Henry, Gary T.; Purtell, Kelly M.; Bastian, Kevin C.; Fortner, C. Kevin; Thompson, Charles L.; Campbell, Shanyce L.; Patterson, Kristina M. (2014). Journal of Teacher Education, v65 n1 p7-23. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1019823
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Reading Assessment |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grades 3–5;
|
-0.40 |
-0.43 |
No |
-- | |
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Reading Assessment |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grades 6–8;
|
-0.22 |
-0.24 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Mathematics Assessment |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grades 9-12;
|
-0.31 |
-0.49 |
Yes |
|
|
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Mathematics Assessment |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grades 6-8;
|
-0.21 |
-0.34 |
Yes |
|
|
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Mathematics Assessment |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grades 3-5;
|
-0.36 |
-0.43 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
North Carolina End-of-Grade Social Studies Assessments |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grades 9–12;
|
-0.11 |
-0.17 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in North Carolina public schools.
The authors did not report the demographic characteristics of the students and teachers included in these analytic samples.
Students were taught by TFA teachers with less than 5 years of teaching experience. The authors did not report any deviations from the TFA model.
Students were taught by individuals with less than 5 years of teaching experience who were in-state undergraduate prepared teachers. These teachers completed their initial licensure requirements prior to beginning teaching by receiving a bachelor’s degree from a North Carolina public university.
TFA teachers received training through a 5-week summer program they attend prior to beginning teaching. They also received mentoring and professional development from TFA throughout their 2-year teaching commitment.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Dynarski, M., Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., & Wood, R. (1998). Impacts of dropout prevention programs: Final report [Project ACCEL - Newark, NJ]. A research report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Bompadre, C. E. (2002). The effectiveness of systematic reading programs on the achievement of students in grades K–2. (Doctoral dissertation, Immaculata College). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (03), 890A. (UMI No. 3045848).
Henry, G. T., Bastian, K. C., Fortner, C. K., Kershaw, D. C., Purtell, K. M., Thompson, C. L., & Zulli, R. A. (2014). Teacher preparation policies and their effects on student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 9(3), 264–303.
Henry, G. T., Bastian, K. C., & Smith, A. A. (2012). Scholarships to recruit the best and brightest into teaching: Who is recruited, where do they teach, how effective are they, and how long do they stay?. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 83–92.
Henry, G. T., Thompson, C. L., Bastian, K. C., Fortner, C. K., Kershaw, D. C., Purtell, K. M., & Zulli, R. A. (2010). Portal report: Teacher preparation and student test scores in North Carolina. Chapel Hill: Carolina Institute for Public Policy, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
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