Susanna Loeb

Last updated
Susanna Loeb
Ford School Susanna Loeb 50m48s.jpg
NationalityAmerican
Academic career
Institution
Field Educational economics
Alma materStanford University
University of Michigan
Doctoral
advisor		 Paul Courant
Contributions Educational policy
Policy analysis
Awards American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Susanna Loeb is an American education economist and director of the Annenberg Institute at Brown University. She was previously the Barnett Family Professor of Education at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, [1] where she also served as founding director of the Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA). [2] Moreover, she directs Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). [3] Her research interests include the economics of education and the relationship between schools and educational policies, in particular school finance and teacher labor markets.

Contents

In 2020, Loeb was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. [4]

Biography

Susanna Loeb earned a B.S. in civil engineering and a B.A. in political science from Stanford University in 1988, followed by an M.P.P. in public policy and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan in 1994 and 1998. Since, 2005, Loeb has been the director of Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), a non-partisan research center dedicated to research on California's education system. [5] From 2006 to 2009, Loeb directed the Institute for Research on Education Policy and Practice (IREPP), which subsequently became the Center for Education Policy Analysis and as director of which she also served until 2015. [6] Moreover, since 2009, she has been a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. [7] Additionally, Loeb maintains affiliations with the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and the National Board for Education Sciences. Finally, she currently performs editorial duties for the Economics of Education Review , Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , and Education Finance and Policy . On July 1, 2018, she became the director of the Annenberg Institute at Brown University. [8]

In 2007, Loeb's research on teacher education was awarded the Distinguished Research in Teacher Education Award by the Association of Teacher Educators.

Research

Research on teacher labour markets

One major area of Susanna Loeb's research concerns the labour markets of teachers, which she has explored notably with Donald Boyd, James Wyckoff, Hamilton Lankford, and Pamela Grossman. Analysing the sorting of teachers by qualifications in New York with Lankford and Wyckoff, Loeb found that low-income, low-achieving and non-white students, especially in urban schools, are generally taught by the least skilled teachers, with salaries rarely leaning against and sometimes even contributing to this sorting. [9] In further research with Boyd, they find teacher labour markets' spatial scope to be very small as teachers display strong preferences for proximity, which in turn makes it more difficult for urban schools to recruit new, well-qualified teachers. [10] Overall, they attribute teacher sorting to a combination of more qualified teachers being more likely to leave schools with very low-performing students and schools with such students generally experiencing higher turnover than other schools, [11] [12] though high growth in student achievement can effectively act as a retention mechanism for effective teachers in low-achieving schools. [13] In particular, effective teachers tend to leave low-achieving schools (but not high-achieving schools) within their second and third years at these schools, thereby likely contributing to the widening of the learning outcomes between students; by contrast, less effective teachers tend to leave both low- and high-performing schools within their first year. [14] Studying why exactly teachers at low-performing schools in California are more likely to request transfers, Loeb and her co-authors find low teacher salaries and bad working conditions in schools (e.g. large class sizes, facilities problems, multitrack schools, and lack of textbooks) to be the main reasons besides negative interactions with students, [15] though similar research in New York City by Loeb instead finds that teachers' (negative) perceptions of the school administrations are the main driver behind transfers. [16] The resulting teacher turnover evidently harms students' test scores in math and English language arts, especially in schools with many Black and low-performing students. [17]

However, narrowing the gap between the qualifications of teachers in high- and low-performing schools is possible; for example, the NYC Teaching Fellows and Teach for America initiatives were able to substantially reduce such a gap between New York City's low- and high-poverty schools over 2000-2005 by substituting uncertified teachers in high-poverty schools by academically qualified teachers. [18] Further research by Loeb and her co-authors on teachers' preparation and recruitment has found that teachers with reduced pre-job coursework often provide smaller initial gains in both math and English language arts when compared to teachers who completed a university-based teacher education programme, though most differences disappear as the cohort matures. [19] Another article suggested that New York City teacher preparation programmes' vary in their impact on teachers' value added to student test score performance, [20] though a later reanalysis found no differences between programs except for one small outlier. [21]

A 2013 study by Loeb and her colleagues teachers who have the highest value added to student test performance have distinctly different instructional practice profiles, e.g. consistently scoring better on Explicit Strategy Instruction. [22] Finally, in research with Marianne Page, Loeb finds that - contrary to earlier estimates - raising teacher wages by 10% reduces high school dropout rates by 3-4% once the true opportunity costs of being a teacher - e.g. alternative wage opportunities and non-pecuniary job attributes - are taken into account. [23]

Research on principals

A second and more recent area of Loeb's research studies the role of principals with regard to school and student success. In research with Eileen Horng and Daniel Klasik, Loeb finds that the time used by school principals on organization management activities improves school and student outcomes, whereas day-to-day instruction activities tend to have no effect on student performance and deteriorate teachers' and parents' school assessments. [24] More specifically, she finds in a study with Jason Grissom and Benjamin Master, that if principals use their instructional time to coach teachers, evaluate performance and develop their schools' educational programmes, their instructional time tends to predict student achievement gains, whereas time spent on informal classroom walkthroughs has the opposite effect. [25] [26] Moreover, only principals' organization management skills are found to consistently predict student achievement growth and other measures of school success. [27] In other research with Demetra Kalogrides and Tara Béteille, Loeb observes that principal turnover generally decreases school performance by reducing teacher retention and depressing student achievement gains, with the effect being particularly pronounced in high-poverty or low-achieving schools as well as in schools with inexperienced teachers. [28] Furthermore, principals with less experience as well as with less and lower-quality education tend to sort to schools serving many low-income, non-White, and low-achieving students, as high-quality principals tend to transfer away faster from such schools. [29] Taking the perspective of schools, Loeb, Kalogrides and Béteille find that more effective schools succeed in attracting and hiring more effective teachers from other schools, assign inexperienced teachers more equitably over grades, and are better at retaining high-quality teachers. [30]

Research on Head Start, school size, preschool childcare, and school accountability

Two topics that Loeb has researched with Valerie Lee are the fading effects of the Head Start Programme and the impact of school sizes. With regard to Head Start, they find that former attendees of Head Start tend to be educated in comparatively low-quality middle grade schools, which structurally undermined the long-term effects of participation in Head Start and partly explains why only little benefits were observed. [31] Regarding the impact of school size, they observe that the attitudes of teachers regarding their responsibility for student learning benefit tend to be higher in smaller schools and - through this pathway - increase elementary school students' annual gains in mathematics achievement scores. [32]

In research with Martin Carnoy, Loeb finds that students in high-accountability states averaged significantly higher gains on the NAEP 8th-grade math tests compared to students in state with little or no external accountability, though there is no significant effect on student retention or high school completion rates. [33] Loeb extensively reviews the literature on school accountability in her corresponding article with David Figlio in the Handbook of the Economics of Education. [34]

Finally, together with an eclectic range of co-authors, Loeb has analysed the effect of different types of childcare on children's development. In particular, Loeb finds that childcare in preschool centers raises reading and math scores but negatively affects socio-behavioural measures (except for English-proficient Hispanic children), with the duration of childcare, the age at which children start attending preschool centers (optimally at age 2-3), and the intensity of childcare all playing important roles regarding the overall effect. [35] Moreover, center-based childcare programmes are found to increase the cognitive growth of children from poor families, especially if caregivers are more sensitive and responsive, improve their social development if caregivers are highly educated, and reduce behavioural problems compared to children in poor communities who receive family childcare. [36]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No Child Left Behind Act</span> 2002 United States education reform law; repealed 2015

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a U.S. Act of Congress promoted by the Presidency of George W. Bush. It reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and included Title I provisions applying to disadvantaged students. It mandated standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals could improve individual outcomes in education. To receive federal school funding, states had to create and give assessments to all students at select grade levels.

A headmaster/headmistress, head teacher, head, school administrator, principal or school director is the staff member of a school with the greatest responsibility for the management of the school.

Education policy consists of the principles and policy decisions that influence the field of education, as well as the collection of laws and rules that govern the operation of education systems. Education governance may be shared between the local, state, and federal government at varying levels. Some analysts see education policy in terms of social engineering.

Geoffrey D. Borman is an American quantitative methodologist and policy analyst. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in 1997 and is currently the Alice Wiley Snell Endowed Professor at Arizona State University, Director of the Arizona State University Education Sciences Graduate Program, and Editor of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tracking (education)</span> Separation of students by ability

Tracking is separating students by academic ability into groups for all subjects or certain classes and curriculum within a school. It may be referred to as streaming or phasing in some schools.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eric Hanushek</span> American economist

Eric Alan Hanushek is an economist who has written prolifically on public policy with a special emphasis on the economics of education. Since 2000, he has been a Paul and Jean Hanna Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, an American public policy think tank located at Stanford University in California. He was awarded the Yidan Prize for Education Research in 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Class-size reduction</span>

As an educational reform goal, class size reduction (CSR) aims to increase the number of individualized student-teacher interactions intended to improve student learning. A reform long holding theoretical attraction to many constituencies, some have claimed CSR as the most studied educational reform of the last century. Until recently, interpretations of these studies have often been contentious. Some educational groups like the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association are in favor of reducing class sizes. Others argue that class size reduction has little effect on student achievement. Many are concerned about the costs of reducing class sizes.

The Woodrow Wilson Teaching Fellowship is a program of the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation that recruits, supports, and prepares individuals for teaching careers, typically in fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

Value-added modeling is a method of teacher evaluation that measures the teacher's contribution in a given year by comparing the current test scores of their students to the scores of those same students in previous school years, as well as to the scores of other students in the same grade. In this manner, value-added modeling seeks to isolate the contribution, or value added, that each teacher provides in a given year, which can be compared to the performance measures of other teachers. VAMs are considered to be fairer than simply comparing student achievement scores or gain scores without considering potentially confounding context variables like past performance or income. It is also possible to use this approach to estimate the value added by the school principal or the school as a whole.

Last in First Out is a policy often used by school districts and other employers to prioritize layoffs by seniority. Under LIFO layoff rules, junior teachers and other employees lose their jobs before senior ones. Laying off junior employees first is not exclusive to the education sector or to the United States, but is perhaps most controversial there. LIFO's proponents claim that it protects teachers with tenure and gives them job stability, and that it is an easily administered way of accomplishing layoffs following a budget cut. LIFO's critics respond that it is bad for students. They prefer that the best teachers remain regardless of how long they have been teaching.

The racial achievement gap in the United States refers to disparities in educational achievement between differing ethnic/racial groups. It manifests itself in a variety of ways: African-American and Hispanic students are more likely to earn lower grades, score lower on standardized tests, drop out of high school, and they are less likely to enter and complete college than whites, while whites score lower than Asian Americans.

Teacher retention is a field of education research that focuses on how factors such as school characteristics and teacher demographics affect whether teachers stay in their schools, move to different schools, or leave the profession before retirement. The field developed in response to a perceived shortage in the education labor market in the 1990s. The most recent meta-analysis establishes that school factors, teacher factors, and external and policy factors are key factors that influence teacher attrition and retention. Teacher attrition is thought to be higher in low income schools and in high need subjects like math, science, and special education. More recent evidence suggests that school organizational characteristics has significant effects on teacher decisions to stay or leave.

The Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA) is a research center at the Stanford Graduate School of Education dedicated to action-oriented research on education policies. CEPA's research focuses on the impact of poverty and inequality on educational achievement, the evaluation of federal and state education policy, teaching and leadership effectiveness, and technological innovations in education. CEPA was established in 2009 as part of the Stanford Challenge, a multidisciplinary initiative at Stanford University aimed at improving K-12 education. It is ranked as the 10th most influential education policy think tank worldwide by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Helen May</span> New Zealand education academic

Helen May is a New Zealand education pioneer. She has been an eloquent activist and academic in education, with a strong feminist focus on early childhood education. Her advocacy has been characterised by its focus on the rights and needs of children and teachers, expressed by an active and collaborative engagement with educational institutions, trade unions, the Ministry of Education and other government agencies.

Thomas S. Dee is an American economist and the Barnett Family Professor of Education at Stanford University, where he also directs the John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities.

Martin Carnoy is an American labour economist and Vida Jacks Professor of Education at the Stanford Graduate School of Education. He is an elected member of the National Academy of Education as well as of the International Academy of Education. Professor Carnoy has graduated nearly 100 PhD students, a record at Stanford University.

