Teach for america is a deeply divisive program. it also works. – the washington post electricity 2015

#############

Teach for America, the nonprofit organization that places high-achieving college graduates in school districts in underserved areas of the country, hasn’t lacked for evaluations over the years. As I explained back in April, the majority of evaluations have shown either that TFA teachers are as effective as their peers, or that they are even better than traditional teachers in some categories. A vocal minority resists this conclusion, but the best data we have suggests that TFA either does no harm electricity and circuits class 6 pdf or does active good.

The best evidence we had before today was a randomized evaluation conducted by Mathematica Policy Research between 2001 and 2003, which found that TFA teachers bested other teachers at teaching math — with gains for students equal to about a month of additional instruction — and were not significantly different from them on teaching reading.

A follow-up using the same data showed that that result held for students across gas mask art the math score distribution, not just the average student. These results suggest that allowing highly qualified teachers, who in the absence of TFA would not have taught in these disadvantaged neighborhoods, should have a positive influence not just on students at the top of the achievement distribution but across the entire math test score distribution,” the authors concluded.

That consensus was bolstered in a big way Tuesday by the release of a new Mathematica evaluation of both TFA and the Teaching Fellows program, which runs highly selective, city-specific teacher placement programs somewhat akin to TFA but targeted at both kids just out of college and at professionals looking for a career change (think gas pump icon Prez).

The report, which was sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences, the research arm of the Department of Education, compares TFA and Teaching Fellow participants teaching secondary math (that is, math at both the middle and high school levels) to their peer teachers, who either came in through traditional routes or through a less selective alternative program.

The study looked grade 6 electricity test at both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years, and looked at thousands of students and hundreds of teachers in a variety of states. The final TFA study sample consisted of 4,573 students, 111 classroom matches, 136 math teachers, 45 schools, and 11 districts in 8 states, the authors * write. The final Teaching Fellows study sample consisted of 4,116 students, 118 classroom matches, 153 math teachers, 44 schools, and 9 districts in 8 states.

Urban areas were slightly overrepresented and suburban schools underrepresented, but rural schools were pretty accurately represented). The racial demographics of the study sample were very, very close to those for all TFA schools, and the mean percentage of students eligible for free lunches was roughly the same too. The gas key staking tool study sample over-represented the South and underrepresented the West, but the Northeast and Midwest had roughly the same shares of study sample schools as they do of TFA schools in general. The schools were, on average, slightly larger than the mean size of all TFA schools.

Interestingly, there were no charter schools in the o goshi technique TFA sample. Melissa Clark at Mathematica says this is due to the requirements of carrying out randomized experiments. We could only choose schools that could support this kind of random study, and charter schools tended to be smaller, and did not have at least two teachers teaching the same course at the same time, she explains. And if you don’t have at least two teachers in a school teaching the same course gas urban dictionary, you can’t compare teachers in the school to each other, which is what the study needed to do. Magnet schools, however, were slightly overrepresented relative to all TFA schools.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the study is the end, where the researchers try to isolate what it is about TFA that makes it so effective. Interestingly, they find that the most obvious factor — the selectivity of the schools TFA participants went to — doesn’t actually matter much. Higher Praxis II scores and the presence electricity kwh cost of TFA participants who’d used math in a non-teaching setting gave the program an edge, but not a big enough one to offset the experience advantage that the comparison teachers had.

Overall, the observed characteristics could not account for why TFA teachers were actually more effective than comparison teachers, the authors write. TFA teachers’ lower experience levels suggested that they would be less effective than comparison teachers to an extent that would more than offset the other observed characteristics, such as Praxis scores, on which they had an advantage. On net, based on all teacher characteristics in the analysis, students of TFA power generation definition teachers would have been predicted to score 0.028 standard deviations lower than students of comparison teachers. In fact, students of TFA teachers actually scored 0.075 standard deviations higher than students of comparison teachers.

So while this is easily the most rigorous evaluation of TFA to date, more study is needed to know what exactly it is about the organization that promotes such solid math gains. But it does confirm that, as Andrew gas 99 cents a litre Rotherham writes, when it comes to TFA, Rigorous studies consistently show modest or significant positive effects – and perhaps more importantly given the context of the advocacy debate, they don’t show harm. That doesn’t mean every TFA teacher is great, just as it doesn’t mean every traditional secondary math teacher is bad; I certainly know my share of burnt-out TFAers who regret doing it. And it doesn’t mean there aren’t solid normative complaints to lodge against the organization.