Susanna Loeb

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Susanna Loeb
NationalityAmerican
Academic career
Institution
FieldEducational economics
Alma materStanford University
University of Michigan
Doctoral
advisor		Paul Courant
ContributionsEducational policy
Policy analysis
AwardsAmerican 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.

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]

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, H., Loeb, S., Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools: A Descriptive Analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), pp. 37-62.
  10. ^ Boyd, D. et al. (2005). The draw of home: How teachers' preferences for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(1), pp. 113-132.
  11. ^ Boyd, D. et al. (2005). Explaining the short careers of high-achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. American Economic Review, 95(2), pp. 166-171.
  12. ^ Boyd, D.J. et al. (2006). Complex by Design: Investigating Pathways Into Teaching in New York City Schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(2), pp. 155-166.
  13. ^ Boyd, D. et al. (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(1), pp. 88-110.
  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, D. et al. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), pp. 303-333.
  17. ^ Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., Wyckoff, J. (2013). How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), pp. 4-36.
  18. ^ Boyd, D. et al. (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), pp. 793-818.
  19. ^ Boyd, D. et al. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), pp. 176-216.
  20. ^ Boyd, D.J. et al. (2009). Teacher Preparation and Student Achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), pp. 416-440.
  21. ^ von Hippel, P. T., & Bellows, L. (2018). How much does teacher quality vary across teacher preparation programs? Reanalyses from six states. Economics of Education Review, 64, 298-312.
  22. ^ Grossman, P. et al. (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), pp. 445-470.
  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.

External links

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Susanna_Loeb"