Value-Added Models of Teacher Effects

  • Pamela F. Tobe
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE, volume 21)

The ability of teachers to raise student academic achievement varies but the reasons are not always clear. Differences among teachers account for an important portion of the achievement differences among students. Teacher effects exist, they are measur able and significant, and they have a cumulative impact on student performance. The differences between teachers can be quantified as “teacher effects” using value-added models. Value-added models attempt to measure how much value a teacher, or school, has added to a student's learning. The models provide a statistical estimate of teacher or school effectiveness by decomposing the variance in student test scores into portions that are explained by students and portions that are assumed to be related to the current teacher and school.

Teacher effects are based on test scores. They are the variance that remains unexplained after a number of sources of variability over which a teacher and school have no control have been taken into account (ex. student characteristics and background). These variations in student achievement gains (residuals) are interpreted to be a measure of teacher effectiveness. Differences between teachers are the varia tion in adjusted student achievement gains between classrooms.


Student Achievement Teacher Quality Teacher Effectiveness Student Mobility Teacher Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, C., & Fuller, E. (2005, April). Effects of teacher qualifications on student mathematics achievement in middle school mathematics in Texas. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Asso ciation Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1996). Children in motion: School transfers and elementary school performance. Journal of Educational Research, 90(1), 3–12.Google Scholar
  3. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). “High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), 1–70.Google Scholar
  4. Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25, 95–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Babu, S., & Mendro, R. (2003, April). Teacher accountability: HLM-based teacher effectiveness indices in the investigation of teacher effects on student achievement. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  6. Ballou, D., Sanders, W., & Wright, P. (2004). Controlling for student background in value-added assess ment of teachers [Special Issue]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, S. (2000). Should achievement tests be used to judge school quality. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(46) Retreived from:
  8. Braun, H. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value- added models. Edu cational Testing Service — Policy Information Center. Retrieved from ope_techreports.html
  9. Campbell, R. J., Kyriakides, L., Muijs, R. D., & Robinson, W. (2003). Differential teacher effectiveness: Towards a model for research and teacher appraisal. Oxford Review of Education, 29(3), 347–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cizek, G. (2001) More unintended consequences of high stakes testing. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice. Winter.Google Scholar
  11. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2006, Fall). Teacher student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, XLI(4), 778–820.Google Scholar
  12. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., et al. (1966). Equality of Educational Opportunity (Coleman) Study EEOS, 1966. Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Printing Office.Google Scholar
  13. Daley, Glen. (2007, March) Value-Added and Standards Based: Reconciling Policy Goals and Data Con straints in Test Based Teacher Assessments. Unpublished conference paper,Chicago, AERA.Google Scholar
  14. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, January 1). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives 8(1). Retrieved March 4, 2005, from http://epaa.
  15. Dee, T. S. (2005, May). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter? American Economic Review, 95, 158–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doran, H. C. (2004, June 8). “Value-added models and adequate Yearly progress: Combining growth and adequacy in a standards-based environment.” Council of Chief State School Officers Annual Large-Scale Assessment Conference, Boston, MA. Retrieved from
  17. Doran, H. and Izumi, L.(2004).Putting education to the test: A value-added model for California. Retrieved from:
  18. Dworkin, A. G. (1987). Teacher Burnout in School. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  19. Dworkin, A. G. (2007, May). School accountability and the standards-based reform movement: Some unintended consequences of education policies. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association, New Directions in Sociology of Education in/for the 21st Century, Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
  20. Dworkin, A. G., & Lorence, J. (2007). Non-promotional school change and the achievement of Texas students: Possible public school choice outcomes under No Child Left Behind. In A. R. Sadovnik, J. O'Day, G. Bohrnstedt, & K. Borman (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achieve ment gap: Sociological perspectives on Federal Education Policy (pp. 243–266). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Dworkin, A. G., Toenjes, L. A., & Lorence, J. (1998). “Evaluation of Academic Performance in the Houston Independent School District, Vols. I and II.” Houston: Center for Houston's Future.Google Scholar
  22. Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Teacher perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score gap. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  23. Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2007). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National board certifi cation as a signal of effective teaching. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 134–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (1997). Why don't schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. Journal of Human Resources, 32(3), 505–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldhaber, D., & Brewer, D. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129–145.Google Scholar
  26. Gordon, R., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. (2006). Identifying effective teachers using performance on the job (Policy brief 2006–01). The Hamilton Project. Retrieved from papers/200604hamilton_1_pb.pdf
  27. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. and Laine. R, (1996, Fall) The effect of school resources on achievement. Review of Educational Research.Google Scholar
  28. Hamilton, L.S., Stecher, B.M., & Klein, S.P. (Eds.). (2002). Making sense of test-based accountability in education. Santa Monica, California: RAND.Google Scholar
