A Comparison of Growth Percentile and Value-Added Models of Teacher Performance
School districts and state departments of education frequently must choose between a variety of methods to estimating teacher quality. This paper examines under what circumstances the decision between estimators of teacher quality is important. We examine estimates derived from growth percentile measures and estimates derived from commonly used value-added estimators. Using simulated data, we examine how well the estimators can rank teachers and avoid misclassification errors under a variety of assignment scenarios of teachers to students. We find that growth percentile measures perform worse than value-added measures that control for prior year student test scores and control for teacher fixed effects when assignment of students to teachers is nonrandom. In addition, using actual data from a large diverse anonymous state, we find evidence that growth percentile measures are less correlated with value-added measures with teacher fixed effects when there is evidence of nonrandom grouping of students in schools. This evidence suggests that the choice between estimators is most consequential under nonrandom assignment of teachers to students, and that value-added measures controlling for teacher fixed effects may be better suited to estimating teacher quality in this case.
|Date of creation:||Feb 2014|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||published in: Statistics and Public Policy, 2015, 2(1), e1034820|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: IZA, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany|
Phone: +49 228 3894 223
Fax: +49 228 3894 180
Web page: http://www.iza.org
|Order Information:|| Postal: IZA, Margard Ody, P.O. Box 7240, D-53072 Bonn, Germany|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Sass, Tim R. & Semykina, Anastasia & Harris, Douglas N., 2014. "Value-added models and the measurement of teacher productivity," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 9-23.
- Jesse Rothstein, 2010.
"Teacher Quality in Educational Production: Tracking, Decay, and Student Achievement,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Oxford University Press, vol. 125(1), pages 175-214.
- Jesse Rothstein, 2008. "Teacher Quality in Educational Production: Tracking, Decay, and Student Achievement," Working Papers 1058, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Education Research Section..
- Jesse Rothstein, 2008. "Teacher Quality in Educational Production: Tracking, Decay, and Student Achievement," NBER Working Papers 14442, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Dieterle, Steven G. & Guarino, Cassandra M. & Reckase, Mark D. & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2012.
"How do Principals Assign Students to Teachers? Finding Evidence in Administrative Data and the Implications for Value-added,"
IZA Discussion Papers
7112, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Steven Dieterle & Cassandra M. Guarino & Mark D. Reckase & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2015. "How do Principals Assign Students to Teachers? Finding Evidence in Administrative Data and the Implications for Value Added," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 32-58, 01.
- Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2001.
"Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data,"
MIT Press Books,
The MIT Press,
edition 1, volume 1, number 0262232197, December.
- Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
- Daniel Aaronson & Lisa Barrow & William Sander, 2002.
"Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools,"
Working Paper Series
WP-02-28, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
- Daniel Aaronson & Lisa Barrow & William Sander, 2007. "Teachers and Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25, pages 95-135.
- Roland G. Fryer, Jr & Steven D. Levitt & John List & Sally Sadoff, 2012. "Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 18237, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Gadi Barlevy & Derek Neal, 2011.
"Pay for Percentile,"
NBER Working Papers
17194, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Thomas J. Kane & Douglas O. Staiger, 2002. "The Promise and Pitfalls of Using Imprecise School Accountability Measures," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 91-114, Fall.
- Brian A. Jacob & Lars Lefgren, 2008. "Can Principals Identify Effective Teachers? Evidence on Subjective Performance Evaluation in Education," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26, pages 101-136.
- Cassandra M. Guarino & Michelle Maxfield & Mark D. Reckase & Paul N. Thompson & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2015. "An Evaluation of Empirical Bayesâ€™s Estimation of Value-Added Teacher Performance Measures," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, American Educational Research Association, vol. 40(2), pages 190-222, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iza:izadps:dp7973. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark Fallak)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.