Cited by 118School Choice and PerformanceSchool Leadership and Teacher PerformanceManagement and Performance Evaluation

Principals as Agents: Subjective Performance Measurement in Education

Open access
Jacob, Brian, Lefgren, Lars·2005·National Bureau of Economic Research

Abstract

In this paper, we compare subjective principal assessments of teachers to the traditional determinants of teacher compensation -education and experience -and another potential compensation mechanism --value-added measures of teacher effectiveness based on student achievement gains.We find that subjective principal assessments of teachers predict future student achievement significantly better than teacher experience, education or actual compensation, though not as well as value-added teacher quality measures.In particular, principals appear quite good at identifying those teachers who produce the largest and smallest standardized achievement gains in their schools, but have far less ability to distinguish between teachers in the middle of this distribution and systematically discriminate against male and untenured faculty.Moreover, we find that a principal's overall rating of a teacher is a substantially better predictor of future parent requests for that teacher than either the teacher's experience, education and current compensation or the teacher's valueadded achievement measure.These findings not only inform education policy, but also shed light on subjective performance assessment more generally.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3386/w11463

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Estimating variation in post-hoc predicted shrunken empirical Bayes estimates would bias variance estimates downward relative to measurement error.

    “Alternatively, estimating the variation in post-hoc predicted “shrunken” empirical Bayes estimates would bias our variance estimate downward relative to the size of the measurement error (Jacob & Lefgren, 2005).”

    From Teacher and Teaching Effects on Students’ Attitudes and Behaviors (2017) · cites this paper as Jacob & Lefgren, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jacob, B., & Lefgren, L.
Affiliations
Brigham Young University (US)
Venue
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2005-07
OpenAlex
W3121560585
Cited by
118
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 10
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Leadership and Teacher Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Performance Evaluation
Keywords
subjective performance evaluation, teacher compensation, value-added measures, teacher effectiveness, student achievement improvement, teacher experiences, teacher professional development, untenured faculty, school principals

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review