata, M. (2015). Localism and teacher labor markets: How geography and decision making may contribute to inequality. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(1), 84–92. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2015.988533
   Google Scholar
• Englert, K., Fries, D., Goodwin, B., Martin-Glenn, M., & Michael, S. (2004). Understanding how principals use data in a new environment of accountability. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Figlio, D. N., & Winicki, J. (2002). Food for thought: The effects of school accountability plans on school nutrition. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Finley, M. K. (1984). Teachers and tracking in a comprehensive high school. Sociology of Education, 233–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Firestone, W. A., & González, R. A. (2007). Culture and processes affecting data use in school districts. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 106(1), 132–154.
   Google Scholar
• Firestone, W. A., Monfils, L. F., & Schorr, R. Y. (2004). The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessments, and educational reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Florida State Senate. (2011). Senate Bill 736. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2011/0736/BillText/er/PDF
   Google Scholar
• Fuller, B., & Ladd, H. (2013). School based accountability and the distribution of teacher quality among grades in elementary schools. Education Finance and Policy, 8(4), 528–559. doi:10.1162/EDFP_a_00112
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldring, E., Grissom, J. A., Rubin, M., Neumerski, C. M., Cannata, M., Drake, T., & Schuermann, P. (2015). Make room: Value-added principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96–104. doi:10.3102/0013189X15575031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grissom, J. A., Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2013). Strategic staffing: Examining the class assignments of teachers and students in tested and untested grades and subjects. Paper presented at the American Education Finance and Policy Conference, New Orleans, LA.
   Google Scholar
• Groves, R. M., & Peytcheva, E. (2008). The impact of nonresponse rates on nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 167–189. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guin, K. (2004). Chronic teacher turnover in urban elementary schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12, 42. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n42
   Google Scholar
• Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. (2005). The new instructional leadership: Creating data-driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 159–193.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, D. N., Rutledge, S. A., Ingle, W. K., & Thompson, C. T. (2010). Mix and match: What principals really look for when hiring teachers. Education Finance and Policy, 5(2), 228–246. doi:10.1162/edfp.2010.5.2.5205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison, C. (2015). The discourse of teacher policy reform: An analysis of policy narratives surrounding tenure elimination, performance pay and performance-based evaluation in three states ( Dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation Abstracts.
   Google Scholar
• Hazi, H. M., & Rucinski, D. A. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for improved student learning: A fifty-state review of statute and regulatory action since NCLB. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17, 5. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v17n5/
   Google Scholar
• Hess, F. M., & West, M. R. (2006). A better bargain: Overhauling teacher collective bargaining for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy & Governance.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, H., & Grossman, P. (2013). Learning from teacher observations: Challenges and opportunities posed by new teacher evaluation systems. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 371–384. doi:10.17763/haer.83.2.d11511403715u376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill, J., & Stearns, C. (2015). Education and certification qualifications of departmentalized public high school-level teachers of selected subjects: Evidence from the 2011–12 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2015-814). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, P. (2006). The costs of collective bargaining agreements and related district policies. In J. Hannaway, & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today’s schools (pp. 89–109). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ingersoll, R. (2003). Out-of-field teaching and the limits of teacher policy. Report by the center for the study of teaching and policy and the consortium for policy research in education (Document R-03–5). Retrieved from http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/LimitsPolicy-RI-09–2003.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ingersoll, R. M., & Gruber, К. (1996). Out-of-field teaching and educational equality (Statistical Analysis Report No. 96-040). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
   Google Scholar
• Ingram, D., Louis, K. S., & Schroeder, R. G. (2004). Accountability policies and teacher decision making: Barriers to the use of data to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1258–1287.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, S. M., & Donaldson, M. (2006). The effects of collective bargaining on teacher quality. In J. Hannaway & A. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Collective bargaining in education: Negotiating change in today's schools (pp. 111–140). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kalogrides, D., & Loeb, S. (2013). Different teachers, different peers: The magnitude of student sorting within schools. Educational Researcher, 42(6), 304–316. doi:10.3102/0013189X13495087
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation (w14607). Cambridge, MA: NBER Working Paper.
