Advertisement

PROSPECTS

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 507–533 | Cite as

Teachers, student achievement and national income: A cross-national examination of relationships and interactions

  • Thomas F. Luschei
  • Amita Chudgar
OPEN FILE

Abstract

Despite costly global efforts to improve and reward teacher qualifications like education and experience, little international evidence exists on the relationship between these attributes and student achievement. It is also unclear whether these attributes are more important for disadvantaged children, or in lower-income countries. This article examines the relationships among teacher characteristics (experience, education, readiness to teach, and gender), student background, and fourth grade students’ mathematics and science achievement across 25 diverse countries participating in the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. The analysis revealed limited evidence that the teacher characteristics deemed important in teacher upgrading and compensation are systematically related to student test scores, or that these characteristics are more important for lower-income students. It also found no relationship between national income and the importance of these characteristics. These results add to increasing evidence that efforts to improve teacher quality must look beyond simply increasing and rewarding measurable teacher qualifications like education and experience. Further, those who design cross-national studies should consider developing richer measures of teacher skill and knowledge.

Keywords

Teacher quality Mathematics and science achievement Cross-national study TIMSS Fourth grade 

References

  1. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, D. P., Goesling, B., & Le Tendre, G. K. (2002). Socioeconomic status, school quality, and national economic development: A cross-national analysis of the “Heyneman-Loxley effect” on mathematics and science achievement. Comparative Education Review, 46(3), 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchmann, C., & Hannum, E. (2001). Education and stratification in developing countries: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chapman, D. W., & Quijada, J. J. (2009). An analysis of USAID assistance to basic education in the developing world, 1990–2005. International Journal of Educational Development, 29, 268–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiu, M. M., & Khoo, L. (2005). Effects of resources, inequality, and privilege bias on achievement: Country, school, and student level analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 575–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chudgar, A., & Luschei, T. F. (2009). National income, income inequality, and the importance of schools: A hierarchical cross-national comparison. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 626–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 377–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). How and why do credentials matter for student achievement? NBER working paper 12828. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, J. S., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  10. Cushman, P. (2005). Let’s hear it from the males: Issues facing male primary teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dee, T. S. (2006). The why chromosome: How a teacher’s gender affects boys and girls? Education Next, 4, 69–75.Google Scholar
  12. Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 465–498.Google Scholar
  13. Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 265–298). Washington, DC: Brookings.Google Scholar
  14. Fuller, B. (1987). What school factors raise achievement in the Third World? Review of Educational Research, 57, 255–292.Google Scholar
  15. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (2000). Does teacher certification matter? High school teacher certification status and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129–145.Google Scholar
  16. Goldhaber, D. D., Brewer, D. J., & Anderson, D. J. (1999). A three-way error components analysis of educational productivity. Education Economics, 7(3), 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gonzales, P., Guzmán, J. C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., et al. (2004). Highlights From the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study: TIMMS 2003. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  18. Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361–396.Google Scholar
  19. Hanushek, E. A. (1979). Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational production functions. The Journal of Human Resources, 14(3), 351–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in the public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141–1178.Google Scholar
  21. Hanushek, E. A. (1995). Education production functions. In M. Carnoy (Ed.), International encyclopedia of economics of education (2nd ed., pp. 277–282). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  22. Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141–164.Google Scholar
  23. Hanushek, E. A., & Luque, J. A. (2003). Efficiency and equity in schools around the world. Economics of Education Review, 22, 481–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). How to improve the supply of high-quality teachers? In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings papers on education policy 2004 (pp. 7–44). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hanushek, E. A., Rivkin, S. G., & Taylor, L. L. (1996). Aggregation and the estimated effects of school resources. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(2), 611–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harris, D. N. (2007). Diminishing marginal returns and the production of education: An international analysis. Education Economics, 15(1), 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris, D. N. (2009). Would accountability based on teacher value added be smart policy? An examination of the statistical properties and policy alternatives. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 319–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2009). The effects of NBPTS-certified teachers on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(1), 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heyneman, S. P., & Loxley, W. A. (1983). The effect of primary-school quality on academic achievement across twenty-nine high- and low-income countries. American Journal of Sociology, 88(6), 1162–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hill, H. C. (2007). Mathematical 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
  31. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation. NBER working paper 14607. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  33. King Rice, J. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, V. E., Zuze, T. L., & Ross, K. N. (2005). School effectiveness in 14 Sub-Saharan African countries: Links with 6th graders’ reading achievement. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31, 207–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Luschei, T. F. (2012). The effectiveness and distribution of male primary teachers: Evidence from two Mexican states. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(1), 145–154.Google Scholar
  37. Luschei, T. F., Dimyati, S., & Padmo, D. (2008). Maintaining e3-learning while transitioning to online instruction: The case of the open university of Indonesia. Distance Education, 29(2), 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Martin, M. O. (Ed.). (2005). TIMSS 2003 user guide for the international database. Boston, MA: Lynch School of Education, Boston College.Google Scholar
  39. Michigan State University (2011). Teacher education and development study in mathematics. http://teds.educ.msu.edu.
  40. Monk, D. H. (1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13(2), 125–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Monk, D. H., & King, J. (1994). Multi-level teacher resource effects on pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science: The role of teacher subject matter preparation. In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Contemporary policy issues: Choices and consequences in education (pp. 29–58). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
  42. OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation, Development] (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  43. OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation, Development] (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  44. Riddell, A. R. (1989). An alternative approach to the study of school effectiveness in third world countries. Comparative Education Review, 33(4), 481–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. TIMSS [Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study] (2003). International fourth grade database. http://timss.bc.edu/timss2003.html.
  47. UIS [UNESCO Institute for Statistics] and OECD [Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development] (2005). Education trends in perspective. Montreal: UIS.Google Scholar
  48. UIS [UNESCO Institute for Statistics] (2006). Teachers and educational quality: Monitoring global needs for 2015. Montreal: UIS.Google Scholar
  49. UIS [UNESCO Institute for Statistics] (2008). Custom tables. http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/.
  50. USAID [United States Agency for International Development] (2009a). About DBE. http://dbe.rti.org/about/.
  51. USAID [United States Agency for International Development] (2009b). Education in Pakistan. http://www.usaid.gov/pk/education/index.htm.
  52. World Bank (2008a). Country classification. http://go.worldbank.org/K2CKM78CC0.
  53. World Bank (2008b). World development indicators online. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators.
  54. Zhang, Y. (2006). Urban-rural literacy gaps in Sub-Saharan Africa: The roles of socioeconomic status and school quality. Comparative Education Review, 50(4), 581–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© UNESCO IBE 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Educational StudiesClaremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational AdministrationMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations