Evaluation of the Florida Master Teacher Initiative: Final Evaluation Findings
Wang, Haiwen; Warner, Miya; Golan, Shari; Wechsler, Marjorie; Park, C. J. (2015). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562565
-
examining10,610Students, gradesPK-3
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2017
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Florida Master Teacher Initiative)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Reading assessment |
Florida Master Teacher Initiative vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Teachers in Masters program;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
Reading assessment |
Florida Master Teacher Initiative vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
Stanford Achievement Test- Tenth Edition (SAT-10) |
Florida Master Teacher Initiative vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 1, 2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Standardized Score for Mathematics |
Florida Master Teacher Initiative vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
Stanford Achievement Test- Tenth Edition (SAT-10): Math |
Florida Master Teacher Initiative vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Grade: 1, 2;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
Standardized Score for Mathematics |
Florida Master Teacher Initiative vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Teachers in Masters program;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
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
Florida
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 40 public elementary schools in Miami-Dade county. Schools were eligible if they were Title I schools with pre-kindergarten classes, at least 4 teachers interested in the graduate program, and had no previous experience with Florida Master Teacher Initiative (FMTI) professional development. The schools were spread across regions and voting districts within the county.
Study sample
Although student race and free/reduced price lunch status were collected and used in the models presented, this information was not reported in the study.
Intervention Group
The Florida Master Teacher Initiative is a four part program: 1) the Early Childhood Teacher Leadership for School Improvement (ECTLSI) program, 2) a teacher fellows program, 3) a principal fellows program, and 4) summer leadership institutes. In this study, the school-wide program that included all of these elements was examined with a cluster randomized trial. The study also examined the effects of the ECTLSI program for a subset of teachers in the larger project with a quasi-experimental design. The ECTLSI was a job-embedded graduate degree program with an early childhood specialization. It was a hybrid program (i.e., both online and face-to-face) that was offered through the University of Florida. The program focuses on training to facilitate professional learning communities, teacher inquiry, and using formal protocols to guide meetings. This training encourages ECTLSI graduates to become teacher leaders and share their newfound expertise. The program meets NAEYC guidelines and is a 2.5 year, 39-credit hour program. Participants are expected to take one course per term during the school year with two courses during the summer term. Cohort 1 started in summer 2011 while Cohort 2 started the summer of the following year. In addition to the graduate program, the school-wide program examined in the cluster RCT included the following components: The teacher fellows program allows teachers to engage in inquiry projects to investigate new types of instruction with their peers. Teachers choose aspects of student learning that they think they can improve and they research and implement strategies to improve student learning. The teachers then collect and analyze data on the strategy's effectiveness. The program also includes a district-wide Learning Showcase where teachers present what they've learned during these yearlong projects. Teacher Fellow facilitators earn a $5500 stipend, and are trained in facilitating and supporting their fellow teachers. Teacher Fellows receive a $400 stipend and professional development credit hours. The principal fellows program facilitates the learning of leadership skills and supporting change in principals' schools. Principals met four times a year for professional development meetings on leadership skills and were encouraged to collaborate with other principals at an annual statewide institute. The principals also participated in inquiry projects where they studied the effectiveness of new leadership and instructional practices, and presented their findings at the Learning Showcase. The summer leadership institute supports shared leadership and data-driven decision making. Over the multiday institute, school surveys and student assessment data are analyzed to develop school action plans. In 2012-2013, an Assistant Principal Professional Learning Community was added. It was similar to the principal fellows program but targeted assistant principals. A four-course, non-degree bearing graduate program was added in 2013-2014 and Transition to Kindergarten Professional Learning communities were also added.
Comparison Group
For the cluster RCT, the schools not assigned to the intervention were referred to as the "status-quo condition" so presumably they received no FMTI intervention and proceeded with educating students in a business-as-usual fashion. For the QED, researchers used propensity score matching to choose comparison teachers from comparison group schools. These teachers were chosen to be similar to intervention teachers on interest to participate in the program, special education teacher status, years of teaching experience, academic degrees earned, national board certification status, areas of certification, ethnicity, and classroom teaching practices they reported using.
Support for implementation
Implementation support was provided through planned programs for the teachers and the principals. In addition, the authors collected measures of implementation fidelity throughout the program. SRI conducted formative evaluations (using semi-structured interview of key informants and a review of program documents) in years 1 and 2 of the program. The partnering university (University of Florida) provided materials during the various types of meetings and institutes as well as professors-in-residence for those teachers participating in the ECTLSI program.
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).