Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of working condition on math teacher effectiveness: value-added scores and student satisfaction in teaching

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Educational Research for Policy and Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to better understand how math teachers’ effectiveness as measured by value-added scores and student satisfaction with teaching is influenced by school’s working conditions. The data for the study were derived from 2009 to 2010 Teacher Working Condition Survey and Student Perception Survey in Measures of Effective Teaching Project. Using the structural equation modeling and other related methods, several models of teacher effectiveness were estimated. The findings indicate that among the examined working condition factors, support for instruction and for student conduct management have significant effects on teachers’ value-added scores in mathematics. Moreover, the student satisfaction with teaching seems to have a mediating effect on value-added scores. The findings of the study significantly contribute to a better understanding of the effects of working environment on math teachers’ effectiveness and how improvement in working conditions can enhance math teachers’ performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25, 95–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Lun, J. (2011). An Interaction-Based Approach to Enhancing Secondary School Instruction and Student Achievement. Science, 333, 1034–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., & Wieder, A. (2009). Teaching effectiveness and the conditions that matter most in high-needs schools: A policy brief. Carrboro, NC: Center for Teaching Quality. http://www.teachingquality.org/sites/default/files/Tch_effective_twc_final.pdf.

  • Berry, B., Daughtrey, A., & Wieder, A. (2010). Teacher effectiveness: The conditions that matter most and a look to the future. Carrboro: Center for Teaching Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Working with teachers to develop fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: MET Project Research Paper.

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012). Asking students about teaching: Student perception surveys and their implementation: MET Project Policy and Practice Summary. Seattle: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2011). Teacher mobility, school segregation, and pay-based policies to level the playing field. Education Finance and Policy, 6(3), 399–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosner, S. (2011). Teacher learning, instructional considerations and principal communication: Lessons from a longitudinal study of collaborative data use by teachers. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39(5), 568–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazerman, S., Loeb, S., Goldhaber, D., Staiger, D., Raudenbush, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanover Research (2013). Student Perception Surveys and Teacher Assessments, Washington, DC.

  • Hanushek, E. A. (1971). Teacher characteristics and gains in student achievement: Estimation using micro data. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 61(2), 280–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. Future of Children, 17(1), 69–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency reliability estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(3), 177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingersoll, R. M., & Perda, D. (2009). The Mathematics and science teacher shortage: Fact and myth. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) Research Report #RR-62.

  • Ingersoll, R. M., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 435–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. (2014). Are working conditions related to teacher effectiveness? 39th Annual conference of the association for education finance and policy. TX: San Antonio.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. K., & Bruegmann, E. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4), 85–108. doi:10.1257/app.1.4.85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. M. (2006). The workplace matters: Teacher quality, retention, and effectiveness. Washington, DC: NEA Professional Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in High-Need Schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL (version 8.80) [computer software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

  • Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation. NBER Working Paper 14607, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

  • Kyriakides, L. (2005). Drawing from teacher effectiveness research and research into teacher interpersonal behaviour to establish a teacher evaluation system: a study on the use of student ratings to evaluate teacher behaviour. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40(2), 44–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, H. F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: What did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, J. R., & McCaffrey, D. (2009). Exploring student-teacher interactions in longitudinal achievement data. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 439–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markley, T. (2006). Defining the effective teacher: Current arguments in education.

  • Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 237–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oesterle, M. (2008). Student Perceptions of Effective Teaching. (Doctor of Education), ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY.

  • Raudenbush, S. (2013). What do we know about using value-added to compare teachers who work in different schools?. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockoff, J. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings of the One Hundred Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, 94(2), 247–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, W., Wright, W., & Horn, S. (1997). Teacher and classroom context effects on student achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4(1), 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sass, T., Hannaway, J., Xu, Z., Figlio, D., & Feng, L. (2012). Value added of teachers in high-poverty schools and lower poverty schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 72(2–3), 104–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: The Milken Family Foundation and Educational Testing Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, M., & Rowan, B. (2014). User guide to measures of effective teaching longitudinal database. The University of Michigan.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education, Michigan State University, Room 240D Erickson Hall, 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Yincheng Ye

  2. Educational Research and Evaluation, Virginia Tech, 2104 VT CRC (0302), 1750 Kraft Dr., Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA

    Kusum Singh

Authors
  1. Yincheng Ye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kusum Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yincheng Ye.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ye, Y., Singh, K. The effect of working condition on math teacher effectiveness: value-added scores and student satisfaction in teaching. Educ Res Policy Prac 16, 283–295 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-016-9207-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-016-9207-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation