How and why do black teachers benefit students?: An experimental analysis of causal mediation. EdWorkingPaper No. 21-501.
Blazar, D. (2022). University of Maryland. https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/Blazar_How%20and%20Why%20Do%20Black%20Teachers%20Benefit%20Students_Working%20Paper_0822.pdf.
-
examining406Students, grades4-5
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 Achievement in Upper-Elementary School (standardized end-of-year test) |
Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.10 |
-0.29 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Reading Achievement in High School (standardized end-of-year test) |
Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.07 |
-0.01 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math Achievement in Upper-Elementary School (standardized end-of-year test) |
Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.15 |
-0.29 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Math Achievement in High School (standardized end-of-year test) |
Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
-0.19 |
-0.18 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Self-Efficacy (researcher-created) |
Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.09 |
-0.28 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Engagement/ Happiness in Class (researcher-created) |
Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.15 |
-0.19 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Self-Regulation (researcher-created) |
Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.09 |
-0.13 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Chronically Absent in Upper-Elementary School |
Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.13 |
0.08 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Chronically Absent in High School |
Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.28 |
0.23 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ever Suspended in Upper-Elementary School |
Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
-0.01 |
0.02 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Ever Suspended in High School |
Instruction from teacher of color – Blazar (2022) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.21 |
0.18 |
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.
-
18% English language learners -
Female: 47%
Male: 53% -
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
Northeast
-
Race Asian 10% Black 41% Other or unknown 29% White 20% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 24% Not Hispanic or Latino 76% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 68% No FRPL 32%
Study Details
Setting
This study takes place four districts located on the east coast of the U.S. and focuses on outcomes collected a the upper-elementary school level (fourth and fifth grade), with follow up in high school.
Study sample
Sample characteristics aren't described for the 42 teachers and 616 students in the analytic sample for the purpose of this review, but the study text provide details on the sample characteristics for the larger, randomly assigned sample. Of these 71 teachers, 85% are female, 70% are white, 92% are traditionally certified and on average have 11 years of teaching experience. For the 1,283 students in the larger sample are 47% female, 80% students of color, 68% receiving FRPL, 7% identifying as SpED, and 18% identifying as limited English proficient.
Intervention Group
The "intervention" being examined in this study is having a teacher of color (defined in this case as Asian, Black or Hispanic). There is not additional information beyond this presented about the intervention in the study text.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was having a White, non-person of color teacher.
Support for implementation
Support for implementation was not described in this study.
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).