Design future TFA studies to meet evidence standards and compare like-for-like teachers so effect sizes can enter meta-analysis¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 1 study (1 quant-synthesis), q3 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The review recommends how future research can strengthen the TFA evidence base: studies should "meet objective extant evidence standards" and "compare the same types of TFA and non‐TFA teachers so that effect sizes can be included in a future systematic review and meta‐analysis". The review found that many existing studies failed evidence review standards or compared different types of corps members and non-TFA teachers, preventing pooling. This strategy targets researchers and policymakers evaluating alternative-route teacher preparation programs.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Studies must use RCT or QED designs capable of valid causal inference and report data needed to estimate average treatment effects

Constraints¶

• The review excluded RDD and SCD designs because statistical methods for synthesizing them in meta-analyses are not well-established

Target Learners¶

• K–12 students taught by TFA corps members, TFA alumni, and non-TFA teachers in US public schools

Target Learning Goals¶

• Math, English Language Arts, and science academic outcomes

Claims¶

• The evidence base for estimating TFA's effects on student academic outcomes reduces to just four studies [+W]
• Teaching by first- or second-year TFA corps members shows no significant effect on elementary-grade students' reading compared with non-TFA novice teachers [+W]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Turner H, Ncube M, Turner A, Boruch R, Ibekwe N. (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 2018:7. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2018.7