Texas Teach for America Study

i Teacher Preparation Programs and Teach For America Research Study

Teacher Preparation Programs and

Teach for America Research Study

Authors:

Anne Ware

R. Jason LaTurner

Jim Parsons

Adam Okulicz-Kozaryn

Marshall Garland

Kristin Klopfenstein

The University of Texas at Dallas Education Research Center

January 2011

ii Teacher Preparation Programs and Teach For America Research Study

The conclusions of this research do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official position of

the Texas Education Agency, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, or the State of Texas.

Copyright © Notice The materials are copyrighted © and trademarked ™ as the property of the Texas Education

Agency (TEA) and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of TEA, except under the following conditions:

1) Texas public school districts, charter schools, and Education Service Centers may reproduce and use copies of the Materials and Related Materials for the districts‟ and schools‟ educational use without obtaining permission from TEA.

2) Residents of the state of Texas may reproduce and use copies of the Materials and Related Materials for individual personal use only without obtaining written permission of TEA.

3) Any portion reproduced must be reproduced in its entirety and remain unedited, unaltered and unchanged in any way. 4) No monetary charge can be made for the reproduced materials or any document containing them; however, a reasonable

charge to cover only the cost of reproduction and distribution may be charged. Private entities or persons located in Texas that are not Texas public school districts, Texas Education Service

Centers, or Texas charter schools or any entity, whether public or private, educational or non-educational, located outside the state of Texas MUST obtain written approval from TEA and will be required to enter into a license agreement that may involve the payment of a licensing fee or a royalty.

For information contact: Office of Copyrights, Trademarks, License Agreements, and Royalties, Texas Education Agency, 1701 N. Congress Ave., Austin, TX 78701-1494; phone 512-463-9270 or 512-936-6060; email: [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

iii Teacher Preparation Programs and Teach For America Research Study

Table of Contents

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 1

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background.................................................................................. 3

TFA‟s Mission and Approach ................................................................................................ 5

Recruitment and Training ...................................................................................................... 6

Purpose of This Study ........................................................................................................... 7

Chapter 2: Research Approach, Data, and Methodology ........................................................ 8

Limitations of the data and methods ..................................................................................... 8

Data Sources ......................................................................................................................... 8

Examining Student Gains ..................................................................................................... 8

Closing the Gap ................................................................................................................... 10

Cost Effectiveness............................................................................................................... 11

Retention Rates of TFA Teachers ...................................................................................... 12

Chapter 3: Results .................................................................................................................. 13

Student Achievement .......................................................................................................... 13

Closing the Gap ................................................................................................................... 14

Cost Effectiveness............................................................................................................... 17

Rider 84 Expenditures ......................................................................................................... 17

TFA Teacher Characteristics .............................................................................................. 19

TFA Campus Characteristics .............................................................................................. 19

Teacher Retention Rates .................................................................................................... 21

Chapter 4: Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................... 23

References .............................................................................................................................. 25

Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 26

iv Teacher Preparation Programs and Teach For America Research Study

List of Figures

Figure 1: New Teachers Each Year in Texas TFA Programs....................................................... 5

Figure 2: Change in Percentage of Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 3-8) by TFA status ................................ 13

Figure 3: Change in Percentage of Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 9-11) by TFA status .............................. 14

Figure 4: Change in Percentage of Economically-Disadvantaged Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 3-8) by TFA status .................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 5: Change in Percentage of Economically-Disadvantaged Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 9-11) by TFA status .................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 6: Change in Percentage of African-American Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 3-8) by TFA status ....... 15

Figure 7: Change in Percentage of African-American Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 9-11) by TFA status .... 16

Figure 8: Change in Percentage of Hispanic Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 3-8) by TFA status ............... 16

Figure 9: Change in Percentage of Hispanic Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 209-10 (Grades 9-11) by TFA status ............... 17

Figure 10. Spending Plan for the $8 million in Rider 84 ........................................................... 18

Figure 11 Staff Growth in Texas Offices of TFA ......................................................................... 18

Figure 12: Ethnic Composition of First-year Teachers, by Teach for America Membership and Entering Cohort ........................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 13: TFA Teachers are Placed in Campuses With High Percentages of LEP and Economically Disadvantaged Students Relative to Statewide Data ........................................... 20

Figure 14: TFA Teachers are Placed in Campuses with Lower TAKS ELA/R and Mathematics Passing Rates Relative to Statewide Passing Rates .................................................................. 20

Figure 15: Cumulative In-State Retention Rates of First-Year Texas Teachers, by Cohort and Years in Profession ...................................................................................................................... 21

Figure 16: Cumulative Same District Retention Rates of First-Year Texas Teachers, by Cohort and Years in Profession ............................................................................................................... 22

Figure 17: Cumulative Same School Retention Rates of First-Year Texas Teachers, by Cohort and Years in Profession ............................................................................................................... 22

v Teacher Preparation Programs and Teach For America Research Study

Abbreviations

AA Academically Acceptable

AEIS Academic Excellence Indicator System

AU Academically Unacceptable

AYP Adequate Yearly Progress

BA Bachelor of Arts

CDC County/District/Campus Code

ELA English Language Arts

E Exemplary

FRPL Free and Reduced Price Lunch

HB House Bill

HISD Houston Independent School District

LEP Limited English Proficient

PD Professional Development

PEIMS Public Education Information Management System

R Recognized

SB Senate Bill

SE Standard Error

SREB Southern Regional Education Board

TAKS Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills

TEA Texas Education Agency

TFA Teach for America

THECB Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board

1 Teacher Preparation Programs and Teach For America Research Study

Executive Summary

Background

Rider 84 of the General Appropriations Act of the 81st Texas Legislature aimed to expand

the number of Teach for America (TFA) sites in Texas, and appropriated $4 million for each

fiscal year, beginning in the 2009-10 school year. Specifically the rider stated: “It is the intent of

the Legislature that at least 1,000 TFA teachers be employed in Texas schools that serve a

proportion of economically disadvantaged students that is above the state average.”

TFA is a national nonprofit that recruits recent graduates of top colleges to commit to two

years of teaching in low-income urban and rural public schools. The organization‟s mission “is to

build the movement to eliminate educational inequity by enlisting the nation‟s most promising

future leaders in the effort” (TFA, n.d.). The program does not require traditional teacher

preparation and instead it provides focused summer training before new recruits begin teaching

and offers follow-up support during the two-year commitment

In addition to providing funding for the expansion of TFA in Texas, Rider 84 stipulated that

the Texas Education Agency (TEA) shall submit a report to the Legislature evaluating to the

extent possible, student gains in student achievement for students taught by Teach for America

teachers and Texas teachers trained by other teacher preparation programs, cost effectiveness

of state investments in teacher preparation programs including Teach For America, retention

rates of these teachers in high poverty public schools, and the impact of these teacher

preparation programs in closing the achievement gap for low-income students in Texas. This

report presents the findings of the evaluation to date.

Limitations of the data

The current evaluation of teacher preparation programs in Texas, including the expansion of

Teach for America under Rider 84, is limited due to availability of data at the time of this report.

In particular, the necessary student achievement data, data that link TFA and non-TFA teachers

with their students and teacher retention data are only available for four school districts for two

cohorts of teachers and students, the 2008-09 and the 2009-2010 cohorts. Given data

limitations and the requirements of the rider, the analyses were limited to descriptive and

inferential statistics. As such, readers are encouraged to interpret the findings related to student

achievement with caution.

