A Composite Estimator of Effective Teaching

Published in: A Composite Estimator of Effective Teaching (MET Project, Jan. 2013), 51 p

by Kata Mihaly, Daniel F. McCaffrey, Douglas Staiger, J. R. Lockwood

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.metproject.org

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

States and districts are collecting multiple measures of teaching to evaluate teacher effectiveness, but there is limited information about how indicators can be combined to improve inferences about a teacher's impact on student achievement and about teaching. We derive a statistical model and estimate the parameters of an optimal combined measure of teacher effectiveness using data from the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project. We contrast the optimal composites to composites created using equal weighting of indicators and to weights based on existing state policies. Our explorations consider multiple scenarios for data collection to determine tradeoffs between collecting more data and combining multiple indicators to improve the accuracy of inferences. We find evidence that there is a common component of effective teaching shared by all indicators, but there are also substantial differences in the stable component across measurement modes and across some indicators within a mode. The implication from our model is that composites that place relatively equal weight on all indicators will tend to capture the component of effective teaching that is common across indicators. We also find that optimal weights strongly depend on the target criterion and the optimal predictor tends to put most of the weight on the indicator corresponding to the target criterion. Composites formed based on state policies are moderately to highly correlated with optimal predictor of teacher contributions to achievement on the state test. Due to the relatively high reliability of the indicators in the MET project dataset, there are small differences in composites created under different data collection scenarios.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/research-integrity.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.