Evaluation of Teach For America in Texas schools.
Turner, H. M., Goodman, D., Adachi, E., Brite, J., & Decker, L. E. (2012). San Antonio, TX: Edvance Research, Inc.
-
examining11,202Students, grades4-8
Teach for America (TFA) Intervention Report - Teacher Training, Evaluation, and Compensation
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2016
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
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).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Reading |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 4–5, novice teachers;
|
678.69 |
674.57 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Reading |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 6–8, novice teachers;
|
754.89 |
751.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Reading |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 6–8, experienced teachers;
|
774.55 |
764.19 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Reading |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 4–5, experienced teachers;
|
683.11 |
687.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Mathematics |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 6–8, novice teachers;
|
742.93 |
725.99 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Mathematics |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 4–5, novice teachers;
|
688.65 |
678.66 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Mathematics |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 6–8, experienced teachers;
|
764.09 |
740.85 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) Mathematics |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Grades 4–5, experienced teachers;
|
697.74 |
694.24 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
16% English language learners -
Female: 51%
Male: 49% -
Rural, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Texas
-
Race Black 20% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 80% Not Hispanic or Latino 20%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in more than 400 elementary and middle schools (“campuses”) in four regions of Texas: Dallas–Fort Worth, Houston, the Rio Grande Valley, and San Antonio.
Study sample
Average baseline characteristics varied across samples and groups. Among the sample, 49%–54% were female, 71%–88% were Hispanic, 12%–29% were African American, 94%–97% were economically disadvantaged, and 10%–22% were limited English proficient.
Intervention Group
Students were taught by TFA corps members who were in either their first or second year of TFA assignment. Corps members chosen through a highly selective process undergo a 5-week summer training before beginning a 2-year teaching assignment in a low-income urban or rural public school. The authors did not report any deviations from the TFA model.
Comparison Group
The study authors created a matched comparison group from within Texas public schools using students taught by teachers who did not participate in TFA and had less than 3 years of teaching experience. The authors first used propensity score matching to identify 924 comparison campuses matched based on campus-level demographic variables and prior-year achievement variables; they then added 717 campuses that had not been matched but were located in the same districts as the campuses employing TFA participants.39 In a second stage of propensity score matching, students were matched within grade level and teacher experience category (novice versus experienced) based on student-level demographic and prior-year achievement variables.
Support for implementation
TFA corps members received the typical support prescribed by the TFA model. The TFA support was grounded in classroom leadership training. In addition to observations during the 5-week summer training, mentors observed corps members at least four times a year during the 2-year assignment and provided support through coaching, instructional demonstrations, and discussions.
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).