Brian Aaron Jacob is an American economist and a professor of public policy, economics and education at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy of the University of Michigan. There, he also currently serves as co-director of the. In 2008, Jacob's research on education policy was awarded the David N. Kershaw Award, which is given by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management and honours persons who have made a distinguished contribution to the field of public policy analysis and management before the age of 40. His doctoral advisor at the University of Chicago was Freakonomics author Steven Levitt.

Jonah E. Rockoff is an American education economist and currently works as Professor of Finance and Economics at the Columbia Graduate School of Business. Rockoff's research interests include the economics of education and public finance. His research on the management of public schools has been awarded the 2016 George S. Eccles Research Award in Finance and Economics by Columbia Business School.

James H. Wyckoff is a U.S.-American education economist who currently serves as Memorial Professor of Education and Public Policy at the University of Virginia, where he is also the Director of the Center for Education Policy and Workforce Competitiveness. His research on the impact of teacher compensation on teacher performance has been awarded the Raymond Vernon Memorial Award of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management in 2015.

Helen F. Ladd is an education economist who currently works as the Susan B. King Professor Emeritus of Public Policy and Economics at Duke University's Sanford School of Public Policy. In recognition of her research on the economics of education, she has been elected to the National Academy for Education and the National Academy of Sciences.

References

  1. ↑ Profile of Susanna Loeb on the website of Stanford University. Retrieved March 30th, 2018.
  2. ↑ Steering Committee of CEPA. Retrieved March 30th, 2018.
  3. ↑ 'People' section on the PACE website. Retrieved March 30th, 2018.
  4. ↑ "Susanna Loeb". American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Retrieved 2022-02-20.
  5. ↑ 'About Us' section on the PACE website. Retrieved March 30th, 2018.
  6. ↑ Curriculum vitae of Susanna Loeb from the website of CEPA. Retrieved March 30th, 2018.
  7. ↑ Profile of Susanna Loeb on the website of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. Retrieved March 30th, 2018.
  8. ↑ "Education policy expert to lead Annenberg Institute for School Reform". Brown University. 2017-08-28. Retrieved 2018-03-29.
  9. ↑ Lankford, Hamilton; Loeb, Susanna; Wyckoff, James (2002). "Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools: A Descriptive Analysis". Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 24: 37–62. doi:10.3102/01623737024001037.
  10. ↑ Boyd, Donald; Lankford, Hamilton; Loeb, Susanna; Wyckoff, James (2005). "The draw of home: How teachers' preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 24: 113–132. doi:10.1002/pam.20072.
  11. ↑ Boyd, Donald; Lankford, Hamilton; Loeb, Susanna; Wyckoff, James (2005). "Explaining the Short Careers of High-Achieving Teachers in Schools with Low-Performing Students". American Economic Review. 95 (2): 166–171. doi:10.1257/000282805774669628.
  12. ↑ Boyd, Donald J.; Grossman, Pam; Lankford, Hamilton; Loeb, Susanna; Michelli, Nicholas M.; Wyckoff, Jim (2006). "Complex by Design". Journal of Teacher Education. 57 (2): 155–166. doi:10.1177/0022487105285943.
  13. ↑ Boyd, Don; Lankford, Hamp; Loeb, Susanna; Ronfeldt, Matthew; Wyckoff, Jim (2011). "The role of teacher quality in retention and hiring: Using applications to transfer to uncover preferences of teachers and schools". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 30: 88–110. doi:10.1002/pam.20545.
  14. ↑ Boyd, Donald; et al. (May 2008). "Who Leaves? Teacher Attrition and Student Achievement". NBER Working Paper No. 14022. doi: 10.3386/w14022 .
  15. ↑ Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., Luczak, J. (2005). Teaching Conditions Predict Teacher Turnover in California Schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), pp. 44-70.
  16. ↑ Boyd, Donald; Grossman, Pam; Ing, Marsha; Lankford, Hamilton; Loeb, Susanna; Wyckoff, James (2011). "The Influence of School Administrators on Teacher Retention Decisions". American Educational Research Journal. 48 (2): 303–333. doi:10.3102/0002831210380788. ISSN   0002-8312.