   Google Scholar
• Koedel, C., Mihaly, K., & Rockoff, J. E. (2015). Value-added modeling: A review. Economics of Education Review, 47(3), 180–195. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konstantopoulos, S., & Sun, M. (2014). Are teacher effects larger in small classes? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(3), 312–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lachat, M. A., & Smith, S. (2005). Practices that support data use in urban high schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 333–349. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1003_7
   Google Scholar
• Levin, J., Mulhern, J., & Schunck, J. (2005). Unintended consequences: The case for reforming staffing rules in urban teachers union contracts. The New Teacher Project. Retrieved from http://www.tntp.org/newreport/TNTP%20Unintended20Consequences.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Liu, E. (2002). New teachers’ experiences of hiring in New Jersey. Harvard Graduate School of Education Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. Retrieved from http://www.gse.harvard.edu/∼ngt/Liu_AERA2002.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Liu, E., & Johnson, S. M. (2006). New teachers’ experiences of hiring: Late, rushed, and information-poor. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 324–360. doi:10.1177/0013161X05282610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, E., Rosenstein, J. G., Swan, A. E., & Khalil, D. (2008). When districts encounter teacher shortages: The challenges of recruiting and retaining mathematics teachers in urban districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(3), 296–323.
   Google Scholar
• Lockwood, J. R., McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B., Le, V., & Martinez, J. F. (2007). The sensitivity of value-added teacher effect estimates to different mathematics achievement measures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(1), 47–67. doi:10.1111/jedm.2007.44.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning: Final report of research findings. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., Anderson, S. E., Michlin, M., & Mascall, B. (2010). Learning from leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement/University of Minnesota and Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, 42, 50.
   Google Scholar
• Lyons, J. E., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Perceptions of the impact of accountability on the role of principals. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 14(16), 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Mandinach, E., Friedman, J. M., & Gummer, E. (2015). How can schools of education help to build educators’ capacity to use data? A systemic view of the issue. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 1–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, J. A., & Farrell, C. C. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision making A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 269–289. doi:10.1177/1741143214537229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education (OP-170-EDU). Occasional Paper, 1–16. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved December 17, 2015, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP170.html
   Google Scholar
• McMurrer, J. (2008). Instructional time in elementary schools: A close look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=541&nodeID=1.
   Google Scholar
• McMurrer, J. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=document.showDocumentByID&nodeID=1&DocumentID=212
   Google Scholar
• McPartland, J. M., & Crain, R. (1987). Evaluating the trade-offs in student outcomes in alternative school organization policies. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), The social organization of schools: New conceptualizations of the learning process (pp. 131–145). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Millman, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (Eds.). (1989). The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers. New York, NY: Corwin Press, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Mintrop, H. & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Why high stakes accountability sounds good but doesn't work-- and why we keep on doing it anyway. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA.
   Google Scholar
• National Center on Teacher Quality. (2016). State-by-state evaluation briefs. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nctq.org/dmsStage/Evaluation_Timeline_Brief_Overview
   Google Scholar
• Osborne-Lampkin, L., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2014). “Spreading the wealth”: How principals use performance data to populate classrooms. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 13(2), 188–208.
   Google Scholar
• Reback, R., Rockoff, J., & Schwartz, H. L. (2011). Under pressure: Job security, resource allocation, and productivity in schools under NCLB (No. w16745). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse, C. E., Hannaway, J., Goldhaber, D., & Figlio, D. (2007). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure (No. w13681). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
   Google Scholar
• Rutledge, S., Cohen-Vogel, L., & Osborne-Lampkin, L. T. (2012). Identifying the characteristics of effective high schools: Report from year one of the National Center on Scaling up Effective Schools. Research Report. National Center on Scaling Up Effective Schools.
   Google Scholar
• Rutledge, S. A., Harris, D. N., Thompson, C. T., & Ingle, W. K. (2008). Certify, blink, hire: An examination of the process and tools of teacher screening and selection. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(3), 237–263. doi:10.1080/15700760701822132
   Google Scholar
• Shoffner, M. (2016). CHALK TALK: Education reform from the two-sided Congressional coin. Journal of Law & Education, 45, 269–269.
   Google Scholar
• Stodolsky, S. S. (1989). Classroom observation. In J. Millman, & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers. New York, NY: Corwin Press, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, R. P., Bowes, L. R., Marks, M. S., & Plesko, M. R. (2000). Improving teacher preparation and selection: Lessons from the Pennsylvania experience. Economics of Education Review, 19(4), 387–415. doi:10.1016/S0272-7757(00)00009-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sutherland, S. (2004). Creating a culture of data use for continuous improvement: A case study of an Edison Project school. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 277–293. doi:10.1177/109821400402500302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.) Elementary/secondary information system. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/search.asp
   Google Scholar
• Wachen, J., Harrison, C., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2017). Data use as instructional reform: Exploring educators’ reports of classroom practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools. [Epub ahead of print] doi:10.1080/15700763.2016.1278244
   Google Scholar
• Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(3), 239–259. doi:10.1080/09243450802246376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar