You are here:

Can UTeach? Assessing the relative effectiveness of STEM teachers
ARTICLE

, , , ,

Economics of Education Review Volume 64, Number 1, ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

UTeach is a well-known, university-based program designed to increase the number of high-quality STEM teachers in the workforce. Despite substantial investment and rapid program diffusion, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of UTeach graduates. Using administrative data from the state of Texas, we measure the impact of having a UTeach teacher on student test scores in math and science in middle schools and high schools. We find that students taught by UTeach teachers perform significantly better on end-of-grade tests in math and end-of-course tests in math and science by 8% to 15% of a standard deviation on the test, depending on grade and subject.

Citation

Backes, B., Goldhaber, D., Cade, W., Sullivan, K. & Dodson, M. (2018). Can UTeach? Assessing the relative effectiveness of STEM teachers. Economics of Education Review, 64(1), 184-198. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved August 25, 2024 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on March 1, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.05.002

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ares, N., Stroup, W.M., & Schademan, A.R. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourses. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), pp. 1-24.
  2. Augustine, N.R. (2007). Is America falling off the flat earth?.
  3. Bacher-Hicks, A., Kane, T.J., & Staiger, D.O. (2014). Validating teacher effect estimates using changes in teacher assignments in Los Angeles. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  4. Borman, G.D., & Dowling, N.M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), pp. 367-409.
  5. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), pp. 176-216.
  6. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Ronfeldt, M. (2012). Recruiting effective math teachers: Evidence from New York City. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), pp. 1008-1047.
  7. Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., & Rockoff, J.E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. The American Economic Review, 104(9), pp. 2593-2632.
  8. Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., & Rockoff, J.E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. The American Economic Review, 104(9), pp. 2633-2679.
  9. Clark, M.A., Chiang, H.S., Silva, T., McConnell, S., Sonnenfeld, K., & Erbe, A. (2013). The effectiveness of secondary math teachers from teach for America and the teaching fellows programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
  10. Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., & Vigdor, J.L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), pp. 673-682.
  11. Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., & Vigdor, J.L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school a cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects. Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), pp. 655-681.
  12. Confrey, J., Makar, K., & Kazak, S. (2004). Undertaking data analysis of student outcomes as professional development for teachers. ZDM: International Reviews on Mathematics Education, 36(1), pp. 32-40.
  13. Cowan, J., Goldhaber, D., Hayes, K., & Theobald, R. (2016). Missing elements in the discussion of teacher shortages. Educational Researcher.
  14. Dickinson, G., & Summers, E.J. (2010). ( Re )Anchored, video-centered engagement: the transferability of preservice training to practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), pp. 106-118.
  15. Goldhaber, D. (2008). Teachers matter, but effective teacher quality policies are elusive., pp. 146-165.
  16. Goldhaber, D.D., & Brewer, D.J. (1997). Why don't schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. Journal of Human Resources, pp. 505-523.
  17. Goldhaber, D., Gratz, T., & Theobald, R. (2016). What's in a teacher test? Assessing the relationship between teacher licensure test scores and student STEM achievement and course-taking. Working paper.
  18. Goldhaber, D., Theobald, R., & Fumia, D. (2018). Teacher quality gaps and student outcomes: assessing the association between teacher assignments and student math test scores and high school course taking. CALDER Working Paper #185.
  19. Goldhaber, D., Liddle, S., & Theobald, R. (2013). The gateway to the profession: Assessing teacher preparation programs based on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, pp. 29-44.
  20. Goldhaber, D., & Walch, J. (2013). Rhetoric versus reality: Is the academic caliber of the teacher workforce changing? (Vol. 4). CEDR Working Paper 2013.
  21. Hansen, M., Backes, B., Brady, V., & Xu, Z. (2015). Examining spillover effects from teach for America corps members in miami-dade county public schools. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research Working Paper, 113.
  22. Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., O'Brien, D.M., & Rivkin, S.G. (2005). The market for teacher quality. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  23. Hanushek, E.A., & Rivkin, S.G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. The American Economic Review, 100(2), pp. 267-271.
  24. Harris, D., & Sass, T. (2006). The effects of teacher training on teacher value-added.
  25. Heck, R.H. (2009). Teacher effectiveness and student achievement: Investigating a multilevel cross-classified model. Journal of Educational Administration, 47(2), pp. 227-249.
  26. Hock, H., & Isenberg, E. (2012). Methods for accounting for co-teaching in value-added models.
  27. Holdren, J.P., Lander, E.S., & Varmus, H. (2010). Prepare and inspire: K–12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America's future. Washington, DC: President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
  28. Hoxby, C.M. (2009). The changing selectivity of American colleges. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(4), pp. 95-118.
  29. Ingersoll, R.M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), pp. 499-534.
  30. Jackson, C.K. (2014). Teacher quality at the high-school level: The importance of accounting for tracks. Journal of Labor Economics, 32(4), pp. 645-684.
  31. Kane, T.J., Rockoff, J.E., & Staiger, D.O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), pp. 615-631.
  32. Kane, T.J., & Staiger, D.O. (2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  33. Kane, T.J., McCaffrey, D.F., Miller, T., & Staiger, D.O. (2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
  34. Koedel, C., Parsons, E., Podgursky, M., & Ehlert, M. (2015). Teacher preparation programs and teacher quality: Are there real differences across programs. Education Finance and Policy Available online: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00172.
  35. Lipsey, M.W., Puzio, K., Yun, C., Hebert, M.A., Steinka-Fry, K., & Cole, M.W. (2012). Translating the statistical representation of the effects of education interventions into more readily interpretable forms.
  36. Makar, K., & Confrey, J. (2005). “Variation-talk”: Articulating meaning in statistics. Statistics Education Research Journal, 4(1), pp. 27-54.
  37. Marder, M., & Walkington, C. (2014). Classroom observation and value-added models give complementary information about the quality of mathematics teaching. Designing teacher evaluation systems: New guidance from the measuring effective teaching project, pp. 234-277. New York, NY: Wiley.
  38. Marshall, J., & Young, E.S. (2006). Preservice teachers’ theory development in physical and simulated environments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(9), pp. 907-937.
  39. Peterson, P.E., Woessmann, L., Hanushek, E.A., & Lastra-Anadón, C.X. (2011). Globally challenged: Are U.S. students ready to compete? The latest on each state's international standing in math and reading.
  40. Rice, J.K., & Schwartz, A.E. (2008). Toward an understanding of productivity in education., pp. 131-145.
  41. Rockoff, J.E., Jacob, B.A., Kane, T.J., & Staiger, D.O. (2011). Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one. Education, 6(1), pp. 43-74.
  42. Stroup, W., Hills, T., & Carmona, G. (2011). Computing the average square: An agent-based introduction to aspects of psychometric practice. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 16(3), pp. 199-220.
  43. Von Hippel, P.T., Bellows, L., Osborne, C., Lincove, J.A., & Mills, N. (2016). Teacher quality differences between teacher preparation programs: How big? How reliable? Which programs are different. Economics of Education Review, 53, pp. 31-45.
  44. West, M. (2013). Do math and science teachers earn more outside of education?. Available online: https://www.brookings.edu/research/do-math-and-science-teachers-earn-more-outside-of-education/.
  45. Xu, Z., Hannaway, J., & Taylor, C. (2011). Making a difference? The effects of teach for america in high school. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), pp. 447-469.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References