Teacher coaching raises student achievement on standardized tests by a pooled 0.18 SD across 31 causal studies¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2–r3 · q4 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2018 · checked against its sources 2026-10-19 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q4 i0 Across causal studies, coaching raised student performance on standardized tests by 0.18 SD, with substantial between-program variation (random-effect SD 0.18). → Kraft 2018 q4 i0 On state standardized tests, which assess broad domains, the pooled effect is smaller at 0.12 SD (p=.04, k=31, n=10). → Kraft 2018 (2)

Evidence¶

Kraft 2018¶

Kraft, M.A., Blazar, D., Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547-588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268

q4 · i0 · d=0.18 (below 0.2) · quant-synthesis · r2

Random-effects meta-analysis of 113 achievement effect sizes from the 31 of its 60 causal studies that measured achievement; pooled effect 0.18 SD, random-effect SD 0.18 SD. Many achievement measures were aligned with the coaching programs.

"Across all coaching models, we estimate that coaching raised student performance on standardized tests by 0.18 SD based on effect sizes reported in 31 studies that included measures of students’ academic performance. The associated standard deviation of the estimated random effects is 0.18 SD"

Kraft 2018 (2)¶

Kraft, M.A., Blazar, D., Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547-588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268

q4 · i0 · d=0.12 (below 0.2) · quant-synthesis · r3

Supplemental analysis restricted to the ten studies using state standardized tests, intended to assess broad knowledge domains; pooled effect 0.12 SD, significant at p=.04, with a confidence interval that includes 0.18 SD.

"In supplemental analyses, we estimate a more moderate pooled effect on student achievement on state standardized tests of 0.12 SD (p=.04, k=31, n=10), although the associated 95% confidence interval includes 0.18 SD."

Studies bearing on this claim¶

Does coaching or sustained professional development raise the achievement of the teachers' students? This table gathers the studies behind this claim and the 6 narrower claims that bear on it: 6 distinct studies (3 review, 1 quant-synthesis, 1 causal, 1 design), q2–q4, 2 of 6 with an effect size coded. One row per study, codes as each entry records them; no effect is averaged and no verdict is drawn. Built by scripts/synthesize_claim.py from eval/synthesis/; a row that looks wrong is fixed on the claim it comes from.

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

- Teacher coaching programs improve teachers' instructional practice by a pooled 0.49 SD across 43 causal studies — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it¶

• A teacher-coaching CAL program produces significant intent-to-treat gains in elementary and middle school math performance of 0.12-0.22 standard deviations — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Coaching effects on instruction and achievement are positively correlated, but large instructional improvements are needed for modest achievement gains — related
• A practitioner review reports a meta-analysis of causal coaching studies as finding positive effects of coaching on teachers' instructional practice and student achievement, though one contrasting study found coached teachers no more effective — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Math gains from the CAL program occur in classrooms with at least an average of 35 minutes of practice per week — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Experimental staff development programs mostly raised student achievement relative to control teachers (review attribution) — related
• Long Beach schools with assigned math coaches showed markedly and disproportionately rising CAASPP scores, though causation could not be tied to coaching — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Coaching and expert support appeared in 30 of 35 studies, with coached classrooms showing larger gains in a randomized trial — related