The Impact and Implementation of the Chicago Collaborative Teacher Professional Development Program. Research Report. RR-A2047-1
Kata Mihaly; Isaac M. Opper; Lucas Greer (2022). RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED621808
-
examining5,935Students, grades3-8
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for Chicago Collaborative Teacher Professional Development Program)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Percentile growth in Math or ELA |
Chicago Collaborative Teacher Professional Development Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance rate |
Chicago Collaborative Teacher Professional Development Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
5.00 |
5.10 |
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.
-
6% English language learners -
Male: 50%
Other or unknown: 50% -
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
Illinois
-
Race Black 61% Other or unknown 39% White 1% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 37% Other or unknown 63% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 92% Other or unknown 8%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 40 elementary and middle schools in three urban school districts in and around Chicago, Illinois, including 32 schools from the Chicago Public Schools and 4 schools from each of two smaller local charter districts, referred to as District B and District C by the study authors. Twenty of the 40 schools implemented the intervention and 20 conducted business as usual. The setting for the teacher training component of the intervention was not described, but it is clear that it occurred outside the classroom. Teacher-leaders and mentees also participated in content-cycle meetings, which occurred in the school setting.
Study sample
Forty schools were randomly assigned to receive either the Chicago Collaborative Teacher Professional Development Program (20 schools) or to conduct business as usual (20 schools). The analytic student sample included 5,935 students: 3,043 in the intervention group and 2,892 in the comparison group. Based on weighted averages, the overall student sample was 50% male. The majority of students (61%) reported their race as Black, with less than 1% White. More than one-third reported their ethnicity as Hispanic (37%). The majority received free or reduced-price lunch, 16% had an IEP, and 6% were English language learners. Sample summary statistics of the students were reported by district. In Chicago Public Schools, 50% of the students were male, 63% were Black, and less than 1% were White. Ethnicity was reported as 36% Hispanic. The majority (91%) of the students received free or reduced-price lunch, and 16% of students had an IEP (though no students were English language learners). In District B, 49% of the students were male, 88% Black, and less than 1% were white. Less than 10% identified as Hispanic. All students received free or reduced-price lunch, 16% had IEPs, and 2% were English language learners. Finally, in District C, 50% were male, 26% were Black, and 2% were White. The majority (67%) identified as Hispanic. The percentage of students who received free or reduced-price lunch was not reported. Thirteen percent of students had an IEP, and 42% were English language learners.
Intervention Group
The Chicago Collaborative Teacher Professional Development Program was a 2-year intervention implemented by Leading Educators Chicago. The objective of the intervention was to “improve teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in math and ELA with content-focused training aligned with teaching standards (i.e., the Common Core).” Leading Educators Chicago consisted of a program director, program manager, managing director, three leadership coaches, two designers, and a senior director who managed the designers. One to three teacher-leaders from each participating school were trained. During the 2-year intervention period, teacher-leaders completed up to 102 hours of training. For example, they attended a 1-day induction meeting, a 4-day intensive teacher-leadership institute, and a 2-day regional institute in the summer. During the first school year, teacher-leaders attended three 1-day weekend workshops and two leadership labs. During the second school year, they attended two more workshops. Also, the teacher-leaders attended bimonthly 1-hour coaching sessions throughout the 2-year period. School leaders, who attended many of the same sessions as teacher-leaders, completed up to 88 hours of training. They also participated in half-day professional learning communities. With support from Leading Educators, teacher-leaders met with small groups of mentee teachers to facilitate in-school professional learning content cycles. Examples of content cycle topics included Introduction to the Standards for Mathematical Practice, Building Knowledge and Vocabulary Through Literature, and Shifting the Lift in Literacy. These content cycles ran in 3-week patterns in a specific sequence -- shared learning in week 1, co-planning in week 2, and analysis of student data in week 3.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was a business-as-usual condition.
Support for implementation
Leading Educators determined an implementation strategy and priorities based on assessments of schools' strengths and challenges. They also collected information about teacher- and school-leaders' participation in the training and coaching sessions, and provided each school a fidelity rating. Leading Educators also surveyed leadership coaches about interactions between teacher-leaders and mentee teachers.
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).