View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teacher Job Satisfaction and Student Achievement: The Roles of Teacher Professional Community and Teacher Collaboration in Schools

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teacher Job Satisfaction and Student Achievement: The Roles of Teacher Professional Community and Teacher Collaboration in Schools
Language: English
Authors: Banerjee, Neena, Stearns, Elizabeth, Moller, Stephanie, Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin
Source: American Journal of Education. Feb 2017 123(2):203-241.
Availability: University of Chicago Press. Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Tel: 877-705-1878; Tel: 773-753-3347; Fax: 877-705-1879; Fax: 773-753-0811; e-mail: subscriptions@press.uchicago.edu; Web site: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/journal/aje.html
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 39
Publication Date: 2017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Job Satisfaction, Academic Achievement, Elementary School Teachers, Mathematics Achievement, Reading Achievement, Achievement Gains, School Culture, Elementary School Students, Children, Longitudinal Studies, Surveys, Teacher Collaboration
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey
DOI: 10.1086/689932
ISSN: 0195-6744
Abstract: Studies have not conclusively established whether teacher job satisfaction improves student achievement or whether the advantages to students from having satisfied teachers vary with the broader school culture. In this article, we investigate two research questions: (1) Is there a relationship between teacher job satisfaction and students' math and reading growth in elementary school? (2) How do schools' organizational cultures moderate the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement growth? We examined these questions using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey and found that teacher job satisfaction has a modest but positive relationship with students' reading growth but no relationship with students' math growth between kindergarten and fifth grade. However, school culture and teacher job satisfaction interactively affect student achievement in both math and reading. We argue that future education reforms should place special emphasis on improving teacher job satisfaction and school culture.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1129364
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGcujkm-U4HNrgJcgutASL6AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAr0ZmWVRD4qr_SLEAIBEICBmo1-zgIba0CSHiwjGwuc8c_fnNmn-pdw3GwgZJXN60wRZqSD6csx8dqM08Aj0bcenngt1G1s49_Wez__ovxO3QgIK4vVlYGZ7ThQYWuuzrRsMbMT-L2543UMzf0P9nBIlmj04GwS5U2Rm721ARnT98OddtIXFH-YEftyBMQWVXGXBCdk3b8K98NkIl9CaTuq0c5uIPw1Y04w6YY=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0120930747;jrd01feb.17;2018Oct25.08:57;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0120930747-1">Teacher Job Satisfaction and Student Achievement: The Roles of Teacher Professional Community and Teacher Collaboration in Schools. </title> <p>Studies have not conclusively established whether teacher job satisfaction improves student achievement or whether the advantages to students from having satisfied teachers vary with the broader school culture. In this article, we investigate two research questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) Is there a relationship between teacher job satisfaction and students' math and reading growth in elementary school? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) How do schools' organizational cultures moderate the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement growth? We examined these questions using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey and found that teacher job satisfaction has a modest but positive relationship with students' reading growth but no relationship with students' math growth between kindergarten and fifth grade. However, school culture and teacher job satisfaction interactively affect student achievement in both math and reading. We argue that future education reforms should place special emphasis on improving teacher job satisfaction and school culture.</p> <p>Despite growing recognition among scholars that teacher job satisfaction is essential to achieving teacher excellence, job satisfaction rates among K–12 educators continue to dip, according to the 2011 MetLife Survey of the American Teacher (Heitin [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref3">28</reflink>]). The survey of 1,000 public school teachers and 500 principals found a 23-percentage-point decline in public school teachers' job satisfaction since 2008, its lowest point in 25 years. This trend in teacher job satisfaction is disturbing because without satisfied teachers, substantive changes through reform will be challenging largely because teachers are also the implementers of reforms (Ma and MacMillan [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref4">53</reflink>]). In fact, several policy interventions are undergirded by the tenet that teacher satisfaction can be increased to improve their performance (Hulleman and Barron [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref5">32</reflink>]; Moir [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref6">56</reflink>]). Research has also shown that teacher job satisfaction is associated with lower absenteeism, stress, and turnover and with the use of innovative instructional practices in classrooms. Several of these factors have been linked with higher student achievement (Caprara et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]; Crosswell and Elliott [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref8">12</reflink>]; Palardy and Rumberger [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref9">62</reflink>]; Park [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref10">64</reflink>]; Renzulli et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref11">70</reflink>]). Yet, very few studies have examined the direct relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement.</p> <p>Existing literature is also silent about the role of the larger school environment in shaping the relationship between teacher job dissatisfaction and student achievement. Three recent studies have suggested that teachers' success in raising student learning outcomes is shaped by the interactive influence of teachers' individual characteristics, including job satisfaction and the organizational context of schools in which teaching and learning take place (Kraft and Papay [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref12">40</reflink>]; Loeb et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref13">50</reflink>]; Sass et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref14">75</reflink>]). One aspect of organizational environment that has received significant attention is the organizational culture of schools. Studies have shown that components of schools' organizational cultures can have important implications for both teacher job satisfaction (Gamoran et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]; Perrachione et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref16">66</reflink>]; Renzulli et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref17">70</reflink>]) and student achievement (Gamoran et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>]; Louis and Marks [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref19">51</reflink>]; Moller et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref20">57</reflink>]). However, it remains to be seen whether such a culture can minimize the harmful effects of teacher job dissatisfaction on student achievement.</p> <p>In this article, we test several research questions. First, we examine whether significant differences exist in students' math and reading achievement growth trajectories depending on their assignment to classrooms where teachers are satisfied with their jobs as opposed to classrooms where teachers are not satisfied with their jobs. Second, we test whether two components of schools' organizational cultures—teacher professional community and teacher collaboration—moderate the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement growth. Specifically, we test whether the presence of teacher professional community and teacher collaboration can serve as buffers against teacher dissatisfaction for maintaining elementary student achievement. We examine these research questions using data on elementary students from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey (ECLS-K). We use cross-classified growth curve models, a methodologically sophisticated and informative technique for longitudinal data. Figure 1 shows our conceptual framework.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>]</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1. The model of the roles of teacher professional community and collaboration regarding job satisfaction and student achievement.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-2">Conceptual Framework</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0120930747-3">Job Satisfaction</hd> <p>The concept of job satisfaction has a significant research base in the social sciences, including industrial and organizational psychology, public administration, education, and management (Dormann and Zapf [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref22">15</reflink>]; Judge et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref23">35</reflink>]; Kalleberg [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref24">36</reflink>]; Perrachione et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref25">66</reflink>]). This research features a controversy around conceptualizations of job satisfaction as "affect (emotional)" and as "attitude (cognition, evaluation of objects)" (Weiss [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref26">88</reflink>]). Scholars describe the former category as "an affective or emotional response to one's job, resulting from the incumbent's comparison of actual outcomes with those that are desired (expected, deserved, and so on)" (Cranny et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>], 1).</p> <p>Opposing the definition of job satisfaction as <emph>affect</emph> is its definition as an <emph>attitude</emph> one holds toward one's jobs (Brief [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]; Miner [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref29">55</reflink>]; Petty et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref30">68</reflink>]). Further clarifying the concept, scholars believe <emph>evaluation</emph> to be a fundamental property of attitude (Crites et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref31">11</reflink>]; Petty et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref32">68</reflink>]). Another set of scholars finds both concepts to be consistent (Smith et al. [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref33">79</reflink>]) and synonymous (Hulin [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref34">31</reflink>]) and to contribute jointly to job satisfaction (Weiss [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref35">88</reflink>]). Scholars who support the latter idea argue that job satisfaction is, in fact, an attitude that has components of evaluation (i.e., evaluative judgments about jobs), affect (i.e., affective experiences at work), and belief (i.e., beliefs about work).[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-4">Teacher Job Satisfaction</hd> <p>Education scholars have largely followed the psychology literature in defining teacher job satisfaction. Studies have either considered the affective, cognitive/evaluative, and belief constructs of job satisfaction either separately or in combination with each other. For example, in defining teacher job satisfaction, Lee et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref37">45</reflink>]) combined the affective and cognitive dimensions in their empirical analysis. They captured the affective dimension from teacher responses to the questions, "I usually look forward to each working day at this school," and "How much of the time do you feel satisfied with your job in this school?" They captured the cognitive dimension from teacher responses to the questions, "To what extent do you feel successful in providing the kind of education you would like to provide for most of your students?" and "I sometimes feel it is a waste of time to try to do my best as a teacher" (Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref38">45</reflink>], 194). They described the cognitive dimension as teacher efficacy, a construct that is conceptually distinct from affect, as it captures teachers' perceived ability to affect student learning. The authors found a strong correlation between the two constructs in their sample and created a combined teacher satisfaction measure, enabling them to tap into the constructs' joint contribution in defining teacher job satisfaction. Renzulli et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref39">70</reflink>]) also combined affect and cognitive, or evaluative, dimensions to create a scale of teacher satisfaction. The questions included ratings of satisfaction with being a teacher at the current school (affect), whether the teacher feels as though it is a waste of time to try his or her best (cognitive/evaluative), whether he or she would become a teacher again (cognitive/evaluative), and how long the teacher plans to remain in teaching (cognitive/evaluative).</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-5">Job Satisfaction and Job Performance in Organizational Settings</hd> <p>Some of the literature deals with the consequences of job satisfaction on job performance, although the nature of this relationship remains contested in three prominent meta-analyses (Iaffaldano and Muchinsky [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref40">33</reflink>]; Judge et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]; Petty et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref42">67</reflink>]). As Judge et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref43">35</reflink>]) noted in their meta-analysis, 4 of the 10 studies that have investigated this relationship found significant causal effects, and 6 studies found no significant effects. There is also inconsistent evidence regarding whether the relationship is reciprocal or spurious. The authors pointed out several caveats in the interpretation of these findings. Notable among them are concerns about the validity of causal claims as opposed to simple association, and generalizability of the results.</p> <p>The modest correlation ranging between 0.14 and 0.25 between job satisfaction and job performance reported by meta-analytic studies has prompted scholars to investigate the role of potential moderators in this relationship. Several of the potential moderators that have either been proposed or tested include job rewards, job characteristics, job complexity, organizational tenure, pressure for performance, and situational constraints at the organizational level (Judge et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref44">35</reflink>]). Calls are also made for a broader conceptualization of performance, such as organizational citizenship behavior, instead of performance only in specific tasks. Finally, scholars have debated the appropriateness of examining the relationship of job satisfaction to job performance from an organizational standpoint rather than at the individual level (Judge et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref45">35</reflink>]; Ostroff [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref46">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance has been tested in various organizational settings, few research studies have examined the direct relationship between teacher job satisfaction and teacher performance in the context of education. The K–12 school system offers an ideal setting to test this relationship because the issue of teacher performance in raising student achievement has gained prominence and because policy interventions with respect to teachers are undergirded by the tenet that worker satisfaction can be increased to improve teacher performance. One exception is a study by Ostroff ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref47">60</reflink>]), which analyzed the relationship at the organizational level and found a positive association between teacher satisfaction and organizational performance. That study did not include individual-level data on student performance.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-6">Teacher Job Satisfaction and Student Achievement</hd> <p>Teacher effects are stronger than other within-school effects as predictors of student achievement (Guarino et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]; Hattie [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref49">26</reflink>]; Nye et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref50">59</reflink>]). Teachers' impacts on student learning also differ substantially when measured in narrow terms of student achievement on standardized tests (Aaronson et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>]; Boyd et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref52">5</reflink>]; Kane and Staiger [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref53">37</reflink>]; Rivkin et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref54">71</reflink>]). This area continues to draw enormous attention from researchers because of the contested nature of teacher quality as it applies to classroom settings, and because of lack of consensus about which aspects of teachers matter most for improving student achievement (Fenstemacher and Richardson [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref55">16</reflink>]; Hanushek et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref56">25</reflink>]; Palardy and Rumberger [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref57">62</reflink>]). The available scientific evidence does not conclusively show that teacher background characteristics have a measurable and consistent direct impact on student achievement (Guarino et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref58">22</reflink>]; Palardy and Rumberger [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref59">62</reflink>]; Wayne and Youngs [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref60">87</reflink>]).</p> <p>The mixed evidence on the importance of teacher background variables on student achievement has pushed scholars to search for alternative explanations. According to Stigler and Hiebert ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref61">82</reflink>]), "Teaching, not teachers, is the critical factor" (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref62">10</reflink>). Some researchers have suggested that teacher instructional practices are more important than teacher background qualifications in predicting student achievement (Guarino et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref63">22</reflink>]; Palardy and Rumberger [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref64">62</reflink>]; Rowan et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref65">74</reflink>]). Moreover, a teacher's attitudes and beliefs about teaching processes, ability to teach, and the ability of students to learn can influence instructional practices inside classrooms and, ultimately, student achievement (Pajares [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref66">61</reflink>]; Palardy and Rumberger [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref67">62</reflink>]). As outlined earlier, teacher attitudes and beliefs, along with affect, are key constructs that define teacher job satisfaction. Therefore, it is imperative to understand the mechanisms through which teacher job satisfaction contributes to student achievement.</p> <p>Teachers' attitudes and beliefs about their abilities to teach and make a difference through teaching (personal teaching efficacy) and the ability of students to learn (general teaching efficacy) have sometimes been referred to as <emph>teacher efficacy</emph> (Bandura [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>]; Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref69">45</reflink>]; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref70">86</reflink>]). Although conceptually distinct from teacher job satisfaction, they often operate together, capturing the perceptions of teachers about their daily work lives inside schools based on their cumulative work experience and assessment of their work environments. There is also significant correlation between teacher efficacy and teacher satisfaction (Judge et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref71">35</reflink>]; Klassen and Chiu [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref72">39</reflink>]; Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref73">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teacher efficacy appears to be related to student academic achievement at the elementary and high school levels (Goddard et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref74">20</reflink>]; Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref75">47</reflink>]). Furthermore, more efficacious teachers are more likely to adopt innovative instructional practices in the classroom; are more open to new ideas; show flexibility; provide more feedback to students; exert more effort in organizing, planning, and delivering lesson content; and are better able to engage with students relative to their less-efficacious peers (Ghaith and Yaghi [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref76">19</reflink>]; Wolters and Daugherty [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref77">89</reflink>]).</p> <p>Several studies have tested the mechanisms that indirectly connect teacher job satisfaction with student achievement, but few studies, to our knowledge, have examined the direct relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement at the individual level. Because academic success in early grades is a strong predictor of success in later grades (Dee [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref78">13</reflink>]; Tach and Farkas [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref79">84</reflink>]), the relationship between teachers' job satisfaction and achievement needs to be explored in the elementary grades.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-7">The Role of Schools' Organizational Cultures</hd> <p>Scholarship on teacher satisfaction suggests that workplace environment can substantially alter teachers' job satisfaction (Dinham and Scott [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref80">14</reflink>]; Hirsch and Church [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref81">29</reflink>]; Horng [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref82">30</reflink>]; Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref83">34</reflink>]; Ladd [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref84">44</reflink>]; Liu and Meyer [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref85">49</reflink>]; Ma and MacMillan [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref86">53</reflink>]). Additionally, studies have found evidence of a strong relationship between teachers' work environments and student achievement (Hall et al. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref87">23</reflink>]; Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref88">34</reflink>]). Although a teacher's work environment consists of structural and cultural components, we specifically examine the role of school organizational culture as a buffer against teacher dissatisfaction for maintaining elementary student achievement.</p> <p>Organizations are defined by their cultures. Culture includes the shared assumptions, rituals, values, climate, and behaviors that shape interactions and expectations within the organization (Pedersen and Dobbin [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref89">65</reflink>]; Schein [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref90">77</reflink>]). In schools, culture diffuses through multiple layers. The school leadership is typically responsible for generating the cultural values within the school and, through open communication, ensures that teachers consent to, promote, and enact these values (Kruse and Louis [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref91">42</reflink>]; Schein [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref92">77</reflink>]). The school cultural environment shapes how teachers perceive themselves as contributors to the whole school and shapes their satisfaction beyond the classroom. As opposed to schools with well-entrenched cultures of isolation and individualism, schools with cultures of collegiality and collaboration help teachers to resolve issues easily, to promote learning of new teaching tools, and to enhance professional competence, ultimately creating a more satisfied, committed, and professionally involved teacher workforce (Leithwood et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref93">48</reflink>]; Ma and MacMillan [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref94">53</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-8">Collective Pedagogical Teacher Culture</hd> <p>We build on the existing literature by positing that a certain type of organizational culture that we term <emph>collective pedagogical teacher culture</emph> (CPTC) can minimize the harmful effects of teacher job dissatisfaction on student achievement. Following previous research (Moller et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref95">57</reflink>], Stearns et al. [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref96">80</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref97">81</reflink>]), we conceptualize CPTC as a culture in which teachers perceive (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>) the value of strong professional community and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref99">2</reflink>) a norm of collaboration among teachers through which the needs of students are centralized.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-9">Professional community</hd> <p>Much of the research that contributes to our understanding of the organizational culture of schools has focused on professional communities. The exact definition of professional community varies across studies, but common elements include a shared sense of purpose for the school that is spearheaded by visionary leadership; a sense of belonging, trust, and spirit among teachers and between school leadership and teachers; a common focus on student learning; collaboration in the development of curriculum and instruction; sharing of practices; reflective dialogue among teachers about student learning; and continuous professional development for ongoing teacher learning (Gamoran et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref100">17</reflink>], Kruse and Louis [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref101">42</reflink>]; Louis et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref102">52</reflink>]; Stoll et al. [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref103">83</reflink>]). In our conceptualization of professional community, we contend that teachers sense that they are part of strong professional communities when they perceive that there is an agreed upon mission, school pride, open communication with leadership, trust and collegial relationships among teachers, an orientation toward collective learning, and a sense of belonging.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-10">Teacher collaboration</hd> <p>This leads to the second main component of CPTC: a norm of teacher collaboration. In a collaborative environment, teachers build their lessons and curriculum cooperatively and meet to talk about progress in student learning in their schools. This collaboration allows teachers to eliminate redundancy in and increase compatibility across parts of the curriculum, to take collective responsibility for student learning, and to interactively develop the best strategy for teaching (Lee and Smith [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref104">46</reflink>]; Louis and Marks [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref105">51</reflink>]; McLaughlin and Talbert [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref106">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-11">Professional Community, Collaboration, Teacher Job Satisfaction, and Student Achievement</hd> <p>There is a strong and direct relationship between various aspects of school organizational culture and teacher job satisfaction (Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref107">34</reflink>]; Lee et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref108">45</reflink>]; Ma and MacMillan [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref109">53</reflink>]; Perrachione et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref110">66</reflink>]; Renzulli et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref111">70</reflink>]). For example, Ma and MacMillan ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref112">53</reflink>]) discovered that organizational culture, which they defined in terms of collegiality, played an important role in predicting teacher satisfaction. Other studies have found that organizational cultures that fail to promote collaboration instead encourage teacher isolation, which contributes to teacher dissatisfaction (Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref113">34</reflink>]; Leithwood et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref114">48</reflink>]; Rosenholtz [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref115">73</reflink>]). More recently, Stearns et al. ([<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref116">80</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref117">81</reflink>]) discovered a strong association between teacher professional community and teacher job satisfaction among kindergarten teachers. The authors also found that the more teachers collaborate on student learning, the more satisfied the teachers are with their working conditions and that the presence of teacher professional community moderates the relationship between teacher autonomy and teacher job satisfaction.</p> <p>Another set of studies have found that components of school organizational culture are directly associated with student achievement. For example, in a series of studies on high school students, Lee and Smith ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref118">46</reflink>]) and Lee et al. ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref119">47</reflink>]) found that school organizational culture enhances students' academic outcomes. More recently, analyzing elementary school students, Moller et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref120">57</reflink>]) found that the strong presence of professional communities and teacher collaboration nurtures greater mathematics achievement throughout elementary school. Furthermore, ethnoracial and socioeconomic gaps in achievement narrow in schools with professional communities and teacher collaboration. Other recent studies have also found that supportive professional environments in schools improve teacher effectiveness in the short and long terms (Coburn et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref121">9</reflink>]; Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref122">34</reflink>]; Kennedy [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref123">38</reflink>]; Kraft and Papay [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref124">40</reflink>]; Ladd [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref125">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite school organizational culture having important consequences for both teachers and students, studies have not examined whether it moderates the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement. Developing a better understanding of this moderating effect is important in light of emerging evidence that suggests that average returns to teacher characteristics mask large variation across individual teachers and across groups of teachers working in different schools (Kane and Staiger [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref126">37</reflink>]; Kraft and Papay [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref127">40</reflink>]; Papay et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref128">63</reflink>]). Additionally, these studies suggest that specific elements of school context can play an important role in facilitating or constraining the relationships between teacher characteristics and student achievement (Kraft and Papay [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref129">40</reflink>]; Loeb et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref130">50</reflink>]; Sass et al. [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref131">75</reflink>]). It is this evidence that forms the basis for our final hypothesis. We hypothesize that the harmful effects of teacher dissatisfaction on student achievement can be minimized in a positive school culture that reflects strong professional community and greater collaboration among teachers. In other words, a positive school workplace can serve as a cushion that can prevent teacher dissatisfaction from translating into lower achievement among students.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-12">Research Design</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0120930747-13">Study Sample</hd> <p>We use the ECLS-K to test our hypothesis. This study began in 1998 with a nationally representative sample of 21,260 kindergarteners. An average of 23 students in kindergarten were selected from each participating school. The survey followed the cohort again when they entered first (1999–2000), third (2002), fifth (2004), and eighth (2007) grades. In each wave, students were tested and parents, teachers, and school administrators were surveyed, making this an ideal data set to examine students' achievement trajectories in light of classroom and school characteristics. Students are included in our sample if they participated in the first four waves of data collection. We exclude the eighth grade wave to ensure consistency in our measure of organizational culture.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref132">5</reflink>] A total of 10,670 students participated in the first four waves. We limit the sample to white, black, and Latino students.[<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref133">6</reflink>] This narrows our sample to 8,690 students (68% white, 12% black, and 20% Latino). We also limit our sample to students who attend public schools to ensure that our results are not driven by the private school effect. We tackle nonresponse bias by applying panel weights. We make a final adjustment to our sample by including students who attend schools where both the teacher and the school administrator complete questionnaires.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-14">Missing Data</hd> <p>A challenge of using the ECLS-K is missing data. We impute missing data using multiple imputation. We take several steps to ensure efficiency in imputations and to reduce uncertainty associated with any imputation procedure. First, we impute scaled and categorical variables differently. Scaled variables are imputed with the Markov Chain Monte Carlo method because we have an arbitrary missing data pattern (Schafer [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref134">76</reflink>]). We impute the categorical variables with a logistic regression method (Allison [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref135">2</reflink>]; Schafer [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref136">76</reflink>]). Second, we consider five imputations to maximize efficiency given the amount of missing data. Additionally, we impute data in waves to ensure that the efficiency of imputation is not compromised by attrition. Within each wave, teacher, child, and school data are imputed separately. In addition, only variables with less than 20% missing data within waves are imputed. The imputation is has greater than 93% efficiency for all imputed variables. Our final sample includes 5,850 students who attended elementary schools between 1998 and 2004. Comparing this final sample with the initial sample of black, white, and Latino students, we find that the students are comparable regarding race, socioeconomic status (SES), and math and reading scores. Therefore, our final sample is not substantially different from the initial sample of students.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-15">Independent Variables</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0120930747-16">Teacher satisfaction</hd> <p>The primary independent variable used in our analysis is teacher job satisfaction. Following Lee et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref137">45</reflink>]) and Renzulli et al. ([<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref138">70</reflink>]), we created a measure of teacher job satisfaction by combining both the affect and cognitive dimensions using a factor analysis technique. Our overall teacher job satisfaction for each year is based on teacher responses to three questions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref139">1</reflink>) whether the teacher enjoys teaching (affect), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref140">2</reflink>) what the teacher perceives about making a difference through teaching (cognitive/evaluative), and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref141">3</reflink>) whether the teacher would teach again (cognitive/evaluative). The ECLS-K captures teacher responses to these questions using an ordinal 5-category response scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). We maintain the ordinal nature of the variables while combining them into a factor by running an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on a polychoric correlation matrix. All three items load on a single factor with individual factor loadings greater than 0.6. The internal consistency among the three items measuring teacher job satisfaction as indicated by Cronbach's α is.73, showing high inter-item reliability. Each of these variables is described in appendix A.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-17">Collective pedagogical teacher culture</hd> <p>Following Moller et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref142">57</reflink>]), we conceptualize CPTC as a school workplace environment where teachers perceive a strong professional community orientation and teacher collaboration. Professional community is measured with five variables: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref143">1</reflink>) teachers have school spirit, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref144">2</reflink>) leadership has communicated a shared school mission, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref145">3</reflink>) teachers agree on a school mission, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref146">4</reflink>) teachers feel accepted and respected as a colleague, and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref147">5</reflink>) teachers are constantly engaged in learning. The ECLS-K captures teacher responses to the above questions using an ordinal 5-category response scale that ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The norm of teacher collaboration is calculated with three variables that measure the extent to which individual teachers perceive the (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref148">1</reflink>) frequency that teachers meet to collaborate on lesson planning, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref149">2</reflink>) frequency that teachers meet to collaborate on curriculum development, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref150">3</reflink>) frequency that teachers meet to discuss children. Responses to the above three questions are captured on a 5-point response scale: 1 = never, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = two or three times a month, 4 = once or twice a week, and 5 = three or more times a week. Each of these variables is described in appendix B.</p> <p>We measure CPTC through EFA on a polychoric correlation matrix because of the ordinal nature of each variable. Our analysis produced two factors: the first factor represents strong professional learning communities (as the first five measures presented have moderate to strong loading on this factor), and the second factor represents collaborative, child-oriented planning among teachers (the final three measures in app. B have moderate to strong loading on this factor). We call our factors <emph>professional community</emph> and <emph>teacher collaboration</emph>. The measure of CPTC includes measures of both teacher values (professional community) and activities (collaboration), with each school in the sample assigned one value for each of those measures.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-18">Dependent Variables</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0120930747-19">Mathematics and reading achievement</hd> <p>Our dependent variables are achievement scores in mathematics and reading in kindergarten, first, third, and fifth grades. We use item response theory (IRT) scale scores because these scores permit evaluation of achievement trajectories over time, even though the tests changed to reflect age-appropriate measures. The IRT math and reading scores assess the probability of a correct response by estimating the number of correct answers expected if the students had answered all questions for the math and the reading tests in all waves (Tourangeau et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref151">85</reflink>]). Using these scores enables us to examine growth over time.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-20">Control variables</hd> <p>In all models, we use several control variables. Our time-invariant controls are gender (female as a reference category), race/ethnicity, family SES when the student is in kindergarten, English as a second language in kindergarten, and the region and location (urban, suburban, or rural) where the child initially started schooling. Race/ethnicity is coded as white (reference category), black, and Latino. SES is coded as low (in the bottom third), middle (in the middle third), and high (in the top third). The middle SES category is used as the reference group. SES is a composite of five variables: father's education and occupation, mother's education and occupation, and household income. Data on SES is asked of parents in each wave, permitting change in status over time. Initial analysis suggests that less than 10% of the sample had a substantial, lasting change in SES over time. Thus, our analysis uses SES in kindergarten to assess how SES at school entry affects achievement growth. Each of these time-invariant variables is interacted with time in the analysis to account for achievement trajectories of students.</p> <p>We also include several time-variant controls, including parents' expectations about their children's future educational attainment, student engagement levels, whether students attended schools of their choice, school size (logged), percentage of students in the school that are minorities, teacher's highest education level (coded 1 for master's degree, education specialist, or doctorate), teacher experience in years, teacher certification (1 = regular and advanced certification), and teacher race (black, white, and Latino). Each of the time-varying control variables are centered around their means. Further information on these control variables can be found in table 1, with descriptive statistics found in table 2.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 1. Description of Variables from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey (ECLS-K) Predicting Math and Reading Achievement Growth in Kindergarten, First, Third, and Fifth Grades</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><td valign="top">Dependent variables:</td><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Math and reading achievement</td><td valign="bottom">ECLS-K data set provides math and reading scales scores calculated using the item response theory (IRT) procedure. IRT uses the pattern of right, wrong, and omitted responses to the items actually administered in a test and the difficulty, discriminating ability, and guessability of each item to place each child on a continuous ability scale. Unlike raw scoring, which in effect treats omitted items as if they had been answered incorrectly, IRT procedures use the pattern of responses to estimate the probability of correct responses for all test questions. Finally, IRT scoring makes possible longitudinal measurement of gain in achievement over time, even though the tests administered are not identical at each point.</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Independent variables:</td><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Teacher job satisfaction</td><td valign="bottom">Factor of three variables: teacher enjoys teaching, teacher would teach again, and teacher makes a difference (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Teacher professional community</td><td valign="bottom">Factor of five items: staff has school spirit, teachers agree on school mission, administrator communicates a central mission, teacher feels accepted among staff as a colleague, and teachers continually seek new ideas and learning (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom">Factor of three items: teachers collaborate on lesson planning and curriculum and collectively discuss the progress of students (1 = never, 2 = once a month or less, 3 = two or three times a month, 4 = once or twice a week, 5 = three or more times a week)</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Student-level control variables:</td><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student's gender</td><td valign="bottom">Dummy variable (1 = male)</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student's race (reference = white)</td><td valign="top">Three dummy variables (black, white, and Latino)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Student's SES (reference = medium)</td><td valign="bottom">A composite of five variables: father's education and occupation, mother's education and occupation, and household income. The SES measure is included as three dummy variables (low SES, medium SES, and high SES).</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Language spoken at home</td><td valign="bottom">Dummy variable (1 = student speaks non-English language at home)</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Parental expectations</td><td valign="bottom">Dummy variable (1 = to earn a master's degree or more)</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> If the child's school is a choice school</td><td valign="bottom">Dummy variable (1 = school is choice school)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Student's orientation toward Learning</td><td valign="bottom">Scale variable: The ECLS-K data set provides a measure of student engagement by combining behavioral, cognitive, and emotional engagement. The measure is based on teacher responses, and it includes child's attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility, and organization.</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Teacher/classroom-level control variables:</td><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher experience</td><td valign="top">Number of years the teacher has been teaching in the current school</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher education</td><td valign="bottom">Teacher's highest level of education (1 = master's or higher)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Teacher certification</td><td valign="bottom">Type of teaching certification (1 = the highest certification available: regular, permanent, or long term)</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher race (reference = white)</td><td valign="top">Three dummy variables (black, white, and Latino)</td></tr><tr><td valign="top"> Teacher–student ratio</td><td valign="bottom">Scale variable: This variable is created by dividing total student enrolment by total number of FTE teachers in school.</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">School-level control variables:</td><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Size of school</td><td valign="bottom">Log of total school enrollment</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Percentage of minority students in school</td><td valign="top">Continuous variable</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School location (reference = South)</td><td valign="bottom">Four dummy variables (location = Northeast, Midwest, West, and South)</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School region (reference = urban)</td><td valign="bottom">Three dummy variables (rural, suburban, and urban)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 2. Mean and Standard Deviation of Variables from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey (ECLS-K) Predicting Math and Reading Achievement Growth in Kindergarten, First, Third, and Fifth Grades</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom">Mean</td><td valign="bottom">SD</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Dependent variables:</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Math achievement score</td><td char="." valign="bottom">75.58</td><td char="." valign="bottom">19.32</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Reading achievement score</td><td char="." valign="bottom">112.89</td><td char="." valign="bottom">15.50</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Independent variables:</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher job satisfaction</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.02</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.32</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher professional community</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.03</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.49</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher collaboration</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.45</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Student-level control variables:</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is male</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.51</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is black</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.22</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is Latino</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.51</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is from low SES status</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.32</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is from high SES status</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.29</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student has limited English proficiency</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.13</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Parental expectations are high</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.23</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> If the child's school is a choice school</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.48</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student's orientation toward learning</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.02</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.35</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Teacher/classroom-level control variables:</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher experience</td><td char="." valign="bottom">9.11</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.63</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher has highest education</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.89</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher has highest certification</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.91</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher is Latino</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.07</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher is black</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.08</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher–student ratio</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.04</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.12</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">School-level control variables:</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Size of school</td><td char="." valign="bottom">6.18</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.48</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Percentage of minority students in school</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.34</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.18</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Midwest</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.21</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the West</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.20</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Northeast</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.16</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School region is suburban</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.25</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School region is rural</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.30</td><td valign="bottom">...</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>21 <emph>N</emph> = 5,850. SDs are reported for continuous variables.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-21">Statistical lags</hd> <p>Our study applies lags to the time-varying teacher- and school-level variables in the analytic models. The application of lags is necessary to ensure that students' achievement trajectories reflect their cumulative experiences from multiple teachers and schools. It also takes into account the fact that school and teacher effects persist into the future (Heck [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref152">27</reflink>]; Krueger and Whitmore [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref153">41</reflink>]; Moller et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref154">57</reflink>]). Moreover, because teachers' job satisfaction can result from students' performance in the previous year (Hanushek et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref155">24</reflink>]), application of a lag was necessary in this case. The literature suggests that a lag is necessary, but the degree of the lag remains disputed (Kane and Staiger [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref156">37</reflink>]). Therefore, following Moller et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref157">57</reflink>]), this study empirically identifies the lag by fitting a series of exponential decay curves to the data:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mi>decay</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>100</mn><mo>×</mo><msup><mi>e</mi><mrow><mi>−τ</mi><mi>t</mi></mrow></msup><mo>.</mo></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>In this equation, τ is the rate of decay, and <emph>t</emph> is the time elapsed. Decay curves are widely used across the physical and social sciences to explain fade out of a variety of phenomenon. Following Moller et al. ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref158">57</reflink>]), this study tests decay rates ranging from τ = 0.001 (no decay) to τ = 1 and compares the fit statistics across models. The results show that a decline in model fit begins once the decay rate reaches τ = 0.5. The cumulative lag variables are calculated as follows: there is no lag given that kindergarten is the first year—100% of the lag variables in kindergarten are based on kindergarten; in the first grade, the lag variables are calculated as 61% kindergarten and 39% first grade; the third grade values are calculated as 29% third grade, 39% first grade, and 32% kindergarten. The lagged measures for the key variables are better than cross-sectional measures for establishing a causal link (Moller et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref159">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-22">Analytic Technique</hd> <p>We use a cross-classified growth model to examine math and reading achievement over 4 time periods. Cross-classified growth models permit analysis of achievement scores over more than 2 time periods when the number of time periods is limited, trajectories are nonlinear, and students change schools (Goldstein [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref160">21</reflink>]; Raudenbush and Bryk [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref161">69</reflink>]). We are able to predict both initial scores in kindergarten and growth in scores between kindergarten, first, third, and fifth grades. This permits us to examine how teachers' job satisfaction affects achievement in school, controlling for students' initial scores:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msub><mi>y</mi><mrow><mi>t</mi><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mi>o</mi></msub><mo>+</mo><mstyle displaystyle="true"><munderover><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>q</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn></mrow><mn>3</mn></munderover><mrow><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mi>q</mi><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></msub><msub><mi>x</mi><mrow><mi>q</mi><mi>t</mi><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></msub></mrow></mstyle><mo>+</mo><mstyle displaystyle="true"><munderover><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mi>p</mi></munderover><mrow><msub><mi>λ</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><msub><mi>w</mi><mrow><mi>p</mi><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></mstyle><mo>+</mo><mstyle displaystyle="true"><munderover><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mi>p</mi></munderover><mrow><msub><mi>β</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><msub><mi>z</mi><mrow><mi>p</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></mstyle><mo>+</mo><mstyle displaystyle="true"><munderover><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>0</mn></mrow><mn>3</mn></munderover><mrow><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mi>q</mi><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></msub><msub><mi>x</mi><mrow><mi>q</mi><mi>t</mi><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></msub></mrow></mstyle><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mstyle displaystyle="true"><munderover><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mi>p</mi></munderover><mrow><msub><mi>λ</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><msub><mi>w</mi><mrow><mi>p</mi><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></mstyle><mo>+</mo><mstyle displaystyle="true"><munderover><mo>∑</mo><mrow><mi>p</mi><mo>=</mo><mn>1</mn></mrow><mi>p</mi></munderover><mrow><msub><mi>β</mi><mi>p</mi></msub><msub><mi>z</mi><mrow><mi>p</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></mstyle></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>e</mi><mrow><mi>t</mi><mrow><mo>(</mo><mrow><mi>i</mi><mi>j</mi></mrow><mo>)</mo></mrow></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>u</mi><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>j</mi></mrow></msub><mo>.</mo></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>The outcome variables are math and reading scores at time <emph>t</emph> for student <emph>i</emph> in school <emph>j</emph>, <emph>y</emph><subs><emph>t</emph>(<emph>ij</emph>)</subs>, in which <emph>i</emph> and <emph>j</emph> are placed in parentheses to reflect cross-classification. Math and reading scores are a function of time, <emph>x</emph><subs><emph>qt</emph>(<emph>ij</emph>)</subs>; student variables, λ<subs><emph>p</emph></subs><emph>w</emph><subs><emph>pi</emph></subs>; and school variables, β<subs><emph>p</emph></subs><emph>z<subs>pj</subs></emph>. Time (coded 0, 1, 2, and 3 for kindergarten, first, third, and fifth grades, respectively) is also interacted with student and school variables. The direct effects of the student and school variables are the effects at time 0, when students are in kindergarten. The interactive effects reflect the impact of student and school variables at each time period. Time is entered as a scaled variable to permit nonlinear growth in achievement over time. The equation includes a between-student error term,<emph>e</emph><subs><emph>t</emph>(<emph>ij</emph>)</subs>, and random components for students and schools, <emph>u</emph><subs>1<emph>i</emph></subs> and <emph>u</emph><subs>2<emph>j</emph></subs> (Raudenbush and Bryk [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref162">69</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-23">Results</hd> <p>Tables 3 and 4 present the slopes and standard errors from cross-classified growth models predicting students' math and reading achievement growth in kindergarten, first, third, and fifth grades. For ease of presentation, each of the time-invariant control variables are presented alongside the independent and the interaction variables. Additional time-variant control variables are given in each table's footnote.[<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref163">7</reflink>] To better understand the independent and interactive effects, we sequentially introduce them in the models.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 3. Slopes and Standard Errors from Cross-Classified Growth Model Predicting Mathematics Achievement in Kindergarten, First, Third, and Fifth Grades</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom">Model 1</td><td valign="bottom">Model 2</td><td valign="bottom">Model 3</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom">Model 1</td><td valign="bottom">Model 2</td><td valign="bottom">Model 3</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Initial score in kindergarten</td><td valign="bottom">28.06</td><td valign="bottom">1.95***</td><td valign="bottom">28.64</td><td valign="bottom">1.92***</td><td valign="bottom">28.44</td><td valign="bottom">1.91***</td><td valign="bottom">Growth in first grade</td><td valign="bottom">28.22</td><td valign="bottom">1.33***</td><td valign="bottom">28.11</td><td valign="bottom">1.33***</td><td valign="bottom">28.06</td><td valign="bottom">1.33***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Key independent variables:</td><td valign="bottom">Key independent variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.25</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.31</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.34</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.34</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.22</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.31</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.35</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.39</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.57</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.46</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.68</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.40+</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−.08</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.34</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom"> Professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−.03</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.49</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">.06</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.31</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−.84</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.39*</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">.25</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.42</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−.96</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.66</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.36</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">1.44</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.66*</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Student-level time-invariant control variables:</td><td valign="bottom">Student-level time-invariant control variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is black</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.13+</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.14</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.13+</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.96</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.14+</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is black</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.18</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.85***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.83</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.84***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.12</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.85***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is Latino</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.59</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.02</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.67</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.02</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.59</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.03</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is Latino</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.45</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.89**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.65</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.90**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.78</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.89**</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is male</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.16</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.58</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.11</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.57+</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.09</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.57+</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is male</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.46</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.49</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.28</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.49</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.46</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.50</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is ESL</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−5.02</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.04***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−5.02</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.04***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−4.98</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.04***</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is ESL</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.69</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.91</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.67</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.92</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.79</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.91</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is from low SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−4.29</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.46**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−4.43</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.46**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−4.23</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.47**</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is from low SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−5.06</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.21***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−5.15</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.20***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−5.29</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.22***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is from high SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.26</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.91</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.19</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.91</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.50</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.92</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is from high SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.71</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.62***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.64</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.62</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.99</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.62+</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">School-level time-invariant control variables:</td><td valign="bottom">School-level time-invariant control variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Midwest</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.29</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.21</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.71</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.21</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.76</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.21</td><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Midwest</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.58</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.73</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.71</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.73</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.49</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.73</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the West</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.54</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.2</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.06</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.21+</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.02</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.21+</td><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the West</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.99</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.72</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.04</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.74</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.35</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.74</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Northeast</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.56</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.35+</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.63</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.36+</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.65</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.36+</td><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Northeast</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.55</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.86</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.67</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.87</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.32</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.87</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School region is rural</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.45</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.91</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.95</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.92*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.97</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.93*</td><td valign="bottom"> School region is rural</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.62</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.61</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.45</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.61</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.41</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.61</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School region is suburban</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.61</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.87</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.81</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.89*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.88</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.89*</td><td valign="bottom"> School region is suburban</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.05</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.66</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.30</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.66</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.33</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.66</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Growth in third grade</td><td char="." valign="bottom">70.49</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.48***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">69.49</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.55***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">69.42</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.55***</td><td valign="bottom">Growth in fifth grade</td><td char="." valign="bottom">100.33</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.64***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">99.8</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.70***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">99.83</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.70***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Key independent variables:</td><td valign="bottom">Key independent variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.93</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.52</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.31</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.61</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.54</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.54**</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.32</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.62</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.24</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.70</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.64</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.64</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">2.11</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.68**</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom"> Professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">1.31</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.64*</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−.22</td><td char="." valign="bottom">0.55</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−.45</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.65</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.35</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.01**</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.18</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.17+</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">1.12</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.10</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−.09</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.20</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Student-level time-invariant control variables:</td><td valign="bottom">Student-level time-invariant control variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is black</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−10.09</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.94***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−9.54</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.98***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−9.64</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.99***</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is black</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−15.34</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.06***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−15.76</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.08***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−15.87</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.09***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is Latino</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.28</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.09*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.69</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.12</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.13</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.15+</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is Latino</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.90</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.05***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.58</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.08***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.83</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.08***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is male</td><td char="." valign="bottom">4.78</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.56***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">4.53</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.57***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">4.61</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.57***</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is male</td><td char="." valign="bottom">4.67</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.61***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">5.03</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.62***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">5.02</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.62***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is ESL</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.34</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.12***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.18</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.15</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.41</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.19</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is ESL</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.05</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.09**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.25</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.17**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.45</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.16**</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is from low SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−14.28</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.36***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−13.13</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.42***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−13.58</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.43***</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is from low SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−20.13</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.50***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−19.72</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.55***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−19.97</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.55***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is from high SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−5.24</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.89**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.23</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.98</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.94</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.00+</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is from high SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−13.94</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.90***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−13.26</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.97***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−13.71</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.97***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">School-level time-invariant control variables:</td><td valign="bottom">School-level time-invariant control variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Midwest</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.17</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.85</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.97</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.86</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.94</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.88</td><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Midwest</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.49</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.94**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.49</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.97*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.39</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.00*</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the West</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.22</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.83</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.36</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.86</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.86</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.87</td><td valign="top"> School is located in the West</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.27</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.93*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.52</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.96</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.79</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.96+</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Northeast</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.08</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.96</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.62</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.2</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.01</td><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Northeast</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.85</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.55***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.62</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.10**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.36</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.10**</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School region is rural</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.37</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.72+</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.87</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.75</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.86</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.75</td><td valign="bottom"> School region is rural</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.38</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.38</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.09</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.44</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.09</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.43</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School region is suburban</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.36</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.79**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.15</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.80**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.40</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.80**</td><td valign="bottom"> School region is suburban</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.99</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.57+</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.71</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.62+</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.82</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.61+</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>31 The model also includes time-variant control variables at the student, teacher/classroom, and school levels. These are student engagement, parental expectations, and choice schools; teacher education, certification, experience, and race; teacher–student ratio, percentage minority students in school, and school size.</item> <item>3 <emph>p</emph> <.10.</item> <item>3 <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> <item>3 <emph>p</emph> <.01.</item> <item>3 <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>Graph</p> <p>Graph</p> <p>Table 4. Slopes and Standard Errors from Cross-Classified Growth Model Predicting Reading Achievement in Kindergarten, First, Third, and Fifth Grades</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom">Model 1</td><td valign="bottom">Model 2</td><td valign="bottom">Model 3</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom">Model 1</td><td valign="bottom">Model 2</td><td valign="bottom">Model 3</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td><td valign="bottom">Estimate</td><td valign="bottom">SE</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Initial score in kindergarten</td><td char="." valign="bottom">33.99</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.80***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">33.86</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.81***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">33.56</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.81***</td><td valign="bottom">Growth in first grade</td><td char="." valign="bottom">32.24</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.50***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">32.43</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.51***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">32.34</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.50***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Key independent variables:</td><td valign="bottom">Key independent variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.83</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.33</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.88</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.36*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.81</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.34*</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.58</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.43***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.03</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.52+</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.20</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.45**</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">.11</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.46</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom"> Professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">.42</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.62</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">.27</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.31</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">.48</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.44</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−.23</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.42</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.19</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.75</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−.02</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.40</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">.96</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.71</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Student-level time-invariant control variables:</td><td valign="bottom">Student-level time-invariant control variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is black</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.38</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.14</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.28</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.16</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.16</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is black</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.07</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.14</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.31</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.02</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is Latino</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.30</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.00</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.17</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.13</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.00</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is Latino</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.72</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.97+</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.33</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.33</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.99</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is male</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.56</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.56</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.53</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.56</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.53</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.56</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is male</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.26</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.56***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.33</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.56***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.28</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.56***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is ESL</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.02</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.04**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.20</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.06</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.13</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.06**</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is ESL</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.14</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.25*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.78</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.30*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.83</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.29*</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is from low SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.43</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.44*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.76</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.45**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.45</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.45*</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is from low SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.49</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.35*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.83</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.36*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.91</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.35*</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is from high SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.41</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.85</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.95</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.87</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.28</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.88</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is from high SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.62</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.71*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">5.11</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.71**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">5.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.72**</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">School-level time-invariant control variables:</td><td valign="bottom">School-level time-invariant control variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Midwest</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−4.16</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.25***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−4.50</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.25***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−4.48</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.25***</td><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Midwest</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.79</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.77</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.79</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.76</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.80</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the West</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.46</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.24</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.20</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.25</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.19</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.25</td><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the West</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.09</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.79</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.51</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.81</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.39</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.82</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Northeast</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.63</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.33*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.84</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.34</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.89</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.34*</td><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Northeast</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.93</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.10</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.93</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.03</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.95</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School region is rural</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.57</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.91</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.38</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.95</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.35</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.96</td><td valign="bottom"> School region is rural</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.08</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.66</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.54</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.69</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.44</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.68</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School region is suburban</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.03</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.91</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.16</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.95</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.21</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.93</td><td valign="bottom"> School region is suburban</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.65</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.71*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.61</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.73*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.53</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.71*</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Growth in third grade</td><td char="." valign="bottom">91.8</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.75***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">91.44</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.87***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">91.25</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.87***</td><td valign="bottom">Growth in fifth grade</td><td char="." valign="bottom">117.79</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.92***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">117.49</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.01***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">117.58</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.00***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Key independent variables:</td><td valign="bottom">Key independent variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.42</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.62***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.12</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.82*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.66</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.68***</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.25</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.71**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.70</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.76*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.36</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.74**</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">3.00</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.98*</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom"> Professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">1.28</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.80</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.94</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.56***</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−.32</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.64</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−3.38</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.45*</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × professional community</td><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.46</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.55</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">2.20</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.10*</td><td valign="bottom"> Teacher satisfaction × teacher collaboration</td><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td valign="bottom" /><td char="." valign="bottom">−.18</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.24</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">Student-level time-invariant control variables:</td><td valign="bottom">Student-level time-invariant control variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is black</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−10.67</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.13***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−10.18</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.19***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−10.33</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.21***</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is black</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−13.46</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.27***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−13.75</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.32***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−13.88</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.33***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is Latino</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.65</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.11</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.74</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.21</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.12</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.19</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is Latino</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.32</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.21</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.25</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.86</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.24</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is male</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.55</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.59***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.79</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.60***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.71</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.61***</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is male</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.76</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.65**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.34</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.67*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.40</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.68*</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is ESL</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−6.10</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.59**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−5.87</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.81**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−6.15</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.73**</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is ESL</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−7.08</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.42***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−6.48</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.50***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−6.56</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.49***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is from low SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−13.96</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.54***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−12.59</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.64***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−13.01</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.62***</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is from low SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−17.62</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.75***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−16.63</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.85***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−16.84</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.83***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> Student is from high SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−2.40</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.05</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.24</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.15</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.81</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.18</td><td valign="bottom"> Student is from high SES</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−7.06</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.24**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−5.58</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.32*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−5.82</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.35*</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom">School-level time-invariant control variables:</td><td valign="bottom">School-level time-invariant control variables:</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Midwest</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.18</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.85</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.03</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.89*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.74</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.91</td><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Midwest</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.96</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.95</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.17</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.97*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.17</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.98*</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the West</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.54</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.89</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.02</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.92*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.28</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.92</td><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the West</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−1.03</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.03</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.29</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.05</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.50</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.05</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Northeast</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.08</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.01*</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.78</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.05**</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.07</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.05*</td><td valign="bottom"> School is located in the Northeast</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.59</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.08***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">4.03</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.12***</td><td char="." valign="bottom">3.88</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.12***</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School region is rural</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.67</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.78</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.62</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.82</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.73</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.82</td><td valign="bottom"> School region is rural</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.45</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.28</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.33</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.33</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.37</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.33</td></tr><tr><td valign="bottom"> School region is suburban</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.21</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.81</td><td char="." valign="bottom">−.10</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.83</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.22</td><td char="." valign="bottom">.84</td><td valign="bottom"> School region is suburban</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.50</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.54</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.05</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.60</td><td char="." valign="bottom">2.12</td><td char="." valign="bottom">1.58</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>41 The model also includes time-variant control variables at the student, teacher/classroom, and school levels. These are student engagement, parental expectations, and choice schools; teacher education, certification, experience, and race; teacher–student ratio, percentage minority students in school, and school size.</item> <item>4 <emph>p</emph> <.10.</item> <item>4 <emph>p</emph> <.05.</item> <item>4 <emph>p</emph> <.01.</item> <item>4 <emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> </ulist> <p>Model 1 in tables 3 and 4 presents the effect of teacher job satisfaction on math and reading achievement growth, respectively. Results in table 3 do not show any significant association between teacher job satisfaction and students' math achievement growth in the elementary grades. Table 4 shows that teacher job satisfaction is a positive and significant predictor of reading achievement growth in the elementary grades. A 1-point increase in teacher satisfaction is associated with a gain of approximately 1.58 points in reading achievement in first grade, 3.42 points in third grade, and 2.25 points in fifth grade. However, the true effect sizes are much smaller, although significant, when we examine the above results in terms of standard deviation (SD) units. A 1-SD increase in teacher job satisfaction is associated with an increase in students' reading achievement by approximately 0.5 SD in first grade, by 1.1 SD in third grade, and by 0.75 SD by fifth grade.</p> <p>The magnitude of the estimated effect of teacher job satisfaction is noticeable when we compare it with other prominent teacher quality indicators estimated in the literature. For example, Rockoff ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref164">72</reflink>]) found that a 1-SD increase in teacher quality raised students' reading and math test scores by approximately 0.20 and 0.24 SD, respectively, on a nationally standardized scale. Nye et al. ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref165">59</reflink>]) found the average magnitude of teacher effects was about 0.32 SD. Examining the role of teacher experience, Kraft and Papay ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref166">40</reflink>]) found that the average returns to teaching experience after 10 years is around 0.11 SD of the student test-score distribution. Clotfelter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref167">8</reflink>]) reported that compared with a teacher with no experience, the benefits of experience rise monotonically in the range of 0.092 to 0.11 SD after 21–27 years of experience, with half of the gain occurring during the first few years of teaching. The authors also examined the role of teacher credentials. Their findings show that a teacher whose test scores were 1 SD above the average would increase student achievement by 0.011 to 0.015 SD.</p> <p>Next, we plot the predicted least squares means in figures 2 and 3 for substantive interpretation of the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and students' math and reading achievement growth. Growth in achievement reflects the differences in predicted scores (i.e., least squares means) between each year and kindergarten (in essence, we subtract out predicted differences in mathematics and reading scores at the beginning of schooling). For graphical representation, we compute teacher job satisfaction scores at different percentiles of the distribution (i.e., 5th, 15th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 95th). However, we present only percentile values for which there is a significant difference in achievement scores.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2. Predicted math achievement growth for all students by teacher satisfaction in schools.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3. Predicted reading achievement growth for all students by teacher satisfaction in schools.</p> <p>The predicted least squares means for reading achievement plotted in figure 3 show that students taught by teachers who are highly satisfied with their jobs (i.e., satisfaction levels at the 95th percentile of the distribution) have slightly higher achievement trajectories than students taught by teachers who are relatively less satisfied with their jobs (i.e., satisfaction levels at 5th percentile of the distribution). A significant gap in the growth trajectories for these two groups of students becomes visible in the third grade. By fifth grade, when most students have been exposed to 6 years of schooling, students exposed to teachers with high job satisfaction experience a significant boost in reading achievement (nearly 4 points) compared with students who spent their elementary schools with relatively less satisfied teachers. Substantively, this means that students have higher reading achievement by fifth grade when they study with teachers who perceive that they are making a difference through their teaching, enjoy teaching, and would like to teach again. However, we found no statistically significant difference in students' math achievement growth trajectories depending on their teachers' job satisfaction levels.[<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref168">8</reflink>]</p> <p>Models 2 and 3 in tables 3 and 4, respectively, examine whether components of CPTC moderate the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and students' math and reading achievement growth. Specifically, model 2 in tables 3 and 4 examines the interactive effects of teacher job satisfaction and teacher professional community on students' math and reading achievement growth. Model 3 in tables 3 and 4 examines the interactive effects of teacher job satisfaction and teacher collaboration on students' math and reading achievement growth. The predicted least squares means from these models are plotted in figures 4, 5, and 6 to better present the substantive interpretations of the interaction effects.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4. Predicted math achievement growth by teacher satisfaction and professional community in schools.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 5. Predicted reading achievement growth by teacher satisfaction and professional community in schools.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 6. Predicted reading achievement growth by teacher satisfaction and teacher collaboration in schools.</p> <p>Model 2 shows that the effects of teacher job satisfaction on students' math achievement growth vary depending on the presence of schoolwide professional community in third grade and by fifth grade. In other words, professional community helps predict the growth in math achievement for students taught by teachers who are dissatisfied with their jobs. The predicted least squares means plotted in figure 4 reveal that when assigned to teachers with low job satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction levels at the 5th percentile of the distribution), students in schools with a strong schoolwide professional community (i.e., at the 95th percentile of the distribution) score significantly higher in math achievement by third and fifth grades compared with similar students in schools with weaker schoolwide professional communities (i.e., at the 5th percentile of the distribution). However, when students are assigned to teachers with high levels of job satisfaction, their math achievement trajectories are not significantly different, irrespective of the nature of professional community in schools. In other words, the presence of a strong professional community serves as a cushion that can mitigate some of the harmful effects on students when assigned to teachers with low levels of personal job satisfaction.</p> <p>Figure 5 reveals that the presence of professional community also moderates the effect of teacher job satisfaction on reading achievement growth. The predicted least squares means plotted in figure 5 show that when assigned to teachers with low job satisfaction, students in schools with a strong schoolwide professional community score significantly higher in reading achievement by third grade compared with similar students in schools with a weaker schoolwide professional community. However, the two reading achievement growth trajectories are no longer significantly different from each other by fifth grade. Figure 5 also shows that when students are assigned to teachers with high levels of job satisfaction, their reading achievement trajectories are not significantly different, irrespective of the nature of professional community in the schools.</p> <p>Model 3 in tables 3 and 4 examines the interactive effects of teacher job satisfaction and levels of teacher collaboration in schools on students' math and reading achievement growth. The predicted least squares means for this interactive effect on math achievement growth reveal that the growth trajectories for different groups of students based on their assignment to satisfied versus dissatisfied teachers and depending on the extent of teacher collaboration in schools are not significantly different from each other. However, the presence of teacher collaboration moderates the effect of teacher job satisfaction on reading achievement growth, as figure 6 reveals. The predicted least squares means plotted in figure 6 reveal that when assigned to teachers with low job satisfaction, students in schools with weak collaborative norms score significantly higher in reading achievement by third grade compared with similar students in schools with strong collaborative norms. This seems to indicate that the presence of collaborative norms is not necessarily a helpful factor in raising reading achievement levels among students assigned to teachers with low job satisfaction levels.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-24">Discussion of Findings</hd> <p>Consistent with the major meta-analytic studies that have found modest association between job satisfaction and job performance in organizational contexts other than schools, we find modest but significant association between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement in elementary schools. We also find new evidence for many other related questions. First, the strength of the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement varies across elementary grades. Second, teacher job satisfaction has a significant and direct association with students' reading achievement but not mathematics achievement throughout their elementary schooling years. Finally, components of school culture, namely teacher professional community and teacher collaboration, moderate the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement growth in both reading and math.</p> <p>The finding that there is a small but significant difference in reading achievement growth trajectories for students taught by highly satisfied and dissatisfied teachers by third and fifth grades tells us that the effects of teacher job satisfaction or dissatisfaction on students' reading achievement accumulate over time and are visible only in later grades. The growth curve analysis used in this study allows us to capture such cumulative effects. For math achievement, we find no relationship with teacher job satisfaction in the elementary grades, although an earlier study by Park ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref169">64</reflink>]) found a statistically significant relationship between the two among twelfth graders. We have not formally tested the potential reasons behind such cumulative effects, but this offers an interesting line of inquiry for future studies.</p> <p>The lack of a direct relationship between teacher job satisfaction and students' math achievement growth suggests that teachers' job satisfaction may not be sufficient to raise students' math scores. The math achievement results are telling because none of the other typical teacher quality variables, such as teacher certification and experience, showed any significant effect on math achievement growth in our sample. It further raises the possibility of potential joint effects between teacher job satisfaction and school contextual factors in predicting math achievement growth. Several recent studies have found strong relationships between school contextual factors such as work environment, school culture, and both student achievement and teacher outcomes (Borman and Dowling [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref170">4</reflink>]; Boyd et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref171">5</reflink>]; Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref172">34</reflink>]; Ladd [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref173">43</reflink>]; Moller et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref174">57</reflink>]; Stearns et al. 2015).</p> <p>We explore this scenario by examining the joint effects of teacher job satisfaction and two components of school culture, teacher professional community and teacher collaboration, on students' math and reading achievement growth. We find that the presence of teacher professional community moderates the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and students' math and reading achievement growth. The cumulative effects are again visible by late elementary grades (third and fifth). Most notably, the presence of a strong professional community can boost math and reading achievement scores among students who have spent their elementary school years assigned to teachers with low job satisfaction. We argue that a strong professional community where there is school spirit, a sense of collegiality and continuous learning and sharing of ideas among teachers, agreement on school mission, and better communication from school administrators regarding a central mission for the schools can serve as a cushion that can mitigate some of the harmful effects of teacher dissatisfaction translating into lower student achievement. We also find that the presence of strong collaborative norms is not necessarily a helpful factor in raising reading achievement levels among students assigned to teachers with low job satisfaction levels. Unlike professional community, collaborative norms require them to meet with their colleagues regularly each week and to jointly plan and implement certain tasks. It is possible that many teachers find such collaborative practices a hindrance rather than a help. Overall, our findings clearly show that school culture is an important contextual factor that can shape the relationship between teachers' job satisfaction and students' achievement.</p> <p>Like all studies, this study has limitations. Our ability to measure the concepts of teacher job satisfaction and the organizational culture of schools is constrained by the availability of variables in the ECLS-K data. The data set, although rich in the information it collects, is slightly dated. Another limitation of our study stems from our ability to tackle the possibility of a reciprocal relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement. We have assumed a unidirectional relationship and used a lagged measure of teacher job satisfaction to address any reciprocity in this relationship. We believe that our strategy will minimize the possibility of bias if not eliminate it completely. A final possible limitation of our study is that we use teachers' perceptions about their job satisfaction and the presence of professional community and collaboration in schools instead of other objective measures. It is possible that teachers whose students are not performing well may systematically respond more negatively in their perception of job satisfaction and school culture. Our use of lagged measures for both teacher job satisfaction and the two components of school culture, along with the use of objective student achievement data in standardized tests, will minimize any bias that could potentially occur.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-25">Policy Implications</hd> <p>Research into teacher job satisfaction and teacher effectiveness has grown with the two topics being largely independent of each other in the era of accountability and standard-based reforms. Despite rapid growth in research on teacher effectiveness in recent years, the role of teacher job satisfaction in improving teacher effectiveness when measured narrowly by student achievement on standardized tests has largely lacked any substantial empirical support. Furthermore, teacher effectiveness research has neglected how subtle aspects of teacher work life, such as the culture of schools, can shape the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement. This study examines these largely untested research questions.</p> <p>Our study findings have substantive policy implications. First, given the interest in improving student achievement in schools, should policy makers look for strategies to improve teacher job satisfaction? We argue that, indeed, they should. This is because our study found a modest but direct positive relationship between teacher job satisfaction and reading achievement growth. Even though the magnitude of the cumulative effects for teacher job satisfaction was small, it was larger than many other teacher quality indicators that the literature has found to be important for raising student achievement in schools. Notwithstanding the small effect size, there may be very strong indirect effects through teachers' instructional practices, which have a strong relationship with learning outcomes.</p> <p>This study found no evidence of a direct association between teacher job satisfaction and students' math achievement growth. Furthermore, the absence of a direct relationship does not rule out the possibility that an indirect relationship may exist through teacher instructional practices, as teachers with higher levels of job satisfaction are more likely to use effective instructional practices that are directly linked with higher student learning (Palardy and Rumberger [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref175">62</reflink>]). Additionally, it is possible that teacher satisfaction is not sufficient to improve math achievement and that a combination of factors might play a bigger role. Indeed, our study showed that teacher job satisfaction alone may not be a panacea for improving students' math achievement.</p> <p>A second policy implication emerging from this study is that policy makers must approach the organization of teachers' work to focus on improvements in student success. Clearly, teacher professional community is the most important component when considering the extent to which the organizational culture of schools can weaken some of the negative effects of teachers' job dissatisfaction on students' achievement. Our findings clearly point out the need to foster the development of a CPTC in elementary schools. This requires hiring and training competent administrators who are capable of clearly communicating goals to school staff and obtaining staff buy-in for those goals. Doing so would also foster efforts to build communities among teachers at the same schools, to heighten trust among those individuals, and to emphasize collegiality. These efforts might also encourage teachers to seek new ideas and to learn from each other. This study suggests such initiatives would lay the organizational and cultural foundations for greater teacher job satisfaction, which can boost student achievement. At a minimum, a thriving school culture with a strong professional community ameliorates the challenges and frustrations that teachers otherwise experience, permitting them to find satisfaction in their jobs and absorbing some of the negative effects of teacher job dissatisfaction from translating into lower student achievement. Although the benefits of a strong professional community were clearly visible from our study, strong collaborative norms were found to be less helpful to teachers already suffering from low levels of job satisfaction. It is possible that teachers may find it difficult to engage in actual collaborative efforts that require absolute interdependence without the commitment from school leadership to allocate necessary time, resources, training, and rewards for such activities. The pressure to collaborate without the necessary support structure may accentuate job dissatisfaction among teachers, leading to even lower student achievement. Therefore, as many schools begin to embrace norms for professional community and greater collaboration among teachers, the role of school leadership will be crucial in sustaining the momentum.</p> <p>A third policy implication of this study emerges from the finding that the beneficial effects of teacher job satisfaction and the organizational culture of schools accumulate over time and are visible in late elementary grades. This clearly calls for interventions in early grades because that is when students are placed on learning trajectories. A focus on early elementary grades is also important because studies have shown that students who are unable to develop reading and math skills in early grades face increased likelihood of later school failure (Dee [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref176">13</reflink>]; Tach and Farkas [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref177">84</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-26">Conclusion</hd> <p>Teachers play a central role in student learning. With rapidly diversifying classrooms, resource constraints, and growing demands to take personal responsibility for their student learning outcomes, teachers face challenges on multiple fronts. Studies have shown increasing rates of teacher turnover unrelated to retirement across the nation, especially among new teachers, teachers of color, and teachers teaching in high-poverty schools. Reform efforts have focused mostly on improving teacher effectiveness and student achievement, ignoring the roles of school organization and teacher job satisfaction, which are critical for student success. As this study shows, the presence of a vibrant professional community and strong teacher collaboration in schools can minimize the negative consequences of higher levels of dissatisfaction among elementary teachers from affecting their students' achievement in reading and math. It is imperative that future policies in education recognize the importance of a positive workplace environment and teacher job satisfaction in promoting teacher effectiveness and student achievement; to do otherwise is to work at cross-purposes.</p> <hd id="AN0120930747-27">Appendix A Measures of Teacher Satisfaction</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. I really enjoy my present teaching job.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. I am certain I am making a difference in the lives of the children I teach.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. If I could start over, I would choose teaching again as my career.</item> </ulist> <p>Responses to the above three questions are captured through a five-point response scale:</p> <olist> <item> = Strongly disagree</item> <item> = Disagree</item> <item> = Neither agree nor disagree</item> <item> = Agree</item> <item> = Strongly agree</item> </olist> <hd id="AN0120930747-28">Appendix B Measures of Collective Pedagogical Teacher Culture</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Teacher's perception that staff have school spirit.</item> <p></p> <item> 2. Teacher's perception that administrators communicate a mission.</item> <p></p> <item> 3. Teacher's perception that teachers agree on school mission.</item> <p></p> <item> 4. Teacher feels accepted and respected as a colleague.</item> <p></p> <item> 5. Teacher feels that staff are continually learning and seeking new ideas.</item> </ulist> <p>Responses to the above questions are captured through a five-point response scale:</p> <olist> <item> = Strongly disagree</item> <item> = Disagree</item> <item> = Neither agree nor disagree</item> <item> = Agree</item> <item> = Strongly agree</item> <p></p> <item> 6. Frequency that teachers meet to collaborate on lesson planning.</item> <p></p> <item> 7. Frequency that teachers meet to collaborate on curriculum development.</item> <p></p> <item> 8. Frequency that teachers meet to discuss a child.</item> </olist> <p>Responses to the above questions are captured through a five-point response scale:</p> <olist> <item> = Never</item> <item> = Once a month or less</item> <item> = Two or three times a month</item> <item> = Once or twice a week</item> <item> = Three or more times a week</item> </olist> <ref id="AN0120930747-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Neena Banerjee is assistant professor of public administration in the Department of Political Science at Valdosta State University. Her current research examines how structural and cultural factors in schools influence student learning outcomes during their elementary, secondary, and college years and the implications of teacher diversity in schools on teachers' job satisfaction, students' schooling experiences, and educational outcomes. Elizabeth Stearns is associate professor of sociology and public policy at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her main areas of research focus on gender and racial/ethnic inequalities in education, including choice of college major. Stephanie Moller is professor of sociology and public policy at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research focuses on inequities in educational outcomes and on family income inequality. Roslyn Arlin Mickelson is Chancellor's Professor and professor of sociology and public policy at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Currently, she is examining the social context of underrepresented students' college success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Her coedited book, <emph>Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: School Desegregation and Resegregation in Charlotte</emph>, was published in 2015.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education, through Grant R305A100822 to the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the institute or the US Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref21" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> We do not test all the relationships marked with arrows in figure 1. Only arrows in bold are tested in the current study.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref36" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Another issue that scholars have confronted is the relationship between overall satisfaction and facet satisfaction. <emph>Facet satisfaction</emph> refers to evaluations of components of job experiences rather than overall evaluation (Weiss [88]). Kalleberg ([36]) argued that job satisfaction has intrinsic (referring to the work itself) and extrinsic dimensions. The extrinsic dimension consists of satisfaction with facets such as finances, career, convenience, relationships with coworkers, and adequacy of resources. Kalleberg argued that a combined satisfaction level can be arrived at after balancing satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a specific work role. However, later research showed no straightforward relationship between facet and overall satisfaction (Weiss [88]). Nevertheless, empirical studies continue to rely on Kalleberg's conceptualization, as it provides a more useful decomposition of a job (Lee et al. [45]; Mortimer and Johnson [58]; Renzulli et al. [70]; Seifert and Umbach [78]).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref52" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> The eighth-grade teacher questionnaire in the ECLS-K does not contain the same variables that we used to create the factor scores for elementary schools. The missing variables are (a) teachers agree on school mission, (b) administrator communicates a central mission, and (c) teachers collaborate on lesson planning and curriculum and collectively discuss the progress of students.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref28" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> We excluded Asian Americans, American Indians, and Hawaiian natives from the data because of small sample sizes for these groups. The problem became more serious when we attempted 2- and 3-way interactions between the constructs of school culture, teacher satisfaction, and race/ethnicity on student achievement. In some instances, the growth models did not converge, and in other cases, small sample size prevented us from drawing meaningful conclusions.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> The slopes and standard errors for the remaining time-variant control variables are available from the authors.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref167" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> We also tested whether the association between teachers' job satisfaction and achievement growth for math and reading were more pronounced for some racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups than others and found that it did not.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0120930747-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bandura, Antonio. 2006. "Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales." In Self-Efficacy and Beliefs of Adolescence, vol. 5, ed. F. Pajares and T. Urdan. Greenwich, CT: Information Age.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borman, Geoffrey D., and N. Maritza Dowling. 2008. "Teacher Attrition and Retention: A Meta-Analytic and Narrative Review of the Research." Review of Educational Research 78 (3): 367–409.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boyd, Donald, Hamilton Lankford, Susanna Loeb, Jonah Rockoff, and James Wyckoff. 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brief, Arthur P. 1998. Attitudes In and Around Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caprara, Gian V., Claudio Barbaranelli, Patrizia Steca, and Patrick S. Malone. 2006. "Teachers' Self-Efficacy Beliefs as Determinants of Job Satisfaction and Students' Academic Achievement: A Study at the School Level." Journal of School Psychology 44 (6): 473–90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clotfelter, Charles T., Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob Vigdor. 2007. "Teacher Credentials and Student Achievement: Longitudinal Analysis with Student Fixed Effects." Economics of Education Review 26 (6): 673–82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref121" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Coburn, Cynthia E., Jennifer L. Russell, Julia H. Kaufman, and Mary K. Stein. 2012. "Supporting Sustainability: Teachers' Advice Networks and Ambitious Instructional Reform." American Journal of Education 119 (1): 137–82</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cranny, C. J., Patricia C. Smith, and Eugene F. Stone. 1992. Job Satisfaction: How People Feel About Their Jobs and How It Affects Their Performance. New York: Lexington.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crites, Stephen L., Leandre R. Fabrigar, and Richard E. Petty. 1994. "Measuring the Affective and Cognitive Properties of Attitudes: Conceptual and Methodological Issues." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20:619–34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crosswell, Leanne J., and Robert G. Elliott. 2004. "Committed Teachers, Passionate Teachers: The Dimension of Passion Associated with Teacher Commitment and Engagement." Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education conference, Melbourne, November 28–December 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dee, Thomas S. 2004. "Teachers, Race, and Student Achievement in a Randomized Experiment." Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (1): 195–210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dinham, Steve, and Catherine Scott. 2000. "Moving into the Third, Outer Domain of Teacher Satisfaction." Journal of Educational Administration 38 (4): 379–96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dormann, Christian, and Dieter Zapf. 2001. "Job Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis of Stabilities." Journal of Organizational Behavior 22 (5): 483–504.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fenstemacher, Gary D., and Virginia Richardson. 2000. On Making Determinations of Quality in Teaching. Washington, DC: Board of International Comparative Studies in Education of the National Academy of Sciences.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gamoran, Adam, Ramona Gunter, and Tona Williams. 2005. "Professional Community by Design: Building Social Capital through Teacher Professional Development." In Social Organization of Schooling, ed. L. V. Hedges and B. Schneider. New York: Russell Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gamoran, Adam, Walter G. Secada, and Cora B. Marrett. 2000. "The Organizational Context of Teaching and Learning." In Handbook of the Sociology of Education, ed. M. T. Hallinan. New York: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ghaith, Ghazi, and Hussein Yaghi. 1997. "Relationships among Experience, Teacher Efficacy, and Attitudes toward the Implementation of Instructional Innovation." Teaching and Teacher Education 13 (4): 451–58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goddard, Roger D., Wayne K. Hoy, and Anita W. Hoy. 2000. "Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning, Measure, and Impact on Student Achievement." American Educational Research Journal 37 (2): 479–507.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, Harvey. 2010. Multilevel Statistical Models, 4th ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guarino, Cassandra M., Laura S. Hamilton, J. R. Lockwood, and Amy H. Rathbun. 2006. "Teacher Qualifications, Instructional Practices, and Reading and Mathematics Gains of Kindergartners" (NCES 2006–031). Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hall, Bruce, Carolyn L. Pearson, and Delos Carroll. 1992. "Teachers' Long-Range Teaching Plans: A Discriminant Analysis." Journal of Educational Research 84 (4): 221–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanushek, Eric A., John F. Kain, and Steven G. Rivkin. 2004. "Why Public Schools Lose Teachers." Journal of Human Resources 39 (2): 326–54.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanushek, Eric, Steven Rivkin, David Figlio, and Brian Jacob. 2010. "Generalizations About Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality." American Economic Review 100 (2): 267–71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, John. 2013. Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. New York: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heck, Ronald H. 2007. "Examining the Relationship between Teacher Quality as an Organizational Property of Schools and Students' Achievement and Growth Rates." Educational Administration Quarterly 43 (4): 399–432.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heitin, Liana. 2012. "Survey: Teacher Job Satisfaction Hits a Low Point." Education Week, March 7, <ulink href="http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2012/03/07/metlife11.html">http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2012/03/07/metlife11.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hirsch, Eric, and Keri Church. 2009. "North Carolina Teacher Working Conditions Survey Brief: Teacher Working Conditions Are Student Learning Conditions." Research Brief Issue 09–06, Teacher Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horng, Eileen L. 2009. "Teacher Tradeoffs: Disentangling Teachers' Preferences for Working Conditions and Student Demographics." American Educational Research Journal 46 (3): 690–717.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulin, Charles. 1991. "Adaptation, Persistence, and Commitment in Organizations." In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, vol. 2, ed. M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hulleman, Chris S., and Kenneth E. Barron. 2010. "Performance Pay and Teacher Motivation: Separating Myth from Reality." Phi Delta Kappan 91 (8): 27–31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iaffaldano, Michelle, and Paul Muchinsky. 1985. "Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis." Psychological Bulletin 97 (2): 251–73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, Susan M., Matthew A. Kraft, and John P. Papay. 2012. "How Context Matters in High-Need Schools: The Effects of Teachers' Working Conditions on Their Professional Satisfaction and Their Students' Achievement." Teachers College Record 114 (10): 1–39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Judge, Timothy, Carl Thoresen, Joyce Bono, and Gregory Patton. 2001. "The Job Satisfaction-Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review." Psychological Bulletin 127 (3): 376–407.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalleberg, Arne. 1977. "Work Values and Job Rewards: A Theory of Job Satisfaction." American Sociological Review 42 (1): 124–43.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kane, Thomas, and Douglas Staiger. 2008. "Estimating Teacher Impacts on Student Achievement: An Experimental Evaluation." Working Paper 14607, National Bureau of Economic Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, Mary M. 2010. "Attribution Error and the Quest for Teacher Quality." Educational Researcher 39 (8): 591–98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klassen, Robert M., and Ming M. Chiu. 2010. "Effects on Teachers' Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction: Teacher Gender, Years of Experience, and Job Stress." Journal of Educational Psychology 102 (3): 741–56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft, Matthew A., and John P. Papay. 2014. "Can Professional Environments in Schools Promote Teacher Development? Explaining Heterogeneity in Returns to Teaching Experience." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 36 (4): 476–500.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krueger, Alan B., and Diana M. Whitmore. 2001. "The Effect of Attending a Small Class in the Early Grades on College-Test Taking and Middle School Test Results: Evidence from Project STAR." Economic Journal 111 (468): 1–28.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kruse, Shawn, and Karen Seashore Louis. 2009. Building Strong School Cultures: A Guide to Leading Change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladd, Helen. 2009. "Teachers' Perceptions of Their Working Conditions: How Predictive of Policy-Relevant Outcomes?" Working Paper 33, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, <ulink href="http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/1001440-Teachers-Perceptions.pdf">http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/1001440-Teachers-Perceptions.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ladd, Helen. 2011. "Teachers' Perceptions of Their Working Conditions: How Predictive of Planned and Actual Teacher Movement?" Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33:235–61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Valerie, Robert Dedrick, and Julia Smith. 1991. "The Effect of the Social Organization of Schools on Teachers' Efficacy and Satisfaction." Sociology of Education 64 (3): 190–208.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Valerie, and Julia Smith. 1996. "Collective Responsibility for Learning and Its Effects on Gains in Achievement for Early Secondary School Students." American Journal of Education 104:103–47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee, Valerie, Julia Smith, and Robert Croninger. 1997. "How High School Organization Influences the Equitable Distribution of Learning in Mathematics and Science." Sociology of Education 70 (2): 128–50.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leithwood, Kenneth, Lawrence Leonard, and Lyn Sharratt. 1998. "Conditions Fostering Organizational Learning in Schools." Educational Administration Quarterly 34:243–76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, Xiaofeng, and Patrick Meyer. 2005. "Teachers' Perceptions of Their Jobs: A Multilevel Analysis of the Teacher Follow-up Survey for 1994–95." Teachers College Record 107 (5): 985–1003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loeb, Susanna, Demetra Kalogrides, and Tara Beteille. 2012. "Effective Schools: Teacher Hiring, Assignment, Development, and Retention." Education Finance and Policy 7:269–304.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louis, Karen Seashore, and Helen Marks. 1998. "Does Professional Community Affect the Classroom? Teachers' Work and Student Experiences in Restructuring Schools." American Journal of Education 106:532–75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Louis, Karen Seashore, Helen Marks, and Sharon Kruse. 1996. "Teachers' Professional Community in Restructuring Schools." American Educational Research Journal 33:757–98.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, Xin, and Robert B. MacMillan. 1999. "Influences of Workplace Conditions on Teachers' Job Satisfaction." Journal of Educational Research 93 (1): 39–47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLaughlin, Milbrey Wallin, and Joan E. Talbert. 2006. Building School-Based Teacher Learning Communities: Professional Strategies to Improve Student Achievement. New York: Teachers College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miner, John B. 1992. Industrial-Organizational Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moir, Ellen. 2009. "Accelerating Teacher Effectiveness: Lessons Learned from Two Decades of New Teacher Induction." Phi Delta Kappan 91 (2): 14–21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moller, Stephanie, Roslyn Mickelson, Elizabeth Stearns, Neena Banerjee, and Martha Bottia. 2013. "Collective Pedagogical Teacher Culture and Mathematics Achievement: Differences by Race, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status." Sociology of Education 86 (2): 174–94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mortimer, Jeylan, and Monica Johnson. 2011. "Origins and Outcomes of Judgments about Work." Social Forces 89 (4): 1239–60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nye, Barbara, Spyros Konstantopoulos, and Larry V. Hedges. 2004. "How Large Are Teacher Effects?" Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 26 (3): 237–57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ostroff, Cheri. 1992. "The Relationship between Satisfaction, Attitudes, and Performance: An Organizational Level Analysis." Journal of Applied Psychology 77 (6): 963–74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pajares, M. Frank. 1992. "Teacher Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning Up a Messy Construct." Review of Educational Research 62 (3): 307–32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Palardy, Gregory J., and Russell Rumberger. 2008. "Teacher Effectiveness in First Grade: The Importance of Background Qualifications, Attitudes, and Instructional Practices for Student Learning." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 30 (2): 111–40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papay, John P., Martin R. West, Jon B. Fullerton, and Thomas J. Kane. 2012. "Does an Urban Teacher Residency Increase Student Achievement? Early Evidence from Boston." Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 34:413–34.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, Insim. 2005. "Teacher Commitment and Its Effects on Student Achievement in American High Schools." Educational Research and Evaluation 11 (5): 461–85.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pedersen, Jesper Strandgaard, and Frank Dobbin. 2006. "In Search of Identity and Legitimation: Bridging Organizational Culture and Neoinstitutionalism." American Behavioral Scientist 49 (7): 897–907.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perrachione, Beverly, Vicki Rosser, and George Petersen. 2008. "Why Do They Stay? Elementary Teachers' Perceptions of Job Satisfaction and Retention." Professional Educator 32:25–41.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petty, M. M., Gail W. McGee, and Jerry W. Cavender. 1984. "A Meta-Analysis of the Relationships between Individual Job Satisfaction and Individual Performance." Academy of Management Review 9 (4): 712–21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Petty, Richard E., Duane T. Wegener, and Leandre R. Fabrigar. 1997. "Attitudes and Attitude Change." Annual Review of Psychology 48:609–47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raudenbush, Sean, and Anthony Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renzulli, Linda, Heather Macpherson Parrott, and Irenee Beattie. 2011. "Racial Mismatch and School Type." Sociology of Education 84 (1): 23–48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rivkin, Steven, Eric Hanushek, and John Kain. 2005. "Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement." Econometrica 73 (2): 417–58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rockoff, Jonah E. 2004. "The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data." American Economic Review 94 (2): 247–52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenholtz, Susan. 1990. Teachers' Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools. New York: Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowan, Brian, Richard Correnti, and Robert Miller. 2002. "What Large-Scale Survey Research Tells Us about Teacher Effects on Student Achievement: Insights from the Prospects Study of Elementary Schools." Teachers College Record 104 (8): 1525–67.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sass, Tim, Jane Hannaway, Zeyu Xu, David Figlio, and Li Feng. 2012. "Value Added of Teachers in High-Poverty Schools and Lower-Poverty Schools." Journal of Urban Economics 72:104–22.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schafer, Joseph L.1997. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. Boca Raton, FL: CRC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schein, Edgar H. 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seifert, Tricia, and Paul Umbach. 2008. "The Effects of Faculty Demographic Characteristics and Disciplinary Context on Dimensions of Job Satisfaction." Research in Higher Education 49 (4): 357–81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, Patricia, Lorne Kendall, and Charles Hulin. 1969. The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stearns, Elizabeth, Neena Banerjee, Roslyn Mickelson, and Stephanie Moller. 2014. "Collective Pedagogical Teacher Culture, Teacher-Student Racial Mismatch, and Teacher Job Satisfaction." Social Science Research 45:56–72.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stearns, Elizabeth, Neena Banerjee, Roslyn Mickelson, and Stephanie Moller. 2015. "Collective Pedagogical Teacher Culture and Teacher Satisfaction." Teachers College Record 117 (8): 1–32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stigler, James, and James Hiebert. 1999. The Teaching Gap: Best Ideas from the World's Teachers for Improving Education in the Classroom. New York: Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stoll, Louise, Ray Bolam, Agnes McMahon, Mike Wallace, and Sally Thomas. 2006. "Professional Learning Communities: A Review of the Literature." Journal of Educational Change 7:221–58.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tach, Laura M., and George Farkas. 2006. "Learning-Related Behaviors, Cognitive Skills, and Ability Grouping when Schooling Begins." Social Science Research 35:1048–79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tourangeau, Karen, Christine Nord, Alberto Sorongon, Michelle Najarian, and Elvira Germino Hausken. 2009. "Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K): Combined User's Manual for the ECLS-K Eighth-Grade and K–8 Full Sample Data Files and Electronic Codebooks." Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen-Moran, Megan, and Anita Woolfork Hoy. 2001. "Teacher Efficacy: Capturing an Elusive Construct." Teaching and Teacher Education 17:783–805.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wayne, Andrew J., and Peter Youngs. 2003. "Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement Gains: A Review." Review of Educational Research 73 (1): 89–122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiss, Howard M. 2002. "Deconstructing Job Satisfaction Separating Evaluations, Beliefs and Affective Experiences." Human Resource Management Review 12:173–94.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolters, Christopher A., and Stacy G. Daugherty. 2007. "Goal Structures and Teachers' Sense of Efficacy: Their Relation and Association to Teaching Experience and Academic Level." Journal of Educational Psychology 99:181–93.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Neena Banerjee; Elizabeth Stearns; Stephanie Moller and Roslyn Arlin Mickelson</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref160"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref161"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref164"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1129364
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teacher Job Satisfaction and Student Achievement: The Roles of Teacher Professional Community and Teacher Collaboration in Schools
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Banerjee%2C+Neena%22">Banerjee, Neena</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stearns%2C+Elizabeth%22">Stearns, Elizabeth</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Moller%2C+Stephanie%22">Moller, Stephanie</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mickelson%2C+Roslyn+Arlin%22">Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22American+Journal+of+Education%22"><i>American Journal of Education</i></searchLink>. Feb 2017 123(2):203-241.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: University of Chicago Press. Journals Division, P.O. Box 37005, Chicago, IL 60637. Tel: 877-705-1878; Tel: 773-753-3347; Fax: 877-705-1879; Fax: 773-753-0811; e-mail: subscriptions@press.uchicago.edu; Web site: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/journal/aje.html
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 39
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Job+Satisfaction%22">Job Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Achievement%22">Mathematics Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Gains%22">Achievement Gains</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Culture%22">School Culture</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Longitudinal+Studies%22">Longitudinal Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Surveys%22">Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Collaboration%22">Teacher Collaboration</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Early+Childhood+Longitudinal+Survey%22">Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1086/689932
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0195-6744
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Studies have not conclusively established whether teacher job satisfaction improves student achievement or whether the advantages to students from having satisfied teachers vary with the broader school culture. In this article, we investigate two research questions: (1) Is there a relationship between teacher job satisfaction and students' math and reading growth in elementary school? (2) How do schools' organizational cultures moderate the relationship between teacher job satisfaction and student achievement growth? We examined these questions using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey and found that teacher job satisfaction has a modest but positive relationship with students' reading growth but no relationship with students' math growth between kindergarten and fifth grade. However, school culture and teacher job satisfaction interactively affect student achievement in both math and reading. We argue that future education reforms should place special emphasis on improving teacher job satisfaction and school culture.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1129364
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1129364
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1086/689932
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 39
        StartPage: 203
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Job Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Gains
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Culture
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Collaboration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teacher Job Satisfaction and Student Achievement: The Roles of Teacher Professional Community and Teacher Collaboration in Schools
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Banerjee, Neena
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stearns, Elizabeth
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Moller, Stephanie
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mickelson, Roslyn Arlin
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0195-6744
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 123
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: American Journal of Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1