Herlihy, Corinne M.; Kemple, James J. (2004). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED484744
Reviewed: January 2013
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 Talent Development Middle Grades Program.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State Standards Assessment (SSA)- Reading |
Talent Development Middle Grades Program vs. Business as usual |
Three years of intervention |
Grade 8: Early-implementing schools, Year 5, Cohort 5;
|
35.50 |
32.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
State Standards Assessment (SSA)- Reading |
Talent Development Middle Grades Program vs. Business as usual |
Two years of intervention |
Grade 8: Early-implementing schools, Year 2, Cohort 2;
|
30.50 |
27.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
SAT-9 |
Talent Development Middle Grades Program vs. Business as usual |
One year of intervention |
Grade 7: Later-implementing schools, Year 1, Cohort 8;
|
40.70 |
37.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
State Standards Assessment (SSA)- Reading |
Talent Development Middle Grades Program vs. Business as usual |
Three years of intervention |
Grade 8: Early-implementing schools, Year 4, Cohort 4;
|
30.80 |
30.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
State Standards Assessment (SSA)- Reading |
Talent Development Middle Grades Program vs. Business as usual |
One year of intervention |
Grade 8: Later-implementing schools, Year 1, Cohort 7;
|
32.40 |
31.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
State Standards Assessment (SSA)- Reading |
Talent Development Middle Grades Program vs. Business as usual |
Three years of intervention |
Grade 8: Early-implementing schools, Year 3, Cohort 3;
|
29.10 |
29.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
SAT-9 |
Talent Development Middle Grades Program vs. Business as usual |
Two years of intervention |
Grade 7: Early-implementing schools, Year 5, Cohort 6;
|
41.60 |
41.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
State Standards Assessment (SSA)- Reading |
Talent Development Middle Grades Program vs. Business as usual |
One year of intervention |
Grade 8: Early-implementing schools, Year 1, Cohort 1;
|
27.70 |
28.80 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 82% | |
| Other or unknown | 3% | |
| White | 3% |
| Hispanic | 13% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 87% |
The study took place in 29 middle schools in an urban school district in the Northeast.
Eleven Talent Development (TD) schools and 18 comparison schools participated in this quasi-experimental study. The TD schools used the TD Student Team Literature curriculum for reading and English language arts. Each TD school was matched with a set of non-TD comparison schools that were similar on several dimensions, including racial/ethnic composition and math and reading test scores of eighth graders averaged over the 1995–96 and 1996–97 school years. This matching process resulted in groups (clusters) of 1–12 non-TD comparison schools for each TD school, with some non-TD schools serving as comparison schools for more than one TD school. To estimate program impacts, two interrupted time series analyses were performed. The first compared the change in student test scores in TD schools after the program’s implementation with the change of test scores of similar students in the same schools prior to TD’s implementation. The second interrupted time series analysis was conducted for the matched non-TD schools. Comparing the change in student test scores in TD schools to the change in student test scores in the matched non-TD schools produced program impact estimates. Specifically, the difference between deviations from the baseline in the TD schools and the deviations from the baseline in the non-TD schools on reading outcomes serves as the estimated program impact. For the analysis of early-implementing TD schools (featured in Appendices C and D of this report), sample sizes were from two to six intervention schools and 18 comparison schools. For the analysis of later-implementing TD schools, sample sizes were five intervention schools and 18 comparison schools.
The Talent Development Middle Grades Program includes a systematic reorganization of each school into small learning communities, organized around interdisciplinary teacher teams that share the same students and have common planning time. Teachers receive professional development on the use of the curriculum and accompanying instructional practice, and each school employs the services of curriculum coaches to help support teachers on an ongoing basis. The model provides catch-up opportunities during the school day for students who are struggling with mathematics or reading. Finally, the model facilitates school–family–community partnerships. The TD schools used TD Student Team Literature as their reading, English, and language arts curriculum, with most schools adopting it, at least partially, in the first year. The program includes partner discussion guides to assist students as they study fiction and nonfiction books and work in cooperative teams. The early-implementing treatment schools used the TD model for five school years, from 1997–98 to 2001–02. The start of TD implementation was staggered across the six earlyimplementing schools, with some schools beginning TD implementation earlier than others. All six of the early-implementing schools had at least three years of implementation experience when the analysis was conducted: two schools had three years of experience, two schools had four years of experience, and two had implemented TD for five years. The later-implementing treatment schools used the TD model for one school year (2001–02, the most recent school year for which data are available in the analysis).
Students in the comparison group received the district’s standard reading/English language arts curriculum. The name of the standard district curriculum was not specified.
The primary reading tests, administered annually in the school district, were the State Standards Assessment (SSA) and the Stanford Achievement Test, 9th Edition (SAT-9). The SSA was given in eighth grade, and the SAT-9 was given in seventh grade. Results for both tests were presented as Normal Curve Equivalent scores. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B. The outcome measures that reflect the student’s maximum exposure to the intervention are used to determine the WWC effectiveness rating and, therefore, are reported in Appendix C. The intermediate findings are reported in Appendix D.
The Talent Development Middle Grades Program provides four tiers of continuous support for teachers, including: (1) subject-specific professional development with a focus on modeling lessons, content knowledge, instructional strategies, and classroom management; (2) in-classroom support from a curriculum coach; (3) in-school support from teachers who receive extra training; and (4) support from instructional facilitators based at the Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk (CRESPAR).
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.
Kemple, James J.; Herlihy, Corinne M. (2004). Context, Components, and Initial Impacts on Ninth-Grade Students? Engagement and Performance. The Talent Development High School Model. MDRC.
Reviewed: March 2009
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 Talent Development Middle Grades Program.
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.
Herlihy, C. M., & Kemple, J. J. (2005). The Talent Development Middle School model: Impacts through the 2003–2004 school year. An update to the December 2004 report. New York, NY: MDRC.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube