Gerdeman, R.D., Wan, Y., Molefe, A., Bos, J. M., Zhu, B., & Dhillon, S. (2017). Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/TNTP-Teacher-Fellows-Evaluation-Summary-May-2017.pdf.
Reviewed: December 2021
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State standardized test score (z-score) |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.61 |
0.63 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The New Teacher Project (TNTP) recruits, trains, and hires individuals interested in teaching through the Teaching Fellows program and the Practitioner Teacher program. The program was implemented in seven urban school districts that serve large proportions of high-need students: Baltimore City Public Schools, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Chicago Public Schools, DC Public Schools, Fort Worth Independent School District, Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, and New Orleans public and charter schools.
The student sample for the achievement outcome was 21% English Learners, 86% racial/ethnic minority, 72% eligible for free or reduced price lunch, 17% on an Individualized Education Plan, and 49% female.
The Teacher Effectiveness and Certification (TEACh) Initiative includes a rigorous process of selecting high-quality trainees (referred to as Fellows), a six- to eight-week preservice training program, an inservice series of seminars during participants’ first year of teaching, and an assessment that uses multiple measures to selectively identify effective teachers to recommend for certification at the end of inservice training. Local sites recruit and select prospective teachers in high-need subjects/grades and provide a 6- 8 week training course during the summer. At the end of the summer training, Fellows who have the potential to be highly effective teachers are identified and earn teaching eligibility for the fall. During their first year working as a full-time teacher, participants take part in professional development seminars and receive coaching. An assessment of classroom effectiveness (ACE) tool is used to determine whether TEACh participants can be recommended for licensure in their respective states. Receiving the preservice and inservice training and completing the ACE should provide TEACh participants with a better understanding of their content area and improve their instructional practices. By improving these teacher outcomes, TNTP intends to have a positive impact on student achievement.
The comparison group consisted of students of teachers who were not participating in TNTP or Teach for America and who were in their first or second year of teaching. These teachers received business as usual professional development and support.
Reviewed: October 2017
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student achievement test (z-score) |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Students of second year teachers;
|
-0.61 |
-0.63 |
No |
-- | |
|
Student achievement test (z-score) |
TNTP Teaching Fellows vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Students of first-year teachers;
|
-0.37 |
-0.33 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| White | 13% |
The TNTP Teaching Fellows program involves a partnership with seven school districts that have large percentages of high-needs students, i.e., Baltimore City Public Schools, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, Chicago Public Schools, District of Columbia Public Schools, Fort Worth Independent School District, Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, and New Orleans public and charter schools. The study sample included 3,251 fellows who enrolled in the program across these 7 districts (p. A-5). Matched comparison teachers derived from these districts as well.
In both the first-year and second-year teachers sample, about half the students in their classrooms were female. Among the students in the first-year teachers sample,18% were English Language learners, 87% were of minority race/ethnicity, 74% were eligible for free- and reduced price lunch, and 11% had Individualized Education Plans. Among the students in the second-year teachers sample,21% were English Language learners, 86% were of minority race/ethnicity, 72% were eligible for free- and reduced price lunch, and 17% had Individualized Education Plans. In the first-year teacher sample, the average age of the teachers was about 23 years old; in the second year sample, the average age was about 27 years old.
The TNTP Teaching Fellows program has four components: 1) recruitment and selection of fellows, 2) summer preservice training, 3) inservice training, and 4) the Assessment of Classroom Effectiveness (ACE). Preservice training occurs for 5 to 8 weeks in the summer (about 75 hours), after fellows complete four self-guided online modules with curricula on foundational principles of teaching. This study included TNTP cohorts from 2010 to 2013, and beginning with the 2012 cohort, the training included "Fast Start" curricula. The Fast Start training focused upon delivering lessons clearly, maintaining high academic expectations, maintaining high behavioral expectations, and maximizing instructional time. Fast Start also required 26 hours of intensive, hands-on practice. TNTP Teaching Fellows completed inservice training and licensure during their first year of teaching, which involved biweekly professional development seminars in their grade and content area. The seminar series included 16 sessions, about 3 hours each, and was called Teaching for Results. At the end of the inservice training, TNTP Teaching Fellows were assessed through teachers' completion of inservice training, principal's evaluation, classroom observations, student learning outcomes, and completion of state regulatory and licensing requirements.
Matched comparison teachers were not trained by TNTP or Teach for America, and had the same years of experience as the TNTP intervention group. Matching characteristics were teacher's age, race or ethnicity, and gender. The authors also matched teachers on their classroom characteristics, i.e., average of students' prior-year test scores (z-scores), grade level, subject, percentage of English Language learners (ELLs), percentage of minority students, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch (FRPL), percentage of students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), and percentage of female students. The authors also matched students on the following characteristics: age, ELL status, IEP status, FRPL status, gender, and race/ethnicity. If one matching variable was not provided by the district, that variable could not be used for the purposes of matching. Impact models only used variables that were available from all 7 districts. Students were matched with replacement, and could be matched with up to 2 comparison students with the nearest propensity scores, even if the comparison students were matched with a different intervention student.
The TNTP Teaching Fellows program received an Investing in Innovation (i3) grant to support the program implementation. The program received support from the seven participating districts in supporting data collection and support for implementation fidelity. Program supports include the 6-8 week preservice training in the summer and subsequent inservice training in the teachers' first year of teaching.
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