  17. ↑ Ronfeldt, Matthew; Loeb, Susanna; Wyckoff, James (2013). "How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement". American Educational Research Journal. 50 (1): 4–36. doi:10.3102/0002831212463813. ISSN   0002-8312.
  18. ↑ Boyd, Donald; Lankford, Hamilton; Loeb, Susanna; Rockoff, Jonah; Wyckoff, James (2008). "The narrowing gap in New York City teacher qualifications and its implications for student achievement in high-poverty schools". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 27 (4): 793–818. doi:10.1002/pam.20377. ISSN   0276-8739.
  19. ↑ Boyd, Donald; Grossman, Pamela; Lankford, Hamilton; Loeb, Susanna; Wyckoff, James (2006). "How Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement". Education Finance and Policy. 1 (2): 176–216. doi:10.1162/edfp.2006.1.2.176.
  20. ↑ Boyd, Donald J.; Grossman, Pamela L.; Lankford, Hamilton; Loeb, Susanna; Wyckoff, James (2009). "Teacher Preparation and Student Achievement". Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 31 (4): 416–440. doi:10.3102/0162373709353129. ISSN   0162-3737.
  21. ↑ von Hippel, Paul T.; Bellows, Laura (2018). "How much does teacher quality vary across teacher preparation programs? Reanalyses from six states". Economics of Education Review. 64: 298–312. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.01.005. PMC   10846890 . PMID   38323099.
  22. ↑ Grossman, Pam; Loeb, Susanna; Cohen, Julie; Wyckoff, James (2013). "Measure for Measure: The Relationship between Measures of Instructional Practice in Middle School English Language Arts and Teachers' Value-Added Scores". American Journal of Education. 119 (3): 445–470. doi:10.1086/669901. ISSN   0195-6744.
  23. ↑ Loeb, S., Page, M.E. (2000). Examining the link between teacher wages and student outcomes: The importance of alternative labor market opportunities and non-pecuniary variation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(3), pp. 393-408.
  24. ↑ Horng, E.L., Klasik, D., Loeb, S. (2010). Principal's time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), pp. 3-31.
  25. ↑ Grissom J.A., Loeb, S., Master, B. (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), pp.433-444.
  26. ↑ Horng, E., Loeb, S. (2010). New thinking about instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappa, 92(3), pp. 66-69.
  27. ↑ Grissom, J.A., Loeb, S. (2011). Triangulating principal effectiveness: How perspectives of parents, teachers, and assistant principals identify the central importance of managerial skills. American Educational Research Journal 48(5), pp. 1091-1123.
  28. ↑ Béteille, T., Kalogrides, D., Loeb, S. (2012). Stepping stones: Principal career paths and school outcomes. Social Science Research, 41(4), pp. 904-919.
  29. ↑ Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., Horng, E.L. (2010). Principal preferences and the uneven distribution of principals across schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), pp. 205-229.
  30. ↑ Loeb, S., Kalogrides, D., Béteille, T. (2012). Effective schools: Teacher hiring, assignment, development, and retention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(4), pp. 505-527.
  31. ↑ Lee, V.E., Loeb, S. (1995). Where do Head Start attendees end up? One reason why preschool effects fade out. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(1), pp. 62-82.
  32. ↑ Lee, V.E., Loeb, S. (2000). School size in Chicago elementary schools: Effects on teachers' attitudes and students' achievements. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), pp. 3-31.
  33. ↑ Carnoy, M., Loeb, S. (2002). Does External Accountability Affect Student Outcomes? A Cross-State Analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), pp. 305-331.
  34. ↑ Figlio, D., Loeb, S. (2011). School accountability. In: Hanushek, E.A., Wößmann, L. (eds.). Handbook of the Economics of Education, vol. 4. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 383-421.
  35. ↑ Loeb, S. et al. (2007). How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers on children's social and cognitive development. Economics of Education Review, 26(1), pp. 52-55.
  36. ↑ Loeb, S. et al. (2004). Child care in poor communities: Early learning effects of type, quality, and stability. Child Development, 75(1), pp. 47-65.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.