Method

Gains in student achievement are compared by first linking students with their mathematics

and English language arts/reading (ELA/R) teachers, and with their TAKS mathematics and

ELA/R test scores. After identifying whether the teacher was hired through TFA, we calculated

the average passing rates and passing rate gains for students with TFA teachers and those with

novice teachers who did not participate in the TFA program (non-TFA teachers). Teachers were

considered novices if they had less than three years‟ experience. To account for potential issues

with small sample sizes, the study combines passing rate calculations separately for grades 3-8

and grades 9-11. The gap analyses use the same student/teacher groups and TAKS passing

rates comparisons analyzed separately for economically disadvantaged (eligible for federal


lunch subsidies), African American and Hispanic students of TFA and novice non-TFA teachers.

White students and students not eligible for federal lunch subsidies are excluded because very

few are taught by TFA teachers.

Although it is not possible to conduct a true cost-effectiveness study at this time, it is

possible to examine the demographic characteristics of TFA teachers and the extent to these

teachers are being placed in campuses with higher percentages of students with limited English

and students eligible for federal lunch subsidies and campuses with lower TAKS mathematics

and ELA/R passing rates. As a proxy for cost-effectiveness, and knowing that Rider 84

allocated $8 million for the expansion of TFA, the results of all these comparisons can be

considered in conjunction with the student gains and teacher retention findings for an informal

assessment of the value of the TFA program.

Finally, for this report, teacher retention is defined as the proportion of teachers in one year

who are teaching in the subsequent year (Texas Education Agency, 1995). Comparing only first

year cohorts of TFA and non-TFA teachers, calculations are conducted four cohorts with

sufficient data to follow retention patterns for at least three years (one-year beyond the 2-year

commitment required of TFA teachers): 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008.

Results

Analyses of the student achievement data suggest that TFA teachers in Texas are making a

positive impact on high school students‟ achievement in mathematics. In all eight (i.e. two

cohorts and four student groups) of the possible high school level comparisons conducted here,

students of TFA teachers made greater gains (statistically significant) than students of non-TFA

teachers. The greater gains for economically disadvantaged and minority students suggest that

TFA teachers in Texas are contributing to the reduction of the math achievement gap for high

school students. The analyses also revealed other areas where TFA teachers perform equally

as well as their non-TFA counterparts. Finally, lower gains in ELA/R are evident for Hispanic

students of TFA teachers.

From the analyses of the campus characteristics of campuses where TFA teachers are

placed, it is clear that the TFA teachers are indeed being placed in campuses with high needs.

Compared to statewide measures, the campuses of TFA teachers have higher percentages of

LEP students and students eligible for the federal lunch subsidy program and lower TAKS

ELA/R and mathematics passing rates. Finally, once placed in these high-needs schools, the

within-state retention rates of TFA teachers (range = 89% to 95%) are higher than those of the

non-TFA teachers (range = 83% to 87%) in the first two years of entering the profession.

Retention rates of these TFA teachers in the third year (range = 41% to 56%), however, drop to

lower than those of non-TFA teachers (range = 76% to 81%).


Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

Rider 84 of the General Appropriations Act of the 81st Texas Legislature aimed to expand

the number of Teach for America (TFA) sites in Texas, and appropriated $4 million for each

fiscal year, beginning in the 2009-10 school year. Specifically the rider stated: “It is the intent of

the Legislature that at least 1,000 TFA teachers be employed in Texas schools that serve a

proportion of economically disadvantaged students that is above the state average.” The

appropriation has enabled TFA to nearly double the number of teachers it sends to high-poverty

schools and add new centers in Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio to the programs already

operating in Houston and the Rio Grande Valley (TFA, 2010a).

TFA is a national nonprofit that recruits recent graduates of top colleges to commit to two

years of teaching in low-income urban and rural public schools. The organization‟s mission “is to

build the movement to eliminate educational inequity by enlisting the nation‟s most promising

future leaders in the effort” (TFA, n.d.). The program does not require traditional teacher

preparation (i.e., four year baccalaureate education degree and student teaching assignment)

but instead provides focused summer training before new recruits begin teaching and offers

follow-up support during the two-year commitment. Only 3 percent of 2009-10 corps members

majored in education and TFA internal data show that only 17 percent had even considered a

career in education before applying to the program (TFA, 2009a).

TFA is not a certification program. Graduates who do not already have certification obtain it

through alternative means via existing local programs. TFA now has more than 8,200 recruits

working in 39 locations, from Los Angeles and New York City to rural Eastern North Carolina

and the Delta area of Mississippi, and plans to continue expanding (TFA, n.d.).

Rider 84 stipulated that the Texas Education Agency (TEA) shall submit a report to the

Legislature by January 31, 2011, that evaluates

a) to the extent possible, gains in student achievement in all subject levels and at all

grade levels for students taught by Teach for America teachers and comparative

data about Texas teachers trained by other traditional or alternative certification

programs who taught students with similar education levels and socioeconomic

backgrounds; and

b) the cost effectiveness of state investments in teacher preparation programs including

Teach For America and other traditional and alternative certification providers based

on an evaluation of factors that include the amount of state funding provided per

teacher trained, the student achievement gains made by students of similar

education levels and socioeconomic backgrounds taught by these teachers, the

retention rates of these teachers in high poverty public schools, and the impact of

these teacher preparation programs in closing the achievement gap for low-income

students in Texas.

This report provides that evaluation, to the extent possible with the available data.


When TFA approached the state in 2009 for money to help it expand, a key goal was to

increase the organization‟s capacity to “recruit, select, train and support a diverse group of

highly effective teachers who will produce measurable results and close the achievement gap

for their students” (TFA, 2010a). Doubling the number of enthusiastic young teachers willing to

work in some of the state‟s hardest-to-staff schools met a recognized need. Like other states in

the U.S., Texas faces a shortage of qualified teachers, particularly those willing to work in low-

income urban and rural communities, which is fueling education gaps between disadvantaged

communities and more affluent ones (Stutz, 2009).

Results of research on the impact of TFA on student achievement differ based on teacher

experience, the comparison group, and the subject of instruction. Several studies have found

that students of TFA corps member perform better in mathematics than students of traditionally

certified teachers (Decker et al., 2004; Kane et al., 2006; Noell and Gansle, 2009; Raymond et

al., 2001). However, less consistent results were found for other subjects. Decker, et al. (2004)

found that having a TFA teacher had no impact on reading achievement when compared to

peers taught by other new teachers, while Noell and Gansle (2009) found that having a TFA

teacher positively affected student achievement in English language arts, reading, mathematics,

and science.

Teachers improve during their first three years of classroom experience (Rivkin, et al.,

2005). After adjusting for students‟ prior performance, Kane, et al. (2006) found that student

achievement improved modestly with each added year that novice teachers worked during their

first three years. This three-year improvement trajectory has fueled criticism of TFA because

corps members commit to only two years of teaching and have a much higher turnover rate than

traditional and other alternatively certified teachers (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2005; Noell and

Gansle, 2009). However, the impact of this trend is unclear because TFA places corps

members in schools with already high teacher turnover rates and large numbers of

inexperienced teachers.

Teacher attrition rates are often higher in schools with large proportions of academically low-

achieving students and in schools with large proportions of minority students (Hanushek, et al.,

2004). As teachers gain experience, they tend to move from underperforming schools in urban

areas to suburban schools with higher achievement levels and larger proportions of white

students (Raymond, et al., 2001). The differences in teacher attrition and transfer rates

contribute to disparities in teacher quality between urban and suburban schools. Low-achieving

schools, particularly in urban areas, have less skilled and less qualified teachers than higher

achieving suburban schools (Lankford et al., 2002). TFA‟s placement of corps members in

schools in poor communities that have high numbers of low-achieving students and shortages

of qualified teachers (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2005) is an effort to reduce these disparities.

One concern raised by the attrition of TFA teachers after two years is that it burdens schools

with hidden costs. The hidden costs of teacher turnover include both the financial and human

capital costs of recruiting, hiring, and training replacement teachers, as well as the potential

negative impact of turnover on student achievement. Thus, Decker, et al. (2004) recommend

conducting assessments of the cost-effectiveness for districts hiring TFA teachers. In the


context of such a cost analysis, it is important to keep in mind that TFA teachers are placed in

difficult-to-staff positions. As such, they are not displacing the ideal teacher as much as filling a

hole or replacing weak teachers with higher than average turnover rates. To the extent that

principals have an ongoing relationship with TFA,

TFA’s Mission and Approach

TFA has deep roots in Texas. The founder, Wendy Kopp, is a native Texan and the

organization currently has more corps members here than in any other state (Bradley Leon,

TFA vice-president for Tennessee & Texas, personal communication, January 26). The centers

in Houston and the Rio Grande Valley were established in 1991 – the second year of TFA‟s

existence – at the urging of Rod Paige, a former superintendent of the Houston Independent

School District and education secretary under President George W. Bush (B. Leon, personal

communication, January 26). Together, the two Texas programs attracted more than 200 new

corps members the first year, but the cohort sizes fluctuated until the 2007-08 school year,

when they reached nearly 300. The greatest growth has come since 2008-09, when the growth

plan was proposed and Rider 84 was adopted. The expansion since then has been large and

rapid (see Exhibit A). TFA data for internal use show that the state money allowed TFA to recruit

many more new teachers than would have been possible otherwise for 2009-10 and 2010-11,

so that the total number of corps members now fulfilling their two-year contract in Texas schools

exceeds the promised 1,000.

Figure 1. New Teachers Each Year in Texas TFA Programs

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Houston 200 228 238 292

Rio Grande Valley 92 94 98 81

Dallas-Fort Worth 91 154

San Antonio 103

Total 292 322 427 630

Source: Teach For America Texas Office

TFA staff members meet with local school administrators to determine which schools have

the greatest need and corps members often end up in schools that have trouble filling faculty

vacancies or in specialties, such as math, science, special education, and bilingual/ESL that

have chronic shortages (B. Leon, personal communication, January 28). In 2009-10, the first

school year in which Rider 84 money was available, TFA teachers worked in 209 Texas charter

and traditional public schools. The San Antonio site opened in 2010-11 with corps members at

41 campuses (Laura Saldivar, executive director of TFA San Antonio, personal communication,

January 28).


Recruitment and Training

TFA requires corps members to have completed their bachelor‟s degree with a minimum

GPA of 2.5 and to be U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or legal permanent residents. Applicants also

should have demonstrated past leadership, show an ability to influence and motivate others,

and show respect for economically disadvantaged students. ( Specific majors are not required

although applicants who majored in math, science or engineering are eligible for signing

bonuses financed by a donation from Amgen. Because 90 percent of students taught by TFA

corps members nationally are African-American or Hispanic children living in poverty, recruiters

particularly look for potential applicants who are minorities (TFA, n.d.) In 2009, nearly one-third

of corps members nationally were non-white (TFA, 2009a).

TFA is pragmatic with respect to the decision to require that recruits commit to only two

years of teaching. As Bradley Leon (personal communication, January 28) stated:

“…two years for a recent college graduate can feel like a lifetime on the front end. We worry

we‟d be unable to attract the level of talent we currently do…if the initial commitment was

longer…. What we‟re seeing is that our alumni, inspired by their two-year teaching experience,

become lifelong leaders, in a variety of professional fields, in the effort to expand opportunities

for kids growing up in low-income communities.”

Nearly two-thirds of TFA corps members pursue careers related to education after leaving

the program, and about half of those continue teaching (TFA, 2010b). Most others work as

campus or district administrators or with education nonprofits, including TFA.

TFA is highly selective. TFA data for internal use show that for the 2010-11 cohort, only 12

percent of applicants were accepted into the program. The average college GPA was 3.7 for

new 2010-11 corps members and the average SAT score of those who reported their scores

was 2006 points out of 2400. Twenty-seven percent received Pell Grants while in college, an

indicator of low family income. Training for corps members comprises several components,

including an intensive five-week summer institute to gain knowledge and skills in pedagogy and

to practice teaching under the supervision of an experienced teacher. Recruits also receive one-

on-one coaching with TFA program directors throughout their two-year commitment and meet in

learning teams with other corps members to further develop their teaching knowledge and skills.

TFA also provides online resources such as lesson plans and videos. Once placed in schools,

corps members are part of the faculty and receive the normal district salary and benefits, as well

as an AmeriCorps education award, the possibility of deferring student loan repayments, and

eligibility for scholarships and other financial benefits if they attend graduate school (TFA, n.d.).

TFA relies heavily on fundraising. The $8 million appropriated by Rider 84 provides about

one-fifth of TFA‟s $41 million total budgeted for the Texas offices in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

TFA data for internal use show that since 2007, TFA has received $22.2 million from Texas

corporations and foundations, including total gifts exceeding $750,000 from several donors,

including the “Caruth Foundation” at the Communities Foundation of Texas, the Meadows

Foundation, ExxonMobil Foundation, H-E-B Grocery Company, Laura and John Arnold

Foundation, and The Brown Foundation, Inc. For fiscal years 2010 and 2011, during which


Rider 84 was in effect, donations from Texas companies and foundations have exceeded

$12.75 million.

Purpose of This Study

In addition to appropriating funds to expand TFA in Texas public schools, Rider 84 also

mandated the evaluation of student outcomes in relation to TFA and other traditional or

alternative teacher preparation and certification programs. To meet this requirement this study

addresses, to the extent possible, the following four research objectives:

1. determine and compare the gains in student achievement in all subject levels and at

all grade levels for comparable students (similar education levels, socioeconomic

backgrounds) taught by teachers trained through TFA versus other teacher

preparation programs (traditional, alternative);

2. determine and compare the cost effectiveness of state investments in teacher

preparation programs (TFA, traditional, alternative) including evaluations of the

amount of state funding provided per teacher trained and the student achievement

gains made by students of similar education levels and socioeconomic backgrounds;

3. determine and compare the retention rates of teachers in high-poverty Texas public

schools; and

4. determine and compare the degree to which teachers are closing the achievement

gaps


Chapter 2: Research Approach, Data, and Methodology

Limitations of the data and methods

In general, the methods selected to address the four research objectives of this report are

limited by the availability of data for the cohorts of TFA teachers affected by the expansion

facilitated by Rider 84. Consequently, we utilize data for one cohort of teachers potentially

affected by Rider 84 (2009-10) and the cohort of teachers from the preceding year (2008-09).

Moreover, only four districts had data of sufficient quality to adequately address the stated

research objectives for this study: McAllen ISD, Houston ISD, IDEA Public Schools, and Donna

ISD. Therefore, the analyses in this report focus primarily on these districts. It is reasonable to

expect that the patterns identified from analyses of data from this subgroup are similar for the

cohorts formed after Rider 84 to the extent that the recruited teachers and schools where they

are placed are comparable to those studied here.

Small sample sizes, TAKS administration schedules and difficulties with student-teacher

links further impacted the methods chosen to address each of the research objectives. These

issues are discussed in more detail in the methods section for each individual research

objective.

Data Sources

Texas Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) records are the primary

source of data for this study. The PEIMS records are maintained by TEA and include a variety

of public school data, including student demographics (e.g. ethnicity, free/reduced lunch status)

and academic performance, as well as teacher demographics, subject taught, and years of

experience. The PEIMS records also allow for the identification of the students‟ and teachers‟

campuses and districts. State Board of Educator Certification (SBEC) data identify teachers by

certification type (e.g. university or alternative route). Data from the TFA national office identified

the TFA teachers and their year of placement in Texas public schools. Students‟ scores on the

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) were used as academic performance

measures. General characteristics of campuses and districts were pulled from the annual

Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) reports. Finally, a set of school districts identified

by TEA and TFA were asked to provide data collected only by the districts: the links that

connect students with teachers in specific courses. These “classroom” or “student-teacher” links

allow for connection of specific students, along with their recorded test performance and other

characteristics, to specific teachers. As previously noted, 4 of the 19 targeted districts survived

to the analysis with 14 dropping out due to non-participation in the data collection stage and 1

due to questionable data quality.

Examining Student Gains

Gains in student achievement over time are compared for students of TFA teachers and

novice non-TFA teachers using scores from the mathematics and English language arts/reading

(ELA/R) TAKS tests (English version) for individual students.1 Mathematics and ELA/R TAKS

1 Results of the Spanish version TAKS tests are not included because Spanish language TAKS are

administered in grades 3-5 and only a small number of TFA teachers teach in these early grades.


tests are given every year to students in grades 3 through 11. Science and social studies TAKS

scores are not examined because they are not administered in consecutive years making it

impossible to measure gains from one year to the next.

To ensure comparability with other measures used by school districts, the analyses include

only students whose performance contributes to school accountability. Campus accountability

ratings are based on an “accountability subset” of students that includes only those who were

enrolled at the campus on a specific day in the fall semester and took the TAKS test at that

same campus in the subsequent spring semester. The accountability rating is based only on

TAKS and the TAKS (Accommodated) test scores and excludes TAKS-Alternate or TAKS

Modified scores. Thus, our sample is not representative of all students in disadvantaged

schools, because it systematically omits students likely to have the greatest need (e.g. because

they are highly mobile and/or did not take the TAKS test).

After linking students with their mathematics and ELA/R teachers and identifying whether

the teacher was hired through TFA, we calculated the average passing rates and passing rate

gains for students with TFA teachers and those with novice teachers who did not participate in

the TFA program (non-TFA teachers). Teachers were considered novices if they had less than

three years‟ experience. We included only novice non-TFA teachers to provide a comparison

group similar to the TFA teachers and to control for the possible influence of teacher

experience.

TAKS passing rates indicate the percentage of students who met the TAKS minimum

standard; the gains indicate year-to-year changes in the percent of a specific teacher‟s students

who pass. If a given teacher‟s students‟ passing rate was 80% in 2010, yet this same cadre of

students achieved an average passing rate of 75% in 2009, then the gain attributed to this

teacher is 5 percentage points.2 We provide both simple, comparative descriptive statistics and t

tests for calculating whether differences in student gains across years and between groups are

statistically meaningful. Descriptive statistics do not control for student characteristics or student

and teacher selection, but creating a model that does these things is beyond the scope of this

study.

It is important to note that this study combines passing rate calculations for grades 3-8 and

grades 9-11, respectively. This mitigates the potential challenges associated with small cell

sizes that would result if the analyses were conducted at individual grade levels. Cell sizes get

small quickly because:

TFA teachers represent less than 1% of public school teachers in Texas;

Not all TFA teachers teach in the tested subjects of ELA/R and mathematics;

only four of the TFA districts have sufficient data to be included in the analyses at

this time, and

2 Although vertical scale scores could be used to measure student progress over time, these scores are

available only for 2009 and 2010 and only for grades 3 through 8. Passing rates provide a consistent measure that can be used for both cohorts and for all grade levels selected for this study.


The analyses of gains in student performance include only students with two

consecutive years of test data, further reducing cell sizes.

A final consideration about the data available for examining student gains is the quality of

the student-teacher links. The links are required to associate students with their teachers in

specific subjects. Beginning in the 2010-11 school year, this student/teacher/course data

becomes part of the annual PEIMS collection and standard rules and quality controls will apply.

Until then, standard protocols for linking students and teachers are generally missing and

student-teacher links may not associate students with the right teachers.

A valid link between students, teachers and courses is most difficult in the early grades

because of the flexibility principals and teachers use to meet students‟ needs. Elementary

schools also have many “pull-outs” for reading and arithmetic that may mean the teacher of

record may not be the one actually instructing the student. With this in mind, there is little we

can do to mitigate problems in the quality of the student-teacher links other than verify

reasonableness, avoid reporting at a level with small numbers, and aggregate upward to higher

levels (campus, district, and state) as necessary.

Closing the Gap

Examination of the extent to which TFA teachers and non-TFA novice teachers are closing

achievement gaps for low-income and minority students was conducted using the same

student/teacher groups and outcome measures (e.g. TAKS ELA/R and mathematics passing

rates) described above for the analyses of student gains. For the gap analyses, the

achievement gains of students with TFA and novice non-TFA teachers are analyzed separately

for three sub-groups: students eligible for free or reduced lunch, Hispanic students, and African

American students. White students and those ineligible for lunch subsidies are excluded

because so few are taught by TFA teachers. As with the student gain analyses, results are

aggregated across grades 3-8 and grades 9-11, respectively.

Typically, achievement gap analyses compare performance differences between an

advantaged group of students (e.g. not eligible for F/R lunch or White) and a disadvantaged

group (e.g. eligible for lunch subsidies or minority). This approach is not possible in this report,

however, because very few advantaged students are taught by TFA teachers.3 Instead, we

examine the extent to which TFA teachers are closing the achievement gap by comparing the

gains of their students who are African American, Hispanic, or eligible for lunch subsidies with

the gains of the same categories of students taught by novice non-TFA teachers. If the gains of

one of these high-needs groups of students taught by TFA teachers are greater than the

corresponding group taught by novice non-TFA teachers, we infer that the TFA teachers are

contributing to reduction of the achievement gap relative to novice, non-TFA teachers.

3 In 2009 in the four districts included in this study, 22 White primary school students and 26 White high

school students with complete data were taught by TFA teachers. The patterns were similar for the 2010 cohort.


Cost Effectiveness

In general, cost effectiveness is defined as „economical in terms of the goods or services

received for the money spent‟.4 In the field of education, the „goods or services‟ are most often

student or teacher outcome measures such as achievement gains. As would be ideal for this

study, a cost-effectiveness analysis typically compares the costs and outcomes of two or more

programs or interventions. However, for a variety of reasons, such an analysis comparing

different teacher preparation programs is not possible for this study.

First, it is very difficult to identify, collect, and disentangle costs to the state associated with

the numerous educator preparation programs offered at different types of institutions across

Texas.5 For example, four-year university programs have costs that are incurred by both the

state and the individual. Other types of teacher preparation programs may not have direct state

funding, but the state does incur some cost for individuals who obtain their degree from a Texas

university prior to enrolling in the program6. In addition, districts and/or campuses bear other

costs associated with placing qualified teachers in the classroom, including recruitment,

incentives, and processing, as well as training or mentoring new teachers in their first year.

Second, not only are the costs associated with teacher preparation programs difficult to

connect directly to state funding, the programs themselves vary greatly in terms of length of

training, qualifications of trainers (e.g. university professors, professional trainers with teaching

and/or administrator experience), costs to individuals, and the types and levels of support

(teacher mentors, ongoing training) offered to the teachers once they enter the classroom.

Some programs, such as those at a 4-year university, offer multiple courses in teacher

preparation, culminating in certification. Others prepare candidates for certification after a short

(typically summer) training programs. Still others, specifically TFA, are not certification

programs at all. TFA is particularly different from other teacher preparation programs because it

does not offer certification. Rather, TFA focuses on placing highly qualified individuals in

difficult to staff schools and provides them with support for their first two years of teaching.

Because of these programmatic differences, comparisons of TFA with other teacher

preparation programs are inappropriate without a thorough, resource-intensive investigation

focused on disentangling the programmatic and funding complexities. Such an investigation,

though possible, is well beyond the scope of this study.

Although it is not possible to conduct a true cost-effectiveness study at this time, it is

possible to question and examine the extent to which TFA teachers are indeed being placed in

high-needs campuses. Of particular relevance are the characteristics of campuses receiving

4 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cost-effective 5 Currently, the TEA Web site lists approximately 175 state-approved teacher preparation programs,

including traditional 4-year programs offered by public and private four-year colleges, as well as alternative programs offered by community colleges, Education Service Centers (ESC), school districts, and private for-profit and non-profit organizations. 6 Of the 2,039 TFA teachers who received Texas certifications, 393, or 19.3%, also received college

degrees from both public and private institutions Texas between 1990 and 2009. Data are not readily available to estimate the proportion of teachers in other alternative teacher preparation programs that attended Texas universities


TFA teachers since 2009, when Rider 84 authorized the expansion of TFA. To address this

question, we compare the TAKS mathematics and ELA/R passing rates, the percentages of

students with limited English, and the percentages of students eligible for the federal lunch

subsidy program at campuses with at least one TFA teacher and campuses without TFA

teachers. The campus characteristics for the year prior to a given cohort‟s arrival are used,

since those are the factors that will influence a campus‟ hiring decisions and recruitment during

the years of this study.

Of additional interest, particularly since TFA strives to recruit teachers from diverse

backgrounds, are the demographic characteristics of the TFA teachers in comparison to novice

non-TFA teachers. While the two groups are similar in terms of teacher experience, we present

additional comparisons for ethnicity. As a proxy for cost-effectiveness, and knowing that Rider

84 allocated $8 million for the expansion of TFA, the results of all the comparisons described

above can be considered in conjunction with the student gains and teacher retention findings for

an Informal assessment of the value of the TFA program.

Retention Rates of TFA Teachers

In this report, teacher retention is defined as the proportion of teachers in one year who are

teaching in the subsequent year (Texas Education Agency, 1995). To measure teacher

retention, we first establish a cohort baseline (2004-2005 school year) and then calculate

longitudinal, cumulative retention rates for this cohort spanning 2005-2006 to 2008-2009,

comparing the patterns for TFA and non-TFA teachers. These same calculations are conducted

for successive cohorts, ultimately producing calculations for four cohorts with sufficient data to

follow retention patterns for at least three years (one-year beyond the 2-year commitment

required of TFA teachers): 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, and 2007-2008. The analyses

compare only first-year teachers (defined as first-year teacher in the state) in each cohort.


Chapter 3: Results

Student Achievement

Figure 2 compares the gains in TAKS ELA/R and mathematics passing rates (grades 3-8)

for students with TFA teachers with those of student with novice non-TFA teachers.7 Figure 3

shows the same comparisons for students in grades 9-11. Statistically significant differences in

the gains between the two groups of students (those with TFA and those with novice non-TFA

teachers) are noted with an asterisk (*) for the .05 level of significance and with a carat (^) for

the .10 level of significance. More complete data, including numbers of teachers and students

and standard deviations are included in Appendix A.

Analyses across all students (Figure 3) revealed that the students of TFA teachers have

greater gains than non-TFA in four of eight comparisons shown in these figures and similar

gains in the other four. One difference between the two groups is evident in grades 3-8 with TFA

teachers showing a .5 percentage point gain in ELA/R passing rates from 2007-08 to 2008-09

and the non-TFA cohort showing a 1.9 percentage point drop in that same time period. Three

differences are evident in grades 9-11 with the TFA teachers showing greater ELA/R from 2007-

08 to 2008-09 than their non TFA counterparts and TFA teachers in showing greater gains in

mathematics over both time periods.

Figure 2: Change in Percentage of Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard, 2007-08 to

2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 3-8) by TFA status

Source: PEIMS and Teach for America program data. Note: Brackets show significant differences (* p<.05 level, ^ p<.1 level)

7As described in the methods the analyses include two cohorts of teachers: those who taught in 2008-09

and those who taught in 2009-10. Also note that the scale or height of Figures 2 through 9 are the same so that comparison can be made across figures.

3.40.5 0.6

3.02.9

-1.9

2.3 3.5

2007-08 to2008-09

2008-09 to2009-10

2007-08 to2008-09

2008-09 to2009-10

English Language Arts / Reading Gains

Mathematics Gains

TFA

Non-TFA

2.4*


Figure 3: Change in Percentage of Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard, 2007-08 to

2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 9-11) by TFA status


Closing the Gap

Figure 4 and Figure 5 show comparisons of the gains in TAKS ELA/R and mathematics

passing rates for economically disadvantaged students with TFA teachers and novice non-TFA

teachers. Figure 4 shows the data for grades 3-8 and Figure 5 shows the data for grades 9-11.

Together, these data show that economically disadvantaged students of TFA teachers are

making greater gains than similar students of novice non-TFA teachers in two of the possible

comparisons. The two groups are making similar gains in three of the possible comparisons

and students of novice non-TFA teachers are making greater gains in three of the possible

comparisons. The greater gains for economically disadvantaged students of TFA teachers are

in grades 9-11 mathematics over both time periods (2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2009-10).

Figure 4: Change in Percentage of Economically-Disadvantaged Students Meeting TAKS Reading

and Math Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 3-8) by TFA status


1.63.2

11.6 10.3

0.7

4.5

0.5

5.6

2007-08 to2008-09

2008-09 to2009-10

2007-08 to2008-09

2008-09 to2009-10


Mathematics Gains

TFA

Non-TFA

11.1* 4.7*

0.9^

3.50.5

-0.1

2.93.5 3.0 2.5 3.6

2007-08 to 2008-09

2008-09 to 2009-10

2007-08 to 2008-09

2008-09 to 2009-10

Reading/English Language Arts Gains

Mathematics Gains

TFA

Non-TFA

-2.5*-2.4*


Figure 5: Change in Percentage of Economically-Disadvantaged Students Meeting TAKS Reading

and Math Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 9-11) by TFA status


African-American students. Focusing specifically on African-American students (see

Figure 6 and Figure 7) the analyses revealed that TFA teachers had greater gains in four of the

eight comparisons with the other four comparisons with similar results for the two groups. One

statistically significant difference was in grades 3-8 with African American students of TFA

teachers showing greater gains in ELA/R passing rates from 2007-08 to 2008-09. African

American students of the TFA teachers in grades 9-11 showed greater gains than students of

non-TFA students in ELA/R from 2008-09 to 2009-10 and in mathematics over both time

periods.

Figure 6: Change in Percentage of African-American Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math

Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 3-8) by TFA status


1.8 3.0

11.8 10.8

0.7

5.2

0.6

5.0

2007-08 to 2008-09

2008-09 to 2009-10

2007-08 to 2008-09

2008-09 to 2009-10

Reading/English Language Arts Gains

Mathematics Gains

TFA

Non-TFA

-2.2*

11.2* 5.8*

10.0

1.3

8.5

1.03.4

1.3

5.1

-0.6

2007-08 to2008-09

2008-09 to2009-10

2007-08 to2008-09

2008-09 to2009-10


Mathematics Gains

TFA

Non-TFA

6.4*


Figure 7: Change in Percentage of African-American Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math

Standard, 2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 9-11) by TFA status


Hispanic Students. When focusing specifically on Hispanic students (see Figure 8 and

Figure 9), the analyses revealed that TFA teachers have students with lower gains than

students of novice non-TFA students in four comparisons and greater gains in two of the

comparisons. In the other two comparisons, the TFA and non-TFA teachers show similar

student gains. As revealed in all other sets of comparisons (e.g. all students, economically

disadvantaged students) the greater gains for TFA teachers are evident in grades 9-11

mathematics passing rates over both time period.

Figure 8: Change in Percentage of Hispanic Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard,

2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 2009-10 (Grades 3-8) by TFA status


-3.3

4.6

18.9

14.8

0.5 0.9-2.2

6.4

2007-08 to 2008-09

2008-09 to 2009-10

2007-08 to 2008-09

2008-09 to 2009-10


Mathematics Gains

TFA

Non-TFA

3.7^

8.2*21.1*

2.50.5

-0.6

3.33.2 3.51.5

5.0

2007-08 to 2008-09

2008-09 to 2009-10

2007-08 to 2008-09

2008-09 to 2009-10


Mathematics Gains

TFA

Non-TFA

3.0* 2.1^

1.7^


Figure 9: Change in Percentage of Hispanic Students Meeting TAKS Reading and Math Standard,

2007-08 to 2008-09 and 2008-09 to 209-10 (Grades 9-11) by TFA status


Cost Effectiveness

As discussed in the method section, a true cost-effective analysis of teacher preparation

programs in Texas is beyond the scope of the current study due to the complexity of funding

sources and the program differences evident across the multiple programs. Instead, in this

section, the report presents an overview of the expenditures associated with the Rider 84

expansion of TFA and analyses of teacher and campus characteristics to determine the extent

to which TFA is meeting two of their programmatic objectives: recruiting a diverse sample of

teachers and placing them in high-needs campuses.

Rider 84 Expenditures

With school districts paying the salaries and benefits of TFA teachers, the bulk of the $8

million appropriated through Rider 84 paid for support staff in the Texas TFA offices (see Figure

10).

1.9 3.0

10.7 9.4

1.0

6.3

1.6

5.3

2007-08 to 2008-09

2008-09 to 2009-10

2007-08 to 2008-09

2008-09 to 2009-10


Mathematics Gains

TFA

Non-TFA

9.1* 4.1*-3.3*


Figure 10. Spending Plan for the $8 million in Rider 84

Actual Spending FY 2010

Proposed Budget

FY 2011

Total

Payroll Costs $3,325,696.44 $3,408,680.00 $6,734,376.44

Professional and Contracted Services

$404,879.59 $401,745.00 $806,624.59

Supplies and Materials $44,182.81 $26,678.00 $70,860.81

Other Operating Costs $15,372.40 $14,897.00 $30,269.40

Grand Total $3,790,131.24 $3,852,000.00 $7,642,131.24

Figure 11 shows the growth in staff in the Texas programs over the last six fiscal years,

including the most recent two when the expansion financed by Rider 84 took effect. The staffing

growth largely tracks with the addition of new corps members. In the case of the Dallas-Fort

Worth and San Antonio offices, it also shows early staffing levels as they began operations and

formed partnerships with schools.

TFA records for internal use show that just under 60 percent of the staff members provide

direct support to corps members by observing classrooms, producing ongoing training, coaching

and professional development, soliciting feedback from principals and reviewing quantitative

and qualitative data on student achievement. Other positions are more administrative, including

executive directors of each office, people who work with TFA alumni and manage partnerships

with communities and school districts, and fund raisers.

Figure 11 Staff Growth in Texas Offices of TFA

Total Staff

Fiscal Year

Texas Total

Houston RGV Dallas- Fort Worth

San Antonio

FY06 16 10 6 N/A N/A

FY07 21 14 7 N/A N/A

FY08 31 22 9 N/A N/A

FY09 38 27 11 N/A N/A

FY10 47 28 13 6 N/A

FY11 71 34 13 17 7

Source: Teach For America


TFA Teacher Characteristics

Figure 12 shows the ethnic composition of first-year TFA and non-TFA teachers in the four

districts selected for this study.8 Data are shown for six cohorts in order to identify patterns over

time. For all cohorts, non-TFA teachers in these districts were much more likely to be Hispanic

than their TFA peers and TFA teachers were more likely to be White. Of note is the sharp

increase in White TFA teachers in 2008-2009 (61%) to 2009-2010 (80%) and the decrease in

African Americans TFA teachers from 2007-08 (18%) and 2009-10 (4%).

Figure 12: Ethnic Composition of First-year Teachers, by Teach for America Membership and Entering Cohort

Source: TFA membership data provided by TFA. Retention rates were calculated from PEIMS records. Note: Only campuses

within TFA districts in Houston, Dallas, and the Rio Grande Valley are included. Only TFA members who were successfully linked to PEIMS records are included.

TFA Campus Characteristics

As compared to statewide measures, TFA teachers have been consistently assigned to

campuses with higher percentages of LEP and economically disadvantaged students and lower

percentages of TAKS passing rates for ELA/R and mathematics (see Figure 13 and Figure 14).

8 As discussed in the method sections, analyses of teacher and student data are limited to four districts

with sufficient data at the time of the study: Houston, Donna, McAllen and IDEA.


Figure 13: TFA Teachers are Placed in Campuses With High Percentages of LEP and

Economically Disadvantaged Students Relative to Statewide Data

Sources: PEIMS, AEIS and Teach for America program data. Note: There are large differences in the numbers of teachers and students in each of the campus groups. For example, in 2009-10, TFA teachers included in these analyses totaled 1,269 while AEIS reports 333,000 teachers statewide.

Figure 14: TFA Teachers are Placed in Campuses with Lower TAKS ELA/R and Mathematics

Passing Rates Relative to Statewide Passing Rates

Sources: PEIMS, Teach for America program data and state wide AEIS data Notes: The TAKS passing rates shown here for each year are for the year prior to the placement of each TFA teacher cohort to show the campus characteristics that drive teacher placement decisions. There are large differences in the numbers of teachers and students in each of the campus groups. For example, in 2009-10, TFA teachers included in these analyses totaled 1,269 while AEIS reports 333,000 teachers statewide.

30% 29% 28%

77% 77% 78%

17% 17% 17%

55% 57% 59%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Percent of LEP Students Percent of Economically Disadvantaged Students

TFA

State

86% 87% 86%

76%

79% 80%

91% 91% 90%

80%82%

84%

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Reading Mathematics

TFA

State


Teacher Retention Rates

Figures 15, 16 and 17 show comparisons of the average in-state, within-district and within-

campus retention rates of four cohorts of TFA and non-TFA teachers over several years.

Cohorts are determined by the first year of teaching, from 2005 through 2008, with the 2005

cohort tracked for six years and the 2008 cohort for three years. The “Year of Teaching”

notations across the bottom of the graph indicate whether teachers returned to any Texas

school for year two, year three, year four, etc. The chart begins with the second year of

teaching, because it is the first possible year for measuring retention.

For all cohorts, the within-state retention rates of TFA teachers (range = 89% to 95%) are

higher than those of the non-TFA teachers (range = 83% to 87%) in the first two years of

entering the profession. Retention rates of these TFA teachers after two years, however, drop to

lower than those of non-TFA teachers. The rate of TFA teachers returning for a third year

ranged from 41 (2007 cohort) to 56% (2008 cohort) while the rate for non-TFA teachers ranged

from 76% (2005 and 2006 cohorts) to 81% (2008 cohort). The rate for both groups continues to

decline over subsequent years with approximately 25% of TFA teachers continuing to teach

through their sixth year.9 The patterns are similar for the same-district and same-school

retention comparisons but, across all cohorts, show fewer percentages of teachers remaining at

their same district or campus than the statewide percentages. Some TFA teachers who

continue in the teaching profession are clearly moving between campuses and/or districts.

Figure 15: Cumulative In-State Retention Rates of First-Year Texas Teachers, by Cohort and Years

in Profession

Source. PEIMS and Teach for America program data. Note. Data show the rate of teachers returning to any school in the state of Texas, year 1 is excluded as 100% of all new teachers

were teaching. Represented districts include Houston, Donna, IDEA, and McAllen.

9 The data collected for this study do include information about where these teachers go after leaving the

teaching profession.

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2 3 4 5 6

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

tea

ch

ers

re

tain

ed

Year of Teaching

20052006

2007

2008

20082007

20062005

Non-TFA

TFA


Figure 16: Cumulative Same District Retention Rates of First-Year Texas Teachers, by Cohort and

Years in Profession

Source. PEIMS and Teach for America program data. Note. Data show the rate of teachers returning to any school in the state of Texas, year 1 is excluded as 100% of all new teachers were teaching. Represented districts include Houston, Donna, IDEA, and McAllen.

Figure 17: Cumulative Same School Retention Rates of First-Year Texas Teachers, by Cohort and Years in Profession

Source. PEIMS and Teach for America program data. Note. Data show the rate of teachers returning to any school in the state of Texas, year 1 is excluded as 100% of all new teachers were teaching. Represented districts include Houston, Donna, IDEA, and McAllen.

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2 3 4 5 6

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

tea

ch

ers

re

tain

ed

Years in profession

20052006

2007

2008

2008

2007

2006

2005

Non-TFA

TFA

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2 3 4 5 6Pe

rce

nta

ge

of

tea

ch

ers

re

tain

ed

Years in profession

20052006

2007

2008

2008

2007

2006

2005

Non-TFA

TFA


Chapter 4: Conclusions and Recommendations

The current evaluation of teacher preparation programs in Texas, including the expansion of

Teach for America under Rider 84, is somewhat limited due to availability of data at the time of

this report and the types of analyses that could be conducted with these data. Even with these

limitations the results provide useful information about the extent to which TFA is meeting its

program goals in Texas and the extent to which TFA teachers in Texas are impacting student

achievement and contributing to reductions in the achievement gap.

TFA Campuses and Teachers. Analyses of the f campus characteristics (e.g.

demographics, TAKS passing rates) of campuses with TFA teachers confirm that these

teachers are indeed being placed in areas of high need. For example, the percentage of

economically disadvantage students at TFA campuses across Texas ranges from 77% to 78%

for the cohorts included in these analyses compared to a range of 54% to 59% average for all

campuses during the same time period.

The analyses of teacher characteristics, however, suggest that TFA could increase its efforts

to recruit and place a more diverse group of teachers. The distribution of White, Hispanic, and

African American TFA teachers at the four campuses included in this study are similar to the

statewide distributions and, perhaps more revealing, the .non-TFA teachers in the four targeted

districts were much more likely to be Hispanic than their TFA peers and TFA teachers were

more likely to be White. To achieve a more diverse teacher population, and one more similar to

the students they serve, TFA should focus more of its recruiting and placement efforts toward

attracting top performing students in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) or

Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI).

Once placed in high-needs campuses, a large majority of TFA teachers stay teaching in

Texas public schools for their required two-year commitment. In fact, the retention rates of TFA

teachers in their first two years of teachings are greater than the retention rates of their non-TFA

counterparts. Retention rates of these TFA teachers after two years, however, drop to lower

than those of non-TFA teachers Though it is not possible to determine what professions TFA

teachers in the cohorts in this study pursue when they leave teaching, earlier TFA reports

suggest that many pursue graduate degrees in education or a related field, or transition to a

leadership position in the field of education or in the private sector. Further research studies

should attempt to track TFA teachers in the workforce to determine if they continue in an

education-related field. In their 2010 progress report to TEA, TFA discusses a new emphasis on

creating programs specifically focused on transitioning alumnae to school leadership and

political positions furthering their efforts to keep these professionals in fields where they can

impact public education.

TFA Student Achievement. Analyses of the student achievement data suggest that TFA

teachers in Texas are making a positive impact on high school students in the area of

mathematics. For student groups analyzed in this study,, including those who are economically

disadvantaged and those who are minority, the grades 9-11 students of TFA teachers made

greater gains in passing rates than their peers taught by novice non-TFA teachers. The greater


gains for economically disadvantaged and minority students suggest that TFA teachers in Texas

are contributing to the reduction of the math achievement gap for high school students.

The analyses also revealed other areas where TFA teachers perform better than (e.g

ELA/R for African American high school students) or equally as well as their non-TFA

counterparts. Of concern are the lower gains in ELA/R evident for elementary and high school

Hispanic students of TFA teachers. This finding is particularly interesting given the low

percentages of Hispanic TFA teachers teachers in the districts included in this study. Further

research could possibly determine if teacher ethnicity is a factor and to what extent. In the

meantime, TFA program staff are encouraged to review their teacher training and support

systems to ensure an additional focus on teaching strategies to support Hispanic students.

.


References

Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Vasquez-Heilig, J. (2005). Does teacher

preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and

teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42), 1-51.

Decker, P. T., Mayer, D. P., & Glazerman, S. (2004). The effects of Teach for America on

students: Findings from a national evaluation (Report 8792-750). Princeton, NJ:

Mathematica Policy Research.

Hanushek, E., Kain, J.F., Rivkin, S.G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of

Human Resources, 39(2), 326-354.

Kane, T.J., Rockoff, J.E., & Staiger, D. O. (2006). What does certification tell us about teacher

effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6),

615-631.

Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A

descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37-62.

Noell, G.H., & Gansle, K.A. (2009). Teach for America teachers‟ contribution to student

achievement in Louisiana in grades 4-9: 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University. Retrieved from

http://www.laregentsarchive.com/Academic/TE/2009/Assessment_of_TFA_120309.pdf

Raymond, M., Fletcher, S.H., & Luque, J. (2001) Teach For America: An evaluation of teacher

differences and student outcomes in Houston, Texas. Stanford, CA: The Hoover

Institution, Center for Research on Education Outcomes.

Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic

achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.

Stutz, T. (2009, February 10). Texas teacher shortage in math, science worsens. Dallas

Morning News. Retrieved from

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021009dntexteach

ers.3591755.html

Teach For America (n.d.) Web site. Retrieved from http://www.teachforamerica.org/

Teach For America (2010a) Teach For America‟s Texas Growth Plan PowerPoint. URL not

available.

Teach For America (2010b) Teach For America Texas Alumni Data. URL not available.

Teach For America (2010c). Consolidated Financial Statements and Supplementary Schedule

Together With Report Of Independent Certified Public Accountants: Teach For America,

Inc., September 30, 2009 and 2008. Retrieved from

http://www.teachforamerica.org/about/documents/TeachForAmerica.2009.FinancialState

ment.pdf

Teach for American (2009a). 2009 Corps Profile. Retrieved from

http://www.teachforamerica.org/assets/documents/corps.profile.2009.pdf

Teach For America (2009b). Priorities and Results: Teach For America 2009 Annual Report.

Retrieved from

http://www.teachforamerica.org/about/documents/2009_Annual_Report_061410.pdf

Texas Education Agency (2010) Teach for America Final Progress Report, September 2010.

SAS# A593-10.

http://www.laregentsarchive.com/Academic/TE/2009/Assessment_of_TFA_120309.pdf

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021009dntexteachers.3591755.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/021009dntexteachers.3591755.html

http://www.teachforamerica.org/

http://www.teachforamerica.org/about/documents/TeachForAmerica.2009.FinancialStatement.pdf

http://www.teachforamerica.org/about/documents/TeachForAmerica.2009.FinancialStatement.pdf

http://www.teachforamerica.org/assets/documents/corps.profile.2009.pdf

http://www.teachforamerica.org/about/documents/2009_Annual_Report_061410.pdf


Appendix A

Table A1. Average Students’ Passing Rates by Teacher Type, Student Ethnicity, and Subject for 2008-09 and 2009-10

English Language Arts / Reading Gains Mathematics Gains

All Students 2009 2009 2010 2010 2009 2009 2010 2010

Grades 3-8 TFA Non-TFA TFA Non-TFA TFA Non-TFA TFA Non-TFA

Prior Year Passing Rate 82.9 82.5 84.8 86.2 77.4 74.1 79.3 79.1

Current Year Passing Rate 86.3 85.5 85.3 84.3 78.0 76.3 82.3 82.6

Passing Rate Gain 3.4 2.9 0.5 -1.9 0.6 2.3 3.0 3.5

Passing Rate Gain Standard Deviation

38.7 38.8 37.6 39.6 41.6 42.9 40.1 41.1

Number of Students 2,044 10,169 3,725 11,277 1,911 11,657 3,059 10,032

Number of Teachers 67 374 87 316 61 393 70 291

All Students 2009 2009 2010 2010 2009 2009 2010 2010

Grades 9-11 TFA Non-TFA

TFA Non-TFA TFA Non-TFA TFA Non-TFA

Prior Year Passing Rate 81.5 83.1 85.6 84.9 54.2 58.9 6

2.0 62.4

Current Year Passing Rate

83.1

83.8 8

8.8 89.4

65.8

59.4 7

2.3 67.9

Passing Rate Gain 1.

6 0.7

3.2

4.5 11

.6 0.5

10.3

5.6


37.1

38.8 3

3.5 34.3

47.4

47.9 4

8.7 50.4

Number of Students 1,

708 7,452

1,923

6,375 1,

068 10,861

2,314

10,364

Number of Teachers 1

8 101

28

100 17 147 3

2 134


African-American Students

2009

2009 2

010 2010

2009

2009 2

010 2010

Grades 3-8 T

FA Non-

TFA T

FA Non-

TFA TF

A Non-

TFA T

FA Non-

TFA Prior Year Passing

Rate 7

6.5 80.3

84.1

81.6 65

.504 66.314

75.8

75.3


86.5

83.7 8

5.3 82.9

74.031

71.406

76.9

74.7

Passing Rate Gain 1

0.0 3.4

1.3

1.3 8.

5 5.1

1.0

-0.6


44.9

41.4 4

0.8 41.4

50.7

47.0 4

3.9 47.9

Number of Students 2

51 2,472

558

2,625 25

8 2,553

385

2,158


5 232

20

208 32 250 4

9 182

African-American Students

2009

2009 2

010 2010

2009

2009 2

010 2010


Grades 9-11 T

FA Non-

TFA T

FA Non-

TFA TF

A Non-

TFA T

FA Non-


Rate 8

5.8 82.5

86.2

89.7 41

.7 52.0

54.8

54.0


82.5

83.0 9

0.8 90.5

60.6

49.8 6

9.6 60.5

Passing Rate Gain -

3.3 0.5

4.6

0.9 18

.9 -2.2

14.8

6.4


36.5

41.1 3

0.9 28.8

50.0

49.6 5

2.7 52.8

Number of Students 1

20 1,882

196

1,396 12

7 2,866

385

2,473


3 70

17

67 11 115 2

1 113

Table A1 (continued). Average Students’ Passing Rates by Teacher Type, Student Ethnicity, and Subject for 2008-09 and 2009-10


Hispanic Students 2

009 2009

2010

2010 20

09 2009

2010

2010

Grades 3-8 T

FA Non-

TFA T

FA Non-

TFA TF

A Non-

TFA T

FA Non-


Rate 8

3.6 80.8

84.1

79.2 78

.7 74.4

79.4

78.3


86.0

84.0 8

4.6 82.7

78.2

75.8 8

2.7 83.3


5 3.2

0.5

3.5 -

0.6 1.5

3.3

5.0


37.9

40.2 3

7.8 41.2

40.2

43.3 3

9.7 40.4


753 6,501

2,997

7,446 1,

570 8,078

2,567

6,935


6 349

82

296 61 365 6

6 270

Hispanic Students 2

009 2009

2010

2010 20

09 2009

2010

2010

Grades 9-11 T

FA Non-

TFA T

FA Non-

TFA TF

A Non-

TFA T

FA Non-


Rate 8

1.1 81.2

85.6

82.2 55

.4 58.3

63.1

63.3


83.0

82.2 8

8.6 88.5

66.1

59.9 7

2.5 68.6


9 1.0

3.0

6.3 10

.7 1.6

9.4

5.3


37.0

40.0 3

3.8 36.8

47.5

48.9 4

8.1 50.8


536 4,834

1,667

4,434 90

9 6,997

1,852

7,111


8 97

28

96 17 140 3

2 130



Economically Disadvantaged Students

2009

2009 2

010 2010

2009

2009 2

010 2010

Grades 3-8 T

FA Non-

TFA T

FA Non-

TFA TF

A Non-

TFA T

FA Non-


Rate 8

2.6 79.8

83.7

79.0 77

.2 71.8

78.9

77.4


86.1

83.2 8

4.1 82.1

77.1

74.3 8

1.8 81.0


5 3.5

0.5

3.0 -

0.1 2.5

2.9

3.6


38.9

41.3 3

8.8 42.1

41.8

44.7 4

0.6 42.7


956 8,453

3,410

9,489 1,

775 9,983

2,886

8,582


7 373

87

315 61 390 7

0 290

Economically Disadvantaged Students

2009

2009 2

010 2010

2009

2009 2

010 2010

Grades 9-11 T

FA Non-

TFA T

FA Non-

TFA TF

A Non-

TFA T

FA Non-


Rate 8

1.1 80.9

85.2

83.0 53

.8 56.1

61.5

60.8


82.9

81.6 8

8.3 88.3

65.6

56.7 7

2.3 65.8


8 0.7

3.0

5.2 11

.8 0.6

10.8

5.0


37.3

41.1 3

4.0 35.8

48.0

48.9 4

9.1 51.4


600 5,949

1,771

5,266 98

3 8,812

2,086

8,656


8 100

28

99 17 146 3

32 133

Source. ERC PEIMS and Teach for America program data Note: Differences in bold and italics are at p<.05 and bold at p<.1 levels

Date post:	29-Jun-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	enm077486
View:	1,568 times
Download:	6 times

Texas Teach for America Study

Documents