IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v14y2018i1p1-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What are the effects of Teach For America on Math, English Language Arts, and Science outcomes of K–12 students in the USA?

Author

Listed:
  • Herbert Turner
  • Mackson Ncube
  • Annette Turner
  • Robert Boruch
  • Nneka Ibekwe

Abstract

This Campbell systematic review examines the impact of Teach For America (TFA) on learning outcomes. Four studies were included in the review. Studies had to be a quantitative evaluation of the effects of TFA on K–12 student academic outcomes. Studies also had to use a research design which: 1. allowed valid causal inferences about TFA's effects, 2. targeted participants K–12 students taught by TFA corps members or TFA alumni in the USA, 3. compared TFA corps members to novice teachers, or compared TFA alumni with veteran teachers, and 4. reported at least one academic student outcome in math, ELA, or science domains. A total of 919 citations were retrieved on TFA, of which 24 studies were eligible for review. However, when the research design and study quality along with types of TFA corps members and non‐TFA teachers compared were reviewed, the evidence base for estimating the effects of TFA on student academic outcomes was reduced to just four studies. There is no significant effect on reading from teaching by TFA corps members in their first or second year of teaching elementary‐grade students (PreK – grade 5) compared to non‐TFA teachers who are also in their first or second year of teaching elementary‐grade students. There is a small positive effect for early elementary‐grade students (PreK to grade 2) in reading but not in math. However, given the small evidence base, these findings should be treated with caution. Plain language summary There are too few well‐designed studies to know the effects of Teach For America on Math, English Language Arts, and Science outcomes of K–12 students in the USA Teach For America (TFA) is an alternate route teacher preparation program that aims to address the decades‐long shortage of effective teachers in many rural and urban public schools for kindergarten through 12th grade (K–12), that serve the highest proportions of high‐poverty students across the USA. This review finds that there are very few studies – just four – which reliably measure the effects of TFA on learning outcomes, so that no firm conclusions may be drawn. What is this review about? This systematic review evaluated the impact of TFA prepared teachers (corps members) relative to novice teachers and alumni relative to veteran teachers on K‐12 student outcomes in math, English Language Arts (ELA), and science. What is the aim of this review? This Campbell systematic review examines the impact of Teach For America on learning outcomes. Four studies were included in the review. What are the main findings of this review? Studies had to be a quantitative evaluation of the effects of TFA on K‐12 student academic outcomes. Studies also had to use a research design which: 1. allowed valid causal inferences about TFA's effects, 2. targeted participants K–12 students taught by TFA corps members or TFA alumni in the USA, 3. compared TFA corps members to novice teachers, or compared TFA alumni with veteran teachers, and 4. reported at least one academic student outcome in math, ELA, or science domains. A total of 919 citations were retrieved on TFA, of which 24 studies were eligible for review. However, when the research design and study quality along with types of TFA corps members and non‐TFA teachers compared were reviewed, the evidence base for estimating the effects of TFA on student academic outcomes was reduced to just four studies. There is no significant effect on reading from teaching by TFA corps members in their first or second year of teaching elementary‐grade students (PreK – grade 5) compared to non‐TFA teachers who are also in their first or second year of teaching elementary‐grade students. There is a small positive effect for early elementary‐grade students (PreK to grade 2) in reading but not in math. However, given the small evidence base, these findings should be treated with caution. What do the findings of this review mean? TFA is the most evaluated program of its kind. Multiple quasi‐experimental and experimental studies have been conducted on its effectiveness in improving student outcomes. However, this systematic review found that only a small number of these studies (1) met the evidence review standards and (2) compared the same type of TFA corps members and non‐TFA teachers. So it is not possible to draw firm policy conclusions. Future research can contribute to this evidence base by designing, implementing, and reporting experiments and quasi‐experiments to meet objective extant evidence standards and by comparing the same types of TFA and non‐TFA teachers so that effect sizes can be included in a future systematic review and meta‐analysis. How up‐to‐date is this review? The review authors searched for studies published up to January 2015. This Campbell systematic review was published in June 2018.

Suggested Citation

  • Herbert Turner & Mackson Ncube & Annette Turner & Robert Boruch & Nneka Ibekwe, 2018. "What are the effects of Teach For America on Math, English Language Arts, and Science outcomes of K–12 students in the USA?," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-60.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:14:y:2018:i:1:p:1-60
    DOI: 10.4073/csr.2018.7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2018.7
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.4073/csr.2018.7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:mpr:mprres:3627 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. repec:mpr:mprres:6174 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. repec:mpr:mprres:7962 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. repec:mpr:mprres:6175 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:mpr:mprres:7338 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Jill Constantine, 2009. "Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 6e759a791c77408a816add035, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. Jill Constantine & Daniel Player & Tim Silva & Kristin Hallgren & Mary Grider & John Deke, 2009. "An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 1a9e2910a01843c2babbc8c64, Mathematica Policy Research.
    8. Paul T. Decker & Daniel P. Mayer & Steven Glazerman, "undated". "The Effects of Teach For America on Students: Findings from a National Evaluation," Mathematica Policy Research Reports c8b5eb6d499c465c86a96bee4, Mathematica Policy Research.
    9. Donald Boyd & Pamela Grossman & Hamilton Lankford & Susanna Loeb & James Wyckoff, 2006. "How Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 1(2), pages 176-216, April.
    10. repec:mpr:mprres:7890 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:mpr:mprres:4150 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. repec:mpr:mprres:4012 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vegas, E & Ganimian, A. J., 2013. "Theory and Evidence on Teacher Policies in Developed and Developing Countries," Working Paper 104291, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    2. Heather Antecol & Ozkan Eren & Serkan Ozbeklik, 2016. "Peer Effects in Disadvantaged Primary Schools: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 51(1), pages 95-132.
    3. Tim R. Sass, 2015. "Licensure and Worker Quality: A Comparison of Alternative Routes to Teaching," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(1), pages 1-35.
    4. Johan Coenen & Ilja Cornelisz & Wim Groot & Henriette Maassen van den Brink & Chris Van Klaveren, 2018. "Teacher Characteristics And Their Effects On Student Test Scores: A Systematic Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 848-877, July.
    5. Antecol, Heather & Eren, Ozkan & Ozbeklik, Serkan, 2013. "The effect of Teach for America on the distribution of student achievement in primary school: Evidence from a randomized experiment," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 113-125.
    6. Lisa Dragoset & Jaime Thomas & Mariesa Herrmann & John Deke & Susanne James-Burdumy & Cheryl Graczewski & Andrea Boyle & Courtney Tanenbaum & Jessica Giffin & Rachel Upton, "undated". "Race to the Top: Implementation and Relationship to Student Outcomes," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 4169441544e144b08777d967e, Mathematica Policy Research.
    7. Harris, Douglas N. & Sass, Tim R., 2011. "Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 798-812.
    8. Hanley S. Chiang & Melissa A. Clark & Sheena McConnell, "undated". "Supplying Disadvantaged Schools with Effective Teachers: Experimental Evidence on Secondary Math Teachers from Teach For America," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 4623b3b72e154403be21e3878, Mathematica Policy Research.
    9. Justus J. Randolph & Anaya Bryson & Lakshmi Menon & Stephen Michaels & Debra Leigh Walls Rosenstein & Warren McPherson, 2016. "PROTOCOL: Montessori Education for Improving Academic and Social/Behavioral Outcomes for Elementary Students," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 1-32.
    10. Lisa Dragoset & Jaime Thomas & Mariesa Herrmann & John Deke & Susanne James-Burdumy & Cheryl Graczewski & Andrea Boyle & Rachel Upton & Courtney Tanenbaum & Jessica Giffin, "undated". "School Improvement Grants: Implementation and Effectiveness (Final Report)," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 76bce3f4bb0944f29a481fae0, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Feng, Li & Sass, Tim R., 2013. "What makes special-education teachers special? Teacher training and achievement of students with disabilities," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 122-134.
    12. Mason, Patrick L., 2010. "“Does teacher preparation matter? pupil academic achievement and teacher’s college preparation”," MPRA Paper 20060, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Tim Kautz & Peter Z. Schochet & Charles Tilley, "undated". "Comparing Impact Findings from Design-Based and Model-Based Methods: An Empirical Investigation," Mathematica Policy Research Reports b7656ddce20f4007b71836e99, Mathematica Policy Research.
    14. Gary T. Henry & Kevin C. Bastian & C. Kevin Fortner & David C. Kershaw & Kelly M. Purtell & Charles L. Thompson & Rebecca A. Zulli, 2014. "Teacher Preparation Policies and Their Effects on Student Achievement," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 9(3), pages 264-303, July.
    15. Rebecca Allen & Jay Allnutt, 2013. "Matched panel data estimates of the impact of Teach First on school and departmental performance," DoQSS Working Papers 13-11, Quantitative Social Science - UCL Social Research Institute, University College London.
    16. Roland G. Fryer, Jr, 2016. "The Production of Human Capital in Developed Countries: Evidence from 196 Randomized Field Experiments," NBER Working Papers 22130, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. John Deke & Lisa Dragoset, "undated". "Statistical Power for Regression Discontinuity Designs in Education: Empirical Estimates of Design Effects Relative to Randomized Controlled Trials," Mathematica Policy Research Reports a4f1d03eb7bf427a8983d4736, Mathematica Policy Research.
    18. Hanushek, Eric A., 2011. "The economic value of higher teacher quality," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 466-479, June.
    19. Lisa Dragoset & Susanne James-Burdumy & Kristin Hallgren & Irma Perez-Johnson & Mariesa Herrmann & Christina Tuttle & Megan Hague Angus & Rebecca Herman & Matthew Murray & Courtney Tanenbaum & Cheryl , 2015. "Usage of Practices Promoted by School Improvement Grants," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 8e99f01663504ef5b9f8357f6, Mathematica Policy Research.
    20. Donald Boyd & Pam Grossman & Karen Hammerness & Hamilton Lankford & Susanna Loeb & Mathew Ronfeldt & James Wyckoff, 2010. "Recruiting Effective Math Teachers: How Do Math Immersion Teachers Compare?: Evidence from New York City," NBER Working Papers 16017, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:14:y:2018:i:1:p:1-60. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.