Abstract
There are too few well-designed studies to know the effects of Teach For America on Math, English Language Arts, and Science outcomes of K-12 students in the USA: Teach For America (TFA) is an alternate route teacher preparation program that aims to address the decades-long shortage of effective teachers in many rural and urban public schools for kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12), that serve the highest proportions of high-poverty students across the USA. This review finds that there are very few studies - just four - which reliably measure the effects of TFA on learning outcomes, so that no firm conclusions may be drawn.What is this review about?: This systematic review evaluated the impact of TFA prepared teachers (corps members) relative to novice teachers and alumni relative to veteran teachers on K-12 student outcomes in math, English Language Arts (ELA), and science.What are the main findings of this review?: Studies had to be a quantitative evaluation of the effects of TFA on K-12 student academic outcomes. Studies also had to use a research design which: 1. allowed valid causal inferences about TFA's effects, 2. targeted participants K-12 students taught by TFA corps members or TFA alumni in the USA, 3. compared TFA corps members to novice teachers, or compared TFA alumni with veteran teachers, and 4. reported at least one academic student outcome in math, ELA, or science domains.A total of 919 citations were retrieved on TFA, of which 24 studies were eligible for review. However, when the research design and study quality along with types of TFA corps members and non-TFA teachers compared were reviewed, the evidence base for estimating the effects of TFA on student academic outcomes was reduced to just four studies.There is no significant effect on reading from teaching by TFA corps members in their first or second year of teaching elementary-grade students (PreK - grade 5) compared to non-TFA teachers who are also in their first or second year of teaching elementary-grade students. There is a small positive effect for early elementary-grade students (PreK to grade 2) in reading but not in math.However, given the small evidence base, these findings should be treated with caution.What do the findings of this review mean?: TFA is the most evaluated program of its kind. Multiple quasi-experimental and experimental studies have been conducted on its effectiveness in improving student outcomes. However, this systematic review found that only a small number of these studies (1) met the evidence review standards and (2) compared the same type of TFA corps members and non-TFA teachers. So it is not possible to draw firm policy conclusions.Future research can contribute to this evidence base by designing, implementing, and reporting experiments and quasi-experiments to meet objective extant evidence standards and by comparing the same types of TFA and non-TFA teachers so that effect sizes can be included in a future systematic review and meta-analysis.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies published up to January 2015. This Campbell systematic review was published in June 2018.
Highlights
Description of the conditionResearch shows that there is a shortage of effective teachers in many rural and urban K–12 public schools serving the highest proportions of high-poverty students across the United States (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006; Monk, 2007; Peske & Haycock, 2006)—a shortage that has persisted for decades (Darling-Hammond, 1984; Ingersoll 2001; Ingersoll & Perda, 2010)
Based on the two studies included in the two meta-analyses, when Teach For America (TFA) corps members and alumni in the treatment group were compared to all non-TFA teachers using a fixed effects model to estimate the combined effect size across the two studies, we found the following:
Literature review, or systematic review presents results on the average effects of TFA on student academic outcomes, it is critical to discern the composition of the TFA group and the composition of the comparison group that are contrasted before any conclusion can be drawn
Summary
Description of the conditionResearch shows that there is a shortage of effective teachers in many rural and urban K–12 public schools serving the highest proportions of high-poverty students across the United States (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006; Monk, 2007; Peske & Haycock, 2006)—a shortage that has persisted for decades (Darling-Hammond, 1984; Ingersoll 2001; Ingersoll & Perda, 2010). In the past 10 years, alternative route teacher preparation programs aiming to address this shortage proliferated across the United States (Kane, Rockoff, & Staiger, 2007). These programs seek to increase the supply of teachers more rapidly than traditional teacher preparation programs (Blazer, 2012; Hess, 2002; Raymond & Fletcher, 2002). Their requirements vary widely, most are shorter, less expensive, and more practically oriented than traditional teacher preparation programs (Blazer, 2102). We assert that TFA should be systematically reviewed for several reasons: It is the largest recipient of philanthropic funding for K–12 teacher recruitment (Blazer, 2012; Mead, 2015), with a present budget of $300 million through philanthropic and government support (Baker, 2016)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
