Clark, Melissa A.; Chiang, Hanley S.; Silva, Tim; McConnell, Sheena; Sonnenfeld, Kathy; Erbe, Anastasia; Puma, Michael (2013). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544171
Reviewed: June 2017
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for TNTP Teaching Fellows.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mathematics assessments |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.39 |
-0.39 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Mathematics assessments |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Novice teachers;
|
-0.40 |
-0.53 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Mathematics assessments |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers and comparison teachers from less selective alternative certification routes;
|
-0.50 |
-0.63 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Mathematics assessments |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Middle school teachers;
|
-0.35 |
-0.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mathematics assessments |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Experienced teachers;
|
-0.27 |
-0.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mathematics assessments |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers with similar years of experience;
|
-0.17 |
-0.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mathematics assessments |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers and comparison teachers from traditional certification routes;
|
-0.36 |
-0.32 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mathematics assessments |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
High school teachers;
|
-0.41 |
-0.39 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Mathematics assessments |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Novice TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers and experienced comparison teachers;
|
-0.63 |
-0.53 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 9% | |
| Black | 50% | |
| Other or unknown | 37% | |
| White | 5% |
| Hispanic | 36% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 64% |
The study was conducted in 44 secondary schools in nine school districts in eight states.
The study included two cohorts of students in grades 6–12: one that participated in the 2009–10 school year, and one that participated in the 2010–11 school year. In each participating school, students were randomly assigned within “classroom matches” to either a class taught by a TNTP Teaching Fellows teacher or a class taught by a comparison teacher. A classroom match consisted of two or more classes covering the same eligible middle or high school math courses that were deemed comparable by the study authors based on factors such as level (for example, honors or regular), length (one or two semesters), and arrangements made for the inclusion of English learners and special education students. After 7,288 students (3,659 TNTP Teaching Fellows, 3,629 comparison) were randomly assigned, attrition occurred due to students leaving the school prior to the start of the school year, lack of parental consent, or students not having valid end-of-year mathematics achievement scores. The analytic sample included 4,116 students (2,127 TNTP Teaching Fellows, 1,989 comparison) taught by 153 teachers (69 TNTP Teaching Fellows, 84 comparison) in 44 schools. The mean age of the students was 14.3 years. Among the sample, 60% of students were in grades 9–12, 54% were female, 75% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 7% were limited English proficient, and 6% had an individualized education plan. The racial/ethnic demographics were as follows: 50% were Black, 36% were Hispanic, 9% were Asian, 5% were White, and 1% were another race/ethnicity. In addition, the authors present subgroup findings for school levels (middle or high school), years of teaching experience, and comparison group teachers’ route to certification (traditional or less selective alternative). The years of teaching experience comparisons include: (a) TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers in their first 3 years of teaching vs. non-TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers in their first 3 years of teaching, (b) TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers in their first 3 years of teaching vs. non-TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers with more than 3 years of experience, (c) TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers with more than 3 years of experience vs. non-TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers with more than 3 years of experience, and (d) TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers vs. non-TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers whose levels of teaching experience differ by no more than 2 years. The subgroup findings are reported in Appendix D. The supplemental findings do not factor into the intervention’s rating of effectiveness.
Students were taught by TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers. The mean years of teaching experience at the end of the study year was 4.0. Among TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers, 72% had a bachelor’s degree from a most, highly, or very competitive college or university; 25% majored in math, none majored in secondary math education, and 33% majored in other math-related subjects. Regarding math content knowledge, the mean score was 158 among teachers who took the Praxis II Mathematics Content Knowledge Test (0.80 standard deviations higher than comparison teachers) and 187 among teachers who took the Praxis II Middle School Mathematics Test (0.92 standard deviations higher than comparison teachers). The mean age of TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers at the time of the study was 33.3 years, and 54% of TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers were female, 71% were White, 17% were Black, 9% were Hispanic, and 9% were Asian. The authors did not report any deviations from the TNTP Teaching Fellows model.
Students in the comparison group were taught by teachers who did not enter teaching through TNTP Teaching Fellows, Teach For America, or other highly selective alternative routes to certification. The majority (73%) of comparison teachers entered teaching through a traditional route to certification (that is, they became certified teachers after completing a standard postsecondary program for teaching and related certification requirements), with the remainder entering through a less selective alternative route. The mean years of teaching experience at the end of the study year was 13.0. Among comparison teachers, 34% had a bachelor’s degree from a most, highly, or very competitive college or university; 43% majored in math, 13% majored in secondary math education, and 23% majored in other math-related subjects. Regarding math content knowledge, the mean score was 139 among teachers who took the Praxis II Mathematics Content Knowledge Test and 170 among teachers who took the Praxis II Middle School Mathematics Test. The mean age of comparison teachers at the time of the study was 41.0 years, and 57% of comparison teachers were female, 43% were White, 36% were Black, 19% were Asian, and 13% were Hispanic.
Training provided to TNTP Teaching Fellows participants prior to their becoming classroom teachers consists of about 25 hours of independent study and a 4-hour orientation followed by an intensive 5- to 7-week summer institute that includes practice teaching in public summer school classrooms, coursework led by program and district staff, and program staff providing feedback after evaluating participants’ teaching performance. Of the eight TNTP Teaching Fellows programs in the study, three also provided a review of mathematical concepts in intensive summer “math immersion” programs for participants who otherwise might be ineligible to teach secondary math (for example, participants who lacked sufficient college math credits). After program participants begin teaching, TNTP Teaching Fellows staff provide about 10 hours of professional development in group sessions on topics such as classroom management, using data to inform instruction, and tailoring instruction for different students; conduct at least two formal classroom observations of each new teacher; hold at least two one-on-one meetings with each new teacher; and engage in informal check-in discussions or offer other support as needed. TNTP Teaching Fellows teachers also enrolled in local, state-authorized programs to complete the coursework required for certification.
Reviewed: August 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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Teach for America (TFA).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mathematics Assessments |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 6-12;
|
-0.52 |
-0.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Mathematics Assessments |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 9-12;
|
-0.69 |
-0.82 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Mathematics Assessments |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 6–12, TFA vs. less selective alternative route to certification;
|
-0.52 |
-0.62 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Mathematics Assessments |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 6-8;
|
-0.47 |
-0.52 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Mathematics Assessments |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 6–12, teachers in their first 3 years of teaching;
|
-0.24 |
-0.32 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Mathematics Assessments |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 6–12, TFA in their first 3 years of teaching vs. non-TFA with more than 3 years of experience;
|
-0.59 |
-0.66 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Mathematics Assessments |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 6–12, TFA vs. traditional route to certification;
|
-0.52 |
-0.58 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 62% | |
| Other or unknown | 1% | |
| White | 7% |
| Hispanic | 28% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 72% |
The study was conducted in 45 secondary schools in 11 school districts in 10 TFA regions in eight states.
The mean age of the students was 13.4 years. Among the sample, 75% of students were in grades 6–8, 49% were female, 90% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 8% were limited English proficient, and 6% had an individualized education plan. The racial/ethnic demographics were as follows: 62% were Black, 28% were Hispanic, 7% were White, 2% were Asian, and 1% were another race/ethnicity.
Students were taught by TFA teachers. Most teachers (83%) were current corps members within their 2-year teaching commitment, but some were TFA alumni who had completed the commitment and continued teaching. The mean years of teaching experience at the end of the study year was 1.9. Among TFA teachers, 81% had a bachelor’s degree from a most, highly, or very competitive college or university; 8% majored in math, none majored in secondary math education, and 27% majored in other math-related subjects. Regarding math content knowledge, the mean score was 162 among teachers who took the Praxis II Mathematics Content Knowledge Test (0.93 standard deviations higher than comparison teachers) and 180 among teachers who took the Praxis II Middle School Mathematics Test (1.19 standard deviations higher than comparison teachers). The mean age of TFA teachers at the time of the study was 24.5 years, and 61% of TFA teachers were female, 89% were White, 9% were Asian, 8% were Black, and 5% were Hispanic. The authors did not report any deviations from the TFA model.
Students in the comparison group were taught by teachers who did not enter teaching through TFA, Teaching Fellows, or other highly selective alternative routes to certification. The majority (59%) of comparison teachers entered teaching through a traditional route to certification (that is, they became certified teachers after completing a standard postsecondary program for teaching and related certification requirements), with the remainder entering through a less selective alternative route. The mean years of teaching experience at the end of the study year was 10.1. Among comparison teachers, 23% had a bachelor’s degree from a most, highly, or very competitive college or university; 26% majored in math, 16% majored in secondary math education, and 12% majored in other math-related subjects. Regarding math content knowledge, the mean score was 140 among teachers who took the Praxis II Mathematics Content Knowledge Test and 158 among teachers who took the Praxis II Middle School Mathematics Test. The mean age of comparison teachers at the time of the study was 37.9 years, and 79% of comparison teachers were female, 57% were Black, 30% were White, 13% were Hispanic, and 11% were Asian.
Training provided to TFA participants prior to their becoming classroom teachers involves an intensive 5-week summer institute that includes instructor-led coursework, practice teaching, independent work and reflection, and discussions with advisors. During their 2-year commitment, TFA staff observe teachers in their classrooms; provide training on topics such as classroom management, goal setting, lesson planning, pedagogy, and student assessment; and offer individualized support as needed.
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.
Reviewed: May 2014
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mathematics Assessments |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Traditional route |
Posttest |
Cohorts 1 and 2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 8% | |
| Black | 53% | |
| White | 5% |
| Hispanic | 33% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 67% |
Reviewed: May 2014
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.
Absence of conflict of interest: This study was conducted by staff from Mathematica Policy Research. Therefore, Mathematica reviewers were not involved in the WWC review of this study.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mathematics assessment |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Traditional teaching route |
Posttest |
Cohorts 1 and 2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 63% | |
| Other or unknown | 1% | |
| White | 7% |
| Hispanic | 27% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 73% |
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