The first-year effect of the EITP pilot on school-level math achievement (0.05 SD) was not statistically significant¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? At the end of the first year, math achievement favored cohort 1 schools by 0.05 standard deviations, but this was not significantly different from zero. → Matthew P. Steinberg and Lauren Sartain 2015

Evidence¶

Matthew P. Steinberg and Lauren Sartain 2015¶

Matthew P. Steinberg and Lauren Sartain. (2015). Does Teacher Evaluation Improve School Performance? Experimental Evidence from Chicago's Excellence in Teaching Project. Association for Education Finance and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00173

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Experimental intent-to-treat estimate from the randomized comparison (table 7, full model with school characteristics, baseline math, and area fixed effects). The 0.05 SD math coefficient (standard error 0.0542) is reported as not statistically significant; no standardized effect size beyond the descriptive coefficient is printed, so impact is null.

"At the end of the first year of implementation (2008–09), the effect we find in math is 0.05 standard deviations, but it is not significantly different from zero (see column 4 of table 7)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Low-poverty schools benefited more from the evaluation pilot than high-poverty schools, in both math and reading — related
• The reading achievement gap between cohort 1 and cohort 2 schools persisted into the second year, with the year 3 estimate no longer statistically significant — related
• After the first year of the EITP pilot, cohort 1 schools improved reading achievement by 0.10 standard deviations relative to cohort 2 schools — related
• Higher-achieving schools realized a bigger first-year reading benefit from the evaluation pilot than lower-achieving schools — related