  29. Hanushek, E. A. (1971). Teacher Characteristics and gains in student achievement estimation using micro data. American Economics Review. 61(2), 280–288.Google Scholar
  30. Hanushek, E. A. (1997, Summer). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19(2), 141–164.Google Scholar
  31. Hanushek, E. A. (2005). The market for teacher quality (NBER Working Paper No. 11154). Cambridge, MA: NBER.Google Scholar
  32. Hanushek, E., Kain, J. & Rivikin, S. (1998). Hyperlink Teachers, Schools, and academic achievement. Cambridge, MA: NBER working paper, No.w6691.Google Scholar
  33. Hanushek, E., Rivkin, S., Taylor, L. (1996, Nov.). The Review of Economics and Statistics, 78(4), p. 611–627.Google Scholar
  34. Hill, H. (2007). Mathematics knowledge of middle school teachers: Implications for the No Child Left Behind policy initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hong, G., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2006). Evaluating kindergarten retention policy: A case study of causal inference for multi-level observational data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(475), 901–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hurn, C. (1985). The Limits and Possibilities of Schooling. 2nd ed. Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  37. Jacob, Brian A., and Steven D. Leavitt (2003). “Rotten Apples: An Investigation of the Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3) 843–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jencks, C. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  39. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D.O. (2002). Volatility in school test scores: Implications for test based accountability systems. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2002. (pp. 235–283). Washington, D.C.: Brookings InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  40. Kane, T. J., Rockoff, J. E., & Staiger, D. O. (2006). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City (Working Paper No. 12155). Washington DC: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from Scholar
  41. Kennedy, M. M. (1999). Approximations to Indicators of Student Outcomes, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, (4), 345–363.Google Scholar
  42. Kerbro, D. (1996). Patterns of urban student mobility and local school reform. Center for Research on the Education at Students placed At Risk (CRESPAR) Retrived from: techReports/Report5.pdf
  43. Koretz, D. M. (2002). Limitations in the use of achievement tests as measures of educators' Productivity. Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 752–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lasley, T. J., Siedentrop, D., & Yinger, R. (2006). A systematic approach to enhancing teacher quality: The Ohio model. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lee, V., & Bryk, A. (1989). A Multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62, July, 172–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Le. V., Stecher, B., Lockwood, J., Hamilton, L., Robyn, A., Williams, V., et al. (2006) Improving mathemat ics and science education: a longitudinal investigation of the relationship between reform-oriented instruction and student achievement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  47. Lorence, J., & Dworkin, G. (1999, August). The effectiveness of elementary school teachers on urban stu dent academic achievement. Paper presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  48. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D., Louis, T. A., & Hamilton, L. S. (2004). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
  49. Monk, D. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 12, 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Murnane, R. (1975). Impact of school resources on learning of inner city school children. Cambridge, MA: Balinger.Google Scholar
  51. Nye, B., Konstantinopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evalu ation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pedhazer, E. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  53. Rivkin, G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econo-metrica, 73(2), 417–458.Google Scholar
  54. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525–1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rubin, D. B., Stuart, E. A., & Zanutto, E. L. (2004). “A potential outcomes view of value-added assessment in education” [Special Issue]. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29(1), 103–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rumberger, R. W. (2003). Causes and consequences of school mobility. Journal of Negro Education, 72, 6–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sanders, W. L. (2000). “Value-added assessment from student achievement data: Opportunities and hur dles.” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(4), 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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. Funded by US Department of Education. Retrieved from Scholar
  59. Sanders, William and Horn, Sandra (1998). Research Findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assess ment System (TVAAS) Database: Implications for Educational Evaluation and Research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education. 12(3), 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996, November). “Research progress report: Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement: Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System.” Uni versity of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from Scholar
  61. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  62. Schrag, P. (2000, January 3). Too good to be true. The American Prospect [On-line]. Available: http:// Scholar
  63. Summers, A., & Wolfe, B. (1977, Sept.) Do Schools make a difference, American Economic Review, 67, 639–652.Google Scholar
  64. Tobe, P. F. (2008). An investigation of the differential impact of teaching characteristics and attitudes on student mathematics achievement using a value-added approach. Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, TX.Google Scholar
  65. Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Webster, W. (2005). The Dallas school level accountability model: The marriage of status and value-added approaches. In R. W. Lissitz (Ed.), Value-added models in education: Theory and applications (pp. 233–268). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.Google Scholar
  67. Webster, W., & Mendro, R. (1997). The Dallas value-added accountability system. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? (pp. 81–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  68. Weiher, G. R. (1991). The fractured metropolis: Political fragmentation and metropolitan segregation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  69. Yen, W. M., Lall, V., & Monfils, L. (2007, April). Evaluating academic progress without a vertical scale. Educational Testing Service Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pamela F. Tobe

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations