Making a Difference? The Effects of Teach For America in High School
Xu, Zeyu; Hannaway, Jane; Taylor, Colin (2011). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, v30 n3 p447-469. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ938590
-
examining358,369Students, grades9-12
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
North Carolina end-of-grade state standardized test: Science |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
High school;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
North Carolina end-of-grade state standardized test: Science |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
In-field TFA vs. in-field non-TFA teachers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina end-of-grade state standardized test: Science |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
TFA vs. traditional track teachers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
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.
-
- 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
North Carolina
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in North Carolina high schools that employed at least one TFA teacher.
Study sample
The authors did not report the characteristics of the students and teachers included in this analytic sample.
Intervention Group
Students were taught by TFA teachers. The authors did not report any deviations from the TFA model.
Comparison Group
Students were taught by individuals who did not enter teaching through TFA.
Support for implementation
TFA corps members received training through a 5-week summer institute and a 2-week local orientation and induction program they attend prior to beginning teaching. They also received ongoing professional development from TFA.
Additional Sources
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.
-
Clewell, B. C., de Cohen, C. C., Campbell, P. B., & Perlman, L. (2005). Review of evaluation studies of mathematics and science curricula and professional development models. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
-
Xu, Zeyu; Hannaway, Jane; Taylor, Colin. (2009). Making a Difference? The Effects of Teach for America in High School. Working Paper 17. Revised. National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: November 2012
- Grant Competition (findings for Teach for America (TFA))
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
English, Math and Science |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
End of year |
ID-matched teachers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
End of year |
ID-matched teachers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Science |
Teach for America (TFA) vs. Business as usual |
End of year |
ID-matched teachers;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
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.
-
1% English language learners -
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
- 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
North Carolina
-
Race Black 35% Other or unknown 5% White 53% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 6% Not Hispanic or Latino 94%
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).