Classroom-level ICCs for elementary test score gains range from 0.02 to 0.15 and school-level ICCs from 0.05 to 0.20, so classroom effects explain about 15 percent of gain-score variance¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2014: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Published ICC estimates indicate about 15 percent of the variance in student gain scores can be explained by differences in classroom effects within and between schools. → Schochet 2009

Evidence¶

Schochet 2009¶

Schochet, Peter Z. (2009). Do Typical RCTs of Education Interventions Have Sufficient Statistical Power for Linking Impacts on Teacher Practice and Student Achievement Outcomes? (NCEE 2009-4065). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/do-typical-rcts-of-education-interventions-have-sufficient-statistical-power-for-linking-impacts-on-teacher-practice-and-student-achievement-outcomes

q2 · i? · theoretical · r3

Narrative synthesis of ICC estimates compiled by Chiang (2009) from fall-spring math, reading, and language arts gain scores for elementary students, mostly in low-income schools. The report attributes the ICC range to that literature review.

"The ICCs at the classroom level range from 0.02 to 0.15, and the ICCs at the school-level range from 0.05 to 0.20. Using mean values of ρ1 = 0.05 and ρ2 = 0.10 , it appears that overall, about 15 percent of the variance in student gain scores can be explained by differences in classroom effects within and between schools."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In clustered school-based RCTs, OLS mediator analyses yield precise teacher practice-achievement estimates only with about 150 to 200 study schools — related
• More of the variance in linear growth lies at the school level for fall-to-spring than for spring-to-spring estimates, in some cases twice or three times as much — related
• Between-student differences explain a large fraction of CASED label variance, limiting what any clip-level visual model can learn — related
• Classroom and institutional differences account for little variance in engagement; nearly all variance is between students — related
• Most variation in digit span performance is within-person rather than between-person — related
• School-level differences in grades are small and largely explained by attendance and course characteristics — related
• Nearly half the variance in kindergarten-entry scores lies between districts, with less variance in achievement trends at the district level — related