Schacter, J., Thum, Y. M., Reifsneider, D., & Schiff, T. (2004). Santa Monica, CA: Milken Family Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.tapsystem.org.
Reviewed: February 2018
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT): Achievement Scores English Language Arts (ELA) |
Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in elementary and middle schools located in South Carolina.
The schools ranged in size (270 to 693 students), percent of students eligible for free lunch (58% to 100%), and location (urban and rural).
The Teacher Advancement Program is designed around five principles: (1) multiple career paths for teachers within schools (e.g., inductees, career teachers, master teachers, etc.); (2) ongoing applied professional development via coaching and demonstrations within the classroom; (3) teacher performance-based accountability; (4) market-driven compensation; and (5) expanding the supply of high quality teachers through expanded recruiting efforts and alternative certification.
In 2002, for each of the six South Carolina TAP schools, one control school was identified. The South Carolina Department of Education ran a statewide cluster analysis that included all schools in the state to find comparison schools that were similar to TAP schools based on reading and math performance on the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT), percentage of minority students, percentage of students eligible for the free-lunch program, and urban or rural classification. On the basis of these criteria, the South Carolina Department of Education was able to identify only one control school for each TAP school. In 2002-2003 the total control school students were 1,628.
No information was provided about the specific training for the teachers or staff who participated in the intervention schools.
Reviewed: February 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT): Achievement Scores Math |
Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) vs. Unknown |
Prior Year |
Full;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT): Achievement Scores English Language Arts (ELA) |
Teacher Advancement Program (TAP) vs. Unknown |
Prior Year |
Full;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 56% |
Reviewed: February 2016
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube