Mann, D., Leutscher, T., & Reardon, R. M. (2013). Ashland, VA: Interactive, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.niet.org.
Reviewed: July 2015
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 TAP: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Louisiana school performance score |
TAP: The System for Teacher and Student Advancement vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
77.40 |
75.30 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in 28 elementary, middle, and high schools in Louisiana.
Seventeen Louisiana schools began implementing TAP™ in 2008–09 or 2009–10. Three of these schools were omitted from the sample because they lacked baseline data on their students. Thus, the final sample consisted of 14 TAP™ schools and 14 comparison schools that did not implement TAP™. Grade levels served by the schools varied from elementary grades (for example, grades pre-kindergarten–5), middle schools grades (for example, grades 4–6 and grades 6–8), and high school grades (for example, grades 8–12). The 14 comparison group schools were identified through a propensity score matching procedure. The authors first narrowed the pool of potential matching schools by selecting other Louisiana schools that were not participating in TAP™, had students in the same grade levels (elementary, middle, or high school), had the same performance classification, and had data available during the same baseline year as TAP™ schools. Propensity scores were then calculated for the TAP™ schools and schools in the restricted non-TAP™ pool using baseline school performance scores, student enrollment counts, and the percentage of students who were economically disadvantaged. The nearest neighbor to each TAP™ school was selected as the matching comparison school, with replacement.
Students attended schools that began implementing TAP™ in 2008–09 or 2009–10. Teachers in these schools could earn bonuses, extra pay, and responsibilities based on a combination of their value added to student achievement and observations of their classroom teaching. The length of time that schools implemented TAP™ varied from 2–4 years. As of the end of 2011–12, six schools had implemented TAP™ for 4 years, seven schools had implemented TAP™ for 3 years, and one school had implemented TAP™ for 2 years. The finding after 1 year of TAP™ implementation is included in this report.
The 14 matched comparison schools were in a “business-as-usual” condition and did not receive TAP™.
The TAP™ model includes observations of teachers by the principal, mentor teachers, and master teachers, all of whom undergo training and certification in using the SKR rubric. SKR scores are based on observed classroom performance in four domains: designing and planning instruction, learning environment, instruction, and responsibilities. Despite the fact that TAP™ includes teacher observations, the study included no information on the degree to which schools adequately implemented the program’s four core elements (that is, multiple career paths, ongoing applied professional growth, instructionally-focused accountability, and performance-based compensation).
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