Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement: Implications for Teacher Evaluation

  • William L. Sanders
  • S. Paul Wright
  • Sandra P. Horn


The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) has been designed to use statistical mixed-model methodologies to conduct multivariate, longitudinal analyses of student achievement to make estimates of school, class size, teacher, and other effects. This study examined the relative magnitude of teacher effects on student achievement while simultaneously considering the influences of intraclassroom heterogeneity, student achievement level, and class size on academic growth. The results show that teacher effects are dominant factors affecting student academic gain and that the classroom context variables of heterogeneity among students and class sizes have relatively little influence on academic gain. Thus, a major conclusion is that teachers make a difference. Implications of the findings for teacher evaluation and future research are discussed.


Class Size Relative Magnitude Dominant Factor Student Achievement Context 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. Berk, R. (1988). Fifty reasons why student achievement gains does not mean teacher effectiveness. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(4) 345–364.Google Scholar
  2. Brophy, J. (1968). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist (October), 1069–1077.Google Scholar
  3. CTB/McGraw-Hill (1990). Comprehensive test of basic skills (4th ed.). Spring Norms Book. Monterey, CA: CTB/Macmillan/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. Ellett, C. D. (1990). A new generation of classroom-based assessments of teaching and learning: Concepts, issues and controversies from pilots of the Louisiana STAR. Baton Rouge: Teaching Internship and Statewide Teacher Evaluation Projects, College of Education, Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
  5. Kulik, J. A. (1992). An analysis of the research on ability grouping: Historical and contemporary perspectives. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  6. O'Neil, J. (1992). On tracking and individual differences: A conversation with Jeannie Oakes. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 18–21.Google Scholar
  7. Peterson, D., Kromrey, J., & Smith, D. C. (1990). Research-based teacher evaluation: A response to Scriven. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4(1), 7–18.Google Scholar
  8. Porter, A. C., & Brophy, J. (1988). Synthesis of research on good teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Educational Leadership, 45(8), (May), 74–85.Google Scholar
  9. Rogers, K. B., & Kimpston, R. D. (1992). Acceleration: What we do vs. what we know. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 58–61.Google Scholar
  10. Rosenthal, R. (2984). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1995a). Educational assessment reassessed: The usefulness of standardized and alternative measures of student achievement as indicators for the assessment of educational outcomes. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 3(6).Google Scholar
  12. Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1995b). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS): Mixed model methodology in educational assessment. In A. J. Shinkfield & D. Stufflebeam (Eds.), Teacher evaluation: Guide to effective practice (pp. 337–350). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Research Progress Report. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.Google Scholar
  14. Sanders, W. L., Saxton, A. M., & Horn, S. P. (In press). The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment Systems (TVAAS): A quantitative, outcome-based approach to educational assessment. In J. Millman (Ed.), Assuring accountability? Using gains in student learning to evaluate teachers and schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  15. Schalock, H. A., & Schalock, M. D. (1993). Student learning in teacher evaluation and school improvement: An introduction. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 7(2), 103–104.Google Scholar
  16. Scriven, M. (1990). Can research-based teacher evaluation be saved? Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 4(1), 19–39.Google Scholar
  17. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293–336.Google Scholar
  18. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Achievement effects of ability grouping in secondary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 471–499.Google Scholar
  19. Travers, R. M. W. (1981). Criteria of good teaching. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 14–22). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base of school learning. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 249–294.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • William L. Sanders
    • 1
  • S. Paul Wright
    • 1
  • Sandra P. Horn
    • 1
  1. 1.Value-Added ResearchAssessment CenterUniversity of TennesseeKnoxville

Personalised recommendations