Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing the productivity of schools through two “what works” inputs, teacher quality and teacher effectiveness

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

Abstract

This paper is a critique of the school education productivity evaluation and two research constructs germane to it, teacher quality and teacher effectiveness. The paper will argue that policy inceptions of teacher quality and teacher effectiveness proxy for the productive capacity of schools and more broadly, school systems. Student achievement scores as determined by high stakes testing are the school education outputs of policy significance in current times while inputs thought to matter are increasingly tapered towards the particular characteristics of classroom teachers, specifically their quality (usually credentials) and effectiveness (teaching behaviours). The paper finds that attributing school system success largely to teachers and their work, especially in terms of their classroom teaching practice(s), distorts the school education policy agenda so that evaluations of school productivity purely serve accountability purposes.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. An alternative select entry pathway into teaching, Teach For Australia (TFA) is modelled on its US and UK counterparts, Teach For America and Teach First. Structured ‘within a concept of mission’, teacher education candidates are chosen for their capacity to make a ‘significant difference to the learning outcomes of the most disadvantaged students, and contribute to the elimination of the differences in educational achievement that exist between wealthy and poor students’ (Suzanne et al. 2015, 498). Selected candidates undergo a five- to six-week training/education program before they are then placed into some of the most disadvantaged schools. While results are mixed (see Suzanne et al. 2015) as to if candidates trained in this way remain in the classroom, Rice et al. maintain that teaching long term per se is not seen as essential as ‘alumni will move into other roles following their stint as a teacher...to become leaders in policy, law, government, and business, and to carry with them into these roles a commitment to improving the educational outcomes of the disadvantaged, and to bring to such positions of influence a first-hand knowledge of disadvantaged schools and the challenges they face’ (2015, 500).

  2. The current Australian government is a coalition (partnership) between the Australian Liberal Party led by the Prime Minister, Mr. Malcolm Turnbull and their parliamentary partners, the Nationals led by Mr. Barnaby Joyce. The coalition as it is known represents the “right” or what can be termed the Conservative side of Australian politics.

  3. The Teacher Education Ministerial Advisory Group also known as the TEMAG was commissioned by the Coalition government in 2014 to provide advice to government on the substantive changes needed in teacher education across Australia. The TEMAG was a government appointed panel comprised of five academic members, two Principals (one now a director of the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL), the other from the independent “non-public” school sector), the Independent Schools Chief Executive Officer and a representative from Learning First, an independent education research and consulting firm that lists among its supporters and clients, AITSL, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Center On Education And The Economy, the Center for American Progress, the OECD, and Microsoft.

  4. Year 12 is the final year of secondary school in Australia.

References

  • Alexander, K., Salmon, R. G., & Alexander, K. F. (2015). Financing public schools. Theory, policy and practice. New York: Routledge.

  • Au, W. W. (2008). Devising inequality: A bernsteinian analysis of high-stakes testing and social reproduction in education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(6), 639–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, B., & Welner, K. G. (2012). Evidence and rigor: Scrutinizing the rhetorical embrace of evidence-based decision making. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 98–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. C. (1987). Simple views of effective teaching and a simple theory of classroom instruction. In D. C. Berliner & B. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 93–110). New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (2004). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (2014). On the state. Lectures at the College de France 1989–1992 (trans David Fernback). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

  • Cheng, Y. C., & Tsui, K. T. (1999). Multimodels of teacher effectiveness: Implications for research. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(3), 141–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1972). Coleman on the Coleman Report. Educational Researcher, 1(3), 13–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, R. (2002). Making the difference, then and now. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 23(3), 319–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demack, S., Drew, D., & Grimsley, M. (2000). Minding the gap: Ethnic, gender and social class differences in attainment at 16, 1988–95. Race Ethnicity and Education, 3(2), 117–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education and Training (2015). Students first strategy: Teacher quality. Government of Australia. Available March 1, 2015 from http://www.studentsfirst.gov.au/teacher-quality.

  • Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. In L. A. Hickman & T. M. Alexander (Eds.), The essential Dewey. Pragmatism education democracy (Vol. 1, pp. 250–257). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

  • Diem, S., Young, M. C., Welton, A. D., Mansfield, K. C., & Lee, P. (2014). The intellectual landscape of critical policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 27(9), 1068–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evertson, C. M. (1982). Differences in instructional activities in higher and lower achieving junior high English and Math classes. Elementary School Journal, 82(4), 329–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, T. (1994). Story-telling and policy making: The construction of university entrance problems in Australia. Journal of Education Policy, 9(3), 227–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gale, T., & Molla, T. (2015). Social justice intents in policy: An analysis of capability for and through education. Journal of Education Policy, 30(6), 810–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giroux, H. A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber, D., Lavery, L., & Theobald, R. (2015). Uneven playing field? Assessing the teacher quality gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Educational Researcher, 44(5), 293–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1986). School effects. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorur, R., & Wu, M. (2015). Leaning too far? PISA, policy and Australia’s ‘top five’ ambitions. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36(5), 647–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, D. (2015). Education reform and the concept of good teaching. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A. (1979). Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational production functions. The Journal of Human Resources, 14(3), 351–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 49(3), 1141–1177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (2014). Seventeen contradictions and the end of capitalism. London, UK: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. Maximising impact on learning. London, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, W. G. (2015). Results of president Obama’s race to the top. Education Next, 15(4), 58–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imig, D. G., & Imig, S. R. (2006). The teacher effectiveness movement: How 80 years of essentialist control have shaped the teacher education profession. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karmel, P. (2000). Resourcing schools. Dialogue, 19(2), 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karmel, P. (2000). Resourcing schools. Dialogue, 19(2), 7–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konstantopoulos, S., & Sun, M. (2013). School effectiveness and school Improvement: Are teacher effects larger in small classes? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(3), 312–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingard, B. (2010). Policy borrowing, policy learning: Testing times in Australian schooling. Critical Studies in Education, 51(2), 129–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S., Guido, S., & Ludger, W. (2008). The future of European education and training systems: Key challenges and their implications, analytical report for the European commission prepared by the European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE). Germany: Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, P., & Voon, D. (2011). Lessons from my school. The Australian Economic Review, 44(4), 366–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D., & Ecob, R. (1988). School matters. Somerset Wells: Open Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, D. (2006). Measuring teacher effectiveness: Some methodological reflections. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(1), 53–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timperley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 25(2), 231–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2005). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2011). Effective teaching. Evidence and practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, E., Faucher, T. A., & Eaton, W. W. (1978). A new perspective on the effects of first grade teachers on children’s subsequent status. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pugach, M. C. (2009). Because teaching matters: An introduction to the profession. Hoboken, US: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawolle, S., & Lingard, B. (2015). Bourdieu and doing policy sociology in education, in education policy and contemporary theory. In K. N. Gulson, M. Clarke, & P. E. Bendix (Eds.), Implications for research (pp. 15–26). Florence, KY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, S., Volkoff, V., & Dulfer, N. (2015). Teach for/teach first candidates: What conclusions do they draw from their time in teaching? Teachers and Teaching, 21(5), 497–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, W. (2004). Power to teach. London: Woburn Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94, 247–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland?. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, H., Davies, N. M., & Burgess, S. (2012). Do teachers matter? Measuring the variation in teacher effectiveness in England. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74, 629–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in ‘new times’: Using critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 433–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, P. (2008). Answering back to policy? Headteachers’ stress and the logic of the sympathetic interview. Journal of Education Policy, 23(6), 649–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Race To The Top. Government of the U.S. Available July 2, 2015 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12/race-to-the-top.

  • Wrigley, T. (2013). Rethinking school effectiveness and improvement: A question of paradigms. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(1), 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Victoria, 3125, Australia

    Andrew Skourdoumbis

Authors
  1. Andrew Skourdoumbis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Skourdoumbis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Skourdoumbis, A. Assessing the productivity of schools through two “what works” inputs, teacher quality and teacher effectiveness . Educ Res Policy Prac 16, 205–217 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-016-9210-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-016-9210-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation