Improving Teacher Quality through the

Teacher Hiring Process

July 2019

Katherine Key Tim R. Sass

Georgia State University Georgia State University
 Improving Teacher Quality through the Teacher Hiring Process
HIGHLIGHTS
• Teachers with better grades in college tend to
have higher classroom observational ratings,
are more likely to persist past the first year in
the school in which they are placed and have
better attendance rates in their first year, but
principals do not appear to consider college
GPA when making hiring decisions.
• Teachers who applied early in the hiring
season (before April) have better classroom
observations scores and are more likely to stay
in their initial placement school than those
who apply later, but application timing does
not factor into hiring decisions.
• Candidates with advanced degrees are more
likely to receive an offer of employment than
MOTIVATION
Of the various school-based determinants of
student achievement, teachers are the most
important (Rivkin, Hanushek, and Kain, 2005;
Aaronson, Barrow, and Sander 2007; Kane, Rockoff,
and Staiger, 2008). Further, teachers who boost
student test scores the most are also able to
improve adult outcomes of their students (Chetty et
al., 2011; Chetty, Friedman, and Rockoff, 2014).
There are a number of potential mechanisms for
increasing teacher quality, such as improving current
teachers’ skills, enhancing teachers’ incentives to
maximize their performance, and differentially
retaining superior teachers. This brief focuses on
another promising avenue for enhancing teacher
quality—improving the teacher hiring process.
There are several reasons why changing hiring
practices is a particularly attractive policy lever for
raising teacher quality. First, reforming teacher hiring
practices is less contentious than tying teacher
salaries or retention decisions to measures of
teacher performance. Second, preventing subpar
hires is particularly important given the existence of
MAPLE | GEORGIA POLICY LABS
2
those with only a baccalaureate degree, but
they do not perform significantly better as
teachers. Those with an advanced degree are
also less likely to stay in their initial school
placement after their first year.
• Applicants who majored in education are more
likely to receive a job offer, but they do not
perform better as teachers than do those with
bachelor’s degrees in non-education fields.
• Candidates who student taught in the district
are more likely to be given an offer but
perform no better as teachers than those with
student teaching experience in another district
(or no student teaching experience at all).
significant barriers to removing low-performing
teachers. Third, improving teacher selection may
be more cost-effective than expenditures on
professional development to increase the
productivity of teachers who are already in the
classroom. Fourth, initial selection improvements
could yield better teacher-school matches, which in
turn could further enhance teacher effectiveness and
increase teacher retention.
Candidate Characteristics and Teacher
Performance
A prerequisite to hiring better teachers is being
able to identify applicants likely to become superior
teachers. Most extant research on the relationship
between observable characteristics and teacher
performance relies on information about currently
employed teachers. Two consistent findings emerge
from this research: early-career experience boosts
 Improving Teacher Quality through the Teacher Hiring Process
teacher productivity1 while attaining a master’s
2
degree does not. Evidence on the relationship
between other characteristics and a teacher’s ability
to promote student achievement is mixed. These
include college grade point average (GPA), college
entrance exam scores, licensure status, certification
exam scores, certification status/pathway to
teaching, and non-cognitive skills. 3
EXISTING RESEARCH ON
TEACHER SELECTION
Teacher selection can be viewed as a two-step
process. In the first step, districts may do some initial
screening of candidates. After this, principals select
candidates for interviews and then choose which
candidates they want to hire.
District Screening
Two published studies analyze the relationship
between potential screening devices and teacher
quality, irrespective of hiring choices. Goldhaber,
Grout, and Huntington-Klein, 2017 find that the use
of a rubric to score and screen teaching applicants in
Spokane, Washington, is positively related to
teachers’ retention in the district and their
contribution to student math achievement but is
uncorrelated with teacher attendance. Sajjadiani et
al., 2019 find that previous non-teaching work
history could also be useful in identifying quality
teacher candidates, particularly if the job description
and the reasons for leaving were also reported.
Observable candidate characteristics are
important for the hiring process as they can be
1 Chingos and Peterson, 2011; Staiger and Rockoff, 2010; Rivkin,
Hanushek, and Kane, 2005; Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor, 2006;
Dobbie, 2011; Wiswall, 2013; Papay and Kraft, 2015; Rockoff,
2004.
2 Sass, Semykina, and Harris 2014; Chingos and Peterson 2011;
Clotfelter et al. 2007; Bruno and Strunk 2018.
MAPLE | GEORGIA POLICY LABS
3
signals of later productivity as a teacher. However,
the quality of teachers placed through the hiring
process is dependent on the selection process,
including the screening tools used and the
preferences of decision makers (typically principals)
in the hiring process.
Principal Decisions
In a recent study of teacher hiring practices in
Washington, D.C. (Jacob et al., 2018), characteristics
related to teacher productivity bore little relation to
those increasing a candidate’s chances of being
hired. Some predictors of teacher performance, such
as SAT scores and college GPAs, were inversely
related to the likelihood of being hired. Across
multiple analyses, the applicants’ experience and
attendance at a nearby post-secondary school were
the most consistent predictors of a candidate being
hired. Applicants who pass various screens (e.g.,
interviews, sample lessons, and written assessments)
and become “recommended” are more likely to be
hired, but principals do not appear to actively seek
out candidates with attributes related to teacher
performance. This suggests that modifying the
selection process could improve the average quality
of new teachers.
A study of the Los Angeles Unified School District
teacher hiring process (Bruno and Strunk, 2018)
finds that the overall screening score is predictive of
both hiring decisions and some teacher performance
measures (attendance, productivity, and evaluation
scores) but not other measures (mobility or
retention). However, the correlation of specific
screening components with teacher performance
3See Clotfelter et al., 2010; Harris and Sass, 2011; Rockoff et al.,
2011; Xu, Hannaway and Taylor, 2011; Kane, Rockoff, and
Staiger, 2008; Ronfeldt et al., 2013; Sass, 2015; Goldhaber,
Gratz, and Theobald, 2016; Goldhaber, Cowan, and Theobald,
2017; Bastian et al., 2017; Bruno and Strunk, 2018; Jacob et al.,
2018 and references therein.
 Improving Teacher Quality through the Teacher Hiring Process
varies considerably across the performance
measures. This indicates the varied usefulness of the
screening procedures, highlights teacher quality’s
multi-dimensionality, and emphasizes the potential
tradeoffs when selecting teachers. They also find
that the screening system’s adoption improved
teacher quality in the district relative to similar
districts and schools.
An analysis of teacher hiring in the state of
Washington (Goldhaber, Cowan, and Theobald,
2017) found edTPA scores (a performance-based,
subject-specific assessment) predict teacher hiring.
However, the relationship between edTPA scores
and teacher performance is mixed; the raw edTPA
score predicts teacher impacts on student math
performance, while the pass-fail rating predicts a
teacher’s impact on student reading achievement.
NEW EVIDENCE FROM A
METRO-ATLANTA SCHOOL
DISTRICT
Since December 2015, a school district in metro
Atlanta has implemented a series of changes
intended to improve its teacher selection process.
Prior to these innovations, only a traditional
background and credential check were required
before principals could view an application. In
December 2015, the district initiated use of the
GALLUP TeacherInsight exam. However, completing
the test was optional for applicants, only becoming
required in January 2019. The district’s human
resources (HR) department considers a 70 out of 100
score as “passing” and encouraged principals to try
to hire candidates with a passing score. Now that
completion of the test is mandatory, principals can
only view materials for applicants with passing
scores.
MAPLE | GEORGIA POLICY LABS
4
After applications are screened by the district’s HR
department, principals are free to interview and
issue hiring requests for any qualified candidate,
including those who have not specifically applied to
the principal’s school. Hiring requests are reviewed
by the HR department and, if approved, an official
offer is issued.
Measuring Teacher Performance
Evaluating the efficacy of the hiring process
requires a measure of teacher quality. Because
there is no consensus on an ideal metric of
teacher performance, a variety of measures are
used. These include scores on official teacher
evaluation measures (TKES), Student Growth
Percentiles (SGPs), teacher attendance (percent of
the year present or in staff development), and
teacher mobility (whether the teacher remained in
the school in which they were initially placed for a
second year). Because SGPs can only be calculated
for math and ELA teachers in grades 4-8, the sample
size for analyzing impacts on SGPs is somewhat
small; results should be considered in the context of
this limitation.
Sample
The analysis is limited to teacher candidates who
applied to at least one core academic position; any
individual only applying to physical education,
career, technical and agricultural education, special
education, gifted education, foreign languages, art,
or early intervention program positions was
removed from the sample. Given that the latest data
on teacher performance cover the 2017/18 school
year, the performance analysis includes teachers
hired from January 2016 to the end of the 2017/18
school year. For hiring, the analysis was limited to
applications submitted between December 2015 and
May 2018.
 Improving Teacher Quality through the Teacher Hiring Process 5

Findings measure. Characteristics where the partial

For each of the four teacher performance correlation with teacher performance is not

measures (observational scores, impacts on student distinguishable from zero are listed below the table.
test scores, persistence in initial placement and The policy implications of our findings, as
teacher attendance), we estimate both the discussed below, depend on where the

relationship between observable characteristics of characteristics fall among the six cells in each table.
candidates and the likelihood of being offered a job Navy boxes indicate a mismatch between the
and the relationship between those same likelihood of an offer from principals and that

characteristics and the performance of teachers.
Our findings are summarized in Tables 1-4, with
each table representing one of the four performance
measures. The three columns of each table
represent three possible categories of the estimated
relationship between a characteristic and the
teacher’s performance. For characteristics in these
boxes, principals may want to re-prioritize the way
they value a characteristic. For example, in Table 1,
early applicants tend to have higher TKES scores
than applicants who otherwise appear similar but
apply later in the hiring season; yet, on average,

likelihood of a job offer: being less likely to be principals are less likely to request that such early
offered a job than otherwise similar candidates, applicants be offered a job. Characteristics in gray
having no clear effect on receiving a job offer, or boxes are factors that currently do not have a

being more likely to receive a job offer than discernable effect on hiring decisions but do help
otherwise similar candidates. The rows of each table distinguish who is likely to have better or worse
indicate whether a characteristic is associated with performance as a teacher. White cells indicate cases

lower or higher values of the teacher performance where hiring decisions and teacher job performance
align and thus no change is called for.

Table 1. How Teacher Characteristics are Related to Job Offers and Observational (TKES) Scores
Less Likely to be No Impact on Likelihood More Likely to be
Offered a Job of Being Offered a Job Offered a Job

Lower TKES Score Some Teaching Experience

National Board Certified

Higher TKES Score Applied Before April
College GPA

Characteristics not associated with TKES scores: Certified in Georgia, Certified Outside Georgia, Student Taught in District, Previously
Worked in District, Found Job thru District Employee, Advanced Degree, Education Major, TeacherInsight Score, Currently Under
Contract with Another School District.

MAPLE | GEORGIA POLICY LABS

 Improving Teacher Quality through the Teacher Hiring Process 6

Table 2. How Teacher Characteristics are Related to Job Offers and Teacher Impacts on Test Scores (SGPs)
Less Likely to be No Impact on Likelihood More Likely to be
Offered a Job of Being Offered a Job Offered a Job

Lower SGPs Some Teaching Experience

Higher SGPs TeacherInsight Score Certified Outside Georgia

Characteristics not associated with SGPs: Certified in Georgia, National Board Certified, Student Taught in District, Previously Worked in
District, Found Job thru District Employee, Advanced Degree, Education Major, College GPA, Applied Before April, Currently Under
Contract with Another School District.

Table 3. How Teacher Characteristics are Related to Job Offers and Persistence in Initial School
Less Likely to be No Impact on Likelihood More Likely to be
Offered a Job of Being Offered a Job Offered a Job

Lower Persistence Some Teaching Experience Advanced Degree

College GPA Found Job through District

Higher Persistence Applied Before April
Employee

Characteristics not associated with persistence in initial school: Certified in Georgia, Certified Outside Georgia, National Board Certified,
Student Taught in District, Previously Worked in District, Education Major, TeacherInsight Score, Currently Under Contract with Another
School District.

Table 4. How Teacher Characteristics are Related to Job Offers and Teacher Attendance
Less Likely to be No Impact on Likelihood More Likely to be
Offered a Job of Being Offered a Job Offered a Job
Advanced Degree
Lower Attendance Previously Worked in the
District

Higher Attendance College GPA Student Taught in District

Characteristics not associated with teacher attendance: Certified in Georgia, Certified Outside Georgia, National Board Certified, Some
Teaching Experience, Found Job thru District Employee, Education Major, Applied before April, TeacherInsight Score, Currently Under
Contract with Another School District.

MAPLE | GEORGIA POLICY LABS

 Improving Teacher Quality through the Teacher Hiring Process
Focusing on the elements in the navy and gray
cells, some clear patterns emerge that indicate
potential gains from principals reconsidering how
they evaluate candidates for teaching positions.
First, teachers with higher grade point averages
tend to have higher observational (TKES) scores, are
more likely to persist past the first year in the school
in which they are placed, and have better
attendance rates in their first year than do teachers
who earned lower grades in college. However,
despite these apparent advantages of hiring teachers
with better college grades, college GPA does not
appear to influence principal hiring decisions.
Second, applicants who applied early in the hiring
season (before April) were less likely to receive an
employment offer than later applicants, but teachers
who had applied early had higher observational
(TKES) scores and were more likely to persist in their
initial placement after their first year of
employment.
Third, candidates with an advanced degree were
more likely to be offered employment but did not
perform significantly better as a teacher and were
less likely to stay in their initial placement for more
than a year and had lower first-year attendance than
did candidates with only a bachelor’s degree.
Fourth, candidates with prior experience have
worse observational (TKES) scores than do rookie
teachers. They also have a smaller impact on student
test scores (measured by SGPs) and are less likely to
remain in their placement school after one year.
However, they are no less likely to be offered
4 While there it appears that principals do not place sufficient
weight on National Board certification, this result should be
interpreted with caution, as there are few teachers in the
candidate pool who are board certified at the time of
application.
MAPLE | GEORGIA POLICY LABS
7
employment than are teachers with no prior
experience.
Fifth, teachers with higher scores on the
TeacherInsight capability screener tend to have
greater impacts on student test scores (as measured
by SGPs) but are not more likely to be offered
employment than are lower-scoring candidates.
Finally, candidates who previously worked in the
district are more likely to be offered a job than are
candidates who are new to the district, yet they tend
to have lower attendance rates their first year on the
job.4
Implications for Policy
In general, instances where candidate
characteristics are associated with better teacher
performance, but candidates possessing those
characteristics are not more likely to be hired,
indicate that changes in the hiring process could
yield improvements in the quality of new hires.
Further, factors that are directly associated with
instructional quality (classroom observations
measured by TKES or impacts on student
achievement that are measured by SGPs) are of
greater interest than characteristics that are only
linked to differences in persistence or teacher
attendance. Finally, to be an effective screen, the
characteristic must be something that is not easily
manipulated by candidates.
Both Gallup TeacherInsight scores and college
GPAs are associated with at least one measure of
instructional quality and are not malleable by
candidates but do not appear to influence hiring
decisions by principals.5 Thus, placing greater
5While early applicants tend to have higher TKES scores, setting
a hiring rule to favor early applicants is problematic, as
candidates can simply apply earlier, reducing the effectiveness of
the screen. Further, early applicants may be more attractive to
other districts, so by the time a principal tries to interview them
they are already hired elsewhere.
 Improving Teacher Quality through the Teacher Hiring Process 8

emphasis on these measures, either by having
districts set minimum standards or by encouraging
principals to pay greater attention to them, are
promising.
Currently, the case for emphasizing college grades
when deciding which candidates to offer
employment, is strongest for two reasons. First, our
findings for college GPA align with the results from
other recent studies of district hiring behavior
elsewhere. In particular, the work by Jacob et al.
(2018) in Washington, D.C. and by Bruno and Strunk
(2018) in Los Angeles both find that college GPA is
directly related to measures of instructional
performance but is not correlated with the likelihood
a candidate is hired by the district. Second, as
described above, the metro-Atlanta district that we
study did not require candidates to take the
TeacherInsight exam during the period of analysis.
Thus, we only have scores for about 30 percent of
applicants. Consequently, we cannot be as confident
in our findings with respect to the TeacherInsight
screen. Future analyses that will cover the recent
period where all candidates must take the exam in
order to be considered for employment should
provide evidence that will yield stronger conclusions
on the efficacy of the TeacherInsight tool as a
screening device.

MAPLE | GEORGIA POLICY LABS

 Improving Teacher Quality through the Teacher Hiring Process
REFERENCES
Aaronson, Daniel, Lisa Barrow, and William Sander. 2007.
Teachers and Student Achievement in the Chicago
Public High Schools. Journal of Labor Economics. 25(1):
95-135.
Bastian, Kevin C., McCord David M., Marks Julie T., and
Carpenter Dale. 2017. A Temperament for Teaching?
Associations between Personality Traits and Beginning
Teacher Performance and Retention. AERA Open. 3
(1): 1:17.
Bruno, Paul and Katharine Strunk. 2018. Making the Cut:
The Effectiveness of Teacher Screening and Hiring in
the Los Angeles Unified School District. CALDER
Working Paper 184.
Chetty, Raj, John Friedman, Nathaniel Hilger, Emmanuel
Saez, Diane Whitmore Schazenbach, and Danny
Yagan. 2011. How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom
Affect Your Earnings? Evidence from Project Star. The
Quarterly Journal of Economics. 126 (4): 1593-1660.
Chetty, Raj, John Friedman, and Jonah Rockoff. 2014.
Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher Value-
Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood. American
Economic Review. 104 (9): 2633-2679.
Chingos, Matthew, and Paul Peterson. 2011. It’s easier to
Pick a Good Teacher Than to Train One: Familiar and
New Results on the Correlates of Teacher
Effectiveness. Economics of Education Review 30: 449-
465.
Clotfelter, Charles, Ladd, Helen, Vigdor, Jacob. 2006.
Teacher-Student Matching and the Assessment of
Teacher Effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources.
41. (4): 778-820.
Clotfelter, Charles, Helen Ladd, Jacob Vigdor. 2007.
Teacher Credentials and Student Achievement:
Longitudinal Analysis with Student Fixed Effects.
Economics of Education Review. 26 (6): 673-682.
Clotfelter, Charles T., Ladd, Helen F., Vigdor, Jacob L.,
2010. Teacher credentials and student achievement in
high school: a cross-subject analysis with student fixed
effects. Journal of Human Resources 45 (3), 655–681.
Dobbie, Will. 2011. Teacher Characteristics and Student
Achievement: Evidence from Teach for America.
blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/teachercharac
teristicsjuly2011.pdf
Goldhaber, Dan, James Cowan, and Roddy Theobald.
2017. Evaluating prospective teachers: Testing the
predictive validity of the edTPA. Journal of Teacher
Education 68 (4): 377-393.
MAPLE | GEORGIA POLICY LABS
9
Goldhaber, Dan, Trevor Gratz, and Roddy Theobald. 2016.
What’s in a Teacher Test? Assessing the Relationship
Between Teacher Licensure Test Scores and Student
STEM Achievement and Course-Taking. National
CALDER Working Paper 158.
Goldhaber, Dan, Cyrus Grout, and Nick Huntington-
Klein. 2017. Screen Twice, Cut Once: Assessing the
Predictive Validity of Teacher Selection Tools.
Educational Finance and Policy. 12 (2): 197-223.
Harris, Douglas and Tim Sass. 2011. Teacher Training,
Teacher Quality and Student Achievement. Journal of
Public Economics. 95: 798–812.
Jacob, Brian A., Jonah E. Rockoff, Eric S. Taylor,
Benjamin Lindy, and Rachel Rosen. 2018. Teacher
Applicant Hiring and Teacher Performance: Evidence
from DC Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics.
166 (October): 81–97.
Kane, Thomas J., Jonah Rockoff, and Douglas Staiger.
2008. What Does Certification Tell Us about Teacher
Effectiveness? Evidence from New York City.
Economics of Education Review 27:615–31.
Papay, John, and Matthew Kraft. 2015. Productivity
Returns to Experience in the Teacher Labor Market:
Methodological Challenges and New Evidence on
Long-Term Career Improvement. Journal of Public
Economics. 130: 105-119.
Rivkin, Steven, Eric Hanushek, and John Kain. 2005.
Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement.
Econometrica. 73(2): 417-58.
Rockoff, Jonah. 2004. The Impact of Individual Teachers
on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data.
The American Economic Review. 94 (2): 247-252.
Rockoff, Jonah E., Brian A. Jacob, Thomas J. Kane and
Douglas O. Staiger. 2011. Can You Recognize an
Effective Teacher When You Recruit One? Education
Finance and Policy. 6(1): 43-74.
Ronfeldt, Matthew, Michelle Reininger, and Andrew
Kwok. 2013. Recruitment of Preparation? Investigating
the Effects of Teacher Characteristics and Student
Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 64 (4): 319-
337.
Sajjadiani, Sima, Aaron Sojourner, John D. Kammeyer-
Mueller and Elton Mykerezi (2019). Using Machine
Learning to Translate Applicant Work History Into
Predictors of Performance and Turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology. Advance online publication,
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000405.
 Improving Teacher Quality through the Teacher Hiring Process 10

Sass, Tim. 2015. Licensure and Worker Quality: A
Comparison of Alternative Routes to Teaching. Journal
of Law and Economics 58:1-35.
Sass, Tim, Anastasia Semykina, and Douglas Harris. 2014.
Value-added Models and the Measurement of Teacher
Productivity. Economics of Education Review. 38:9-23.
Staiger, Douglas, and Jonah Rockoff. 2010. Searching for
Effective Teachers with Imperfect Information. Journal
of Economic Perspectives. 24 (3): 97-117.
Wiswall, Matthew. 2013. The Dynamics of Teacher
Quality. Journal of Public Economics. 100: 61-78.
Xu, Zeyu, Jane Hannaway, and Colin Taylor. 2011. Making
a Difference? The Effects of Teach for America in High
School. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
30:447– 69.

MAPLE | GEORGIA POLICY LABS

 Improving Teacher Quality through the Teacher Hiring Process 11

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Katherine Key is a doctoral candidate in economics at
Georgia State University. Her research focuses on the
economics of education utilizing quantitative, survey, and
experimental methods. In particular, she is interested in
teacher hiring and methods to improve the quality of the
teacher pool. Her research has been funded by Georgia
State’s Center for the Economic Analysis of Risk. She is
also a 2019 Dan E. Sweat Fellow. She works directly with
school district human resource department leaders to
provide analysis in support of data-driven policy and
partner-led priorities.
Tim R. Sass is a distinguished university professor of
economics at Georgia State whose research focuses on
the economics of education. He is also the faculty director
of the Metro Atlanta Policy Lab for Education (MAPLE).
Specific areas of interest include teacher labor supply, the
measurement of teacher quality, and school choice. His
work has been published in numerous academic journals
and has been supported by grants from the U.S.
Department of Education, the Gates Foundation, the
Smith Richardson Foundation, the Laura and John Arnold
Foundation, and the Spencer Foundation. He has acted as
a consultant to school systems in New York City,
Washington, D.C., Charlotte, the state of Florida and the
state of New York. He is a senior researcher at the Center
for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research
(CALDER) and serves as an associate editor of the Journal
of Human Resources.

ABOUT THE GEORGIA POLICY LABS

The Georgia Policy Labs (GPL) is a collaboration between Georgia State University and a variety of government agencies to
promote evidence-based policy development and implementation. Housed in the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies,
GPL works to create an environment where policymakers have the information and tools available to improve the
effectiveness of existing government policies and programs, try out new ideas for addressing pressing issues, and decide
what new initiatives are promising enough to scale up. The ultimate goal is to help government entities more effectively
use scarce resources and make a positive difference in people’s lives. GPL contains three focus areas: The Metro Atlanta
Policy Lab for Education works to improve K-12 educational outcomes in metro Atlanta; the Career and Technical
Education Policy Exchange focuses on high-school-based career and technical education in multiple U.S. states; and the
Child and Family Lab looks at issues of the whole child and whole family with Georgia’s state agencies. In addition to
conducting evidence-based policy research, GPL serves as a teaching and learning resource for state officials and
policymakers, students, and other constituents. See more at gpl.gsu.edu.

MAPLE | GEORGIA POLICY LABS