Ho, Hsiang-Yeh (2020). McREL International. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED612629
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
English language arts state standardized assessment (Colorado) |
System for Educator Effectiveness Development (SEED) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Year 3 full sample;
|
0.08 |
-0.02 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Math state standardized assessment (Colorado) |
System for Educator Effectiveness Development (SEED) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample year 3;
|
-0.01 |
-0.04 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Math state standardized assessment (Colorado) |
System for Educator Effectiveness Development (SEED) vs. Business as usual |
0 Weeks |
Year 3: Minority students ;
|
-0.17 |
-0.28 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Math state standardized assessment (Colorado) |
System for Educator Effectiveness Development (SEED) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Year 3: Free or reduced price lunch;
|
-0.21 |
-0.24 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
A total of 21 Kâ12 traditional public schools across seven school districts in Colorado offered the SEED intervention. Intervention schools included elementary, middle, and high schools, with six out of seven school districts located in rural areas. Comparison schools were identified using matching methods and state administrative data.
Three of the participating schools (14%) were in remote areas, and 18 (86%) were in outlying towns or cities where access to high quality professional development is often a challenge for educators. Fifteen schools (71%) had student enrollment of less than 400 (i.e., small schools), and six schools (29%) had a student enrollment of 400 or more. The average percentage of minority students across SEED schools was 21%, ranging from 6â41% in 2016. The average percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch was 38%, ranging from 17â61%. The average percentage of English learners was 12%, ranging from 4â26%. Because SEED was a school-level intervention, the target population to be served by SEED consisted of all principals, assistant principals, teachers, and students.
The System for Educator Effectiveness Development (SEED) program is a professional development system designed to improve student achievement in geographically isolated schools in Colorado by providing the schools with a tool for improving educator effectiveness. The theory of change for the intervention is that through SEED creation, development, and participation, principal engagement in teacher professional growth will increase, teacher participation in evidence-based professional development will increase, and as a result, teacher classroom practices will change. These changes to classroom practices are hypothesized to result in increased student engagement and achievement.
Schools in the comparison condition implemented business-as-usual professional development and supports. Comparison students were likely exposed to instruction and support services as they had been in the past.
There is no additional information about support for implementation: the intervention was entirely focused on professional development.
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