This article examines Teach For America’s (TFA) placement strategy in Miami-Dade County Public Schools, in which large numbers of TFA corps members are placed as clusters into a targeted set of disadvantaged schools, to investigate whether the large-scale infusion of TFA corps members into these schools induced broader improvements across the school. Using 6 years of administrative data from the district, we exploit variation in TFA density over time within schools to measure the extent to which increases in density were associated with improvements in student test scores. We find that many of the schools chosen to participate in the cluster strategy experienced large subsequent gains in mathematics achievement. These gains were driven in part by the direct effect of having larger numbers of classrooms staffed by effective TFA teachers. However, we do not find any evidence that the clustering strategy led to any spillovers on schoolwide performance.
BackesB.HansenM. (2018). The impact of Teach For America on non-test academic outcomes. Education Finance and Policy, 13(2).
2.
BoydD.GrossmanP.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), 176-216. doi:10.1162/edfp.2006.1.2.176
3.
BradleyS.GreenC.LeevesG. (2007). Worker absence and shirking: Evidence from matched teacher-school data. Labour Economics, 14(3), 319-334. doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2006.05.002
4.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.LuppescuS.EastonJ. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
5.
BulloughR. V.YoungJ.EricksonL.BirrellJ. R.ClarkD. C.EganM. W.. . . SmithG. (2002). Rethinking field experience: Partnership teaching versus single-placement teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 68-80. doi:10.1177/0022487102053001007
6.
CatapanoS. (2006). Teaching in urban schools: Mentoring pre-service teachers to apply advocacy strategies. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 14(1), 81-96. doi:10.1080/13611260500432756
7.
ClarkM.ChiangH.McConnellS.SilvaT.SonnenfeldK.ErbeA.PumaM. (2013). The effectiveness of secondary math teachers from Teach For America and the Teaching Fellows programs (No. 7890). Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
8.
ClarkM.IsenbergE.LiuA.Makowski ZukiewiczM. (2015). Impacts of the Teach For America investing in innovation scale-up. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.
9.
CollinsJ. C. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap . . . And others don’t. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.
10.
DeeT. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (Working Paper No. 17990). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w17990
11.
DobbieW. (2011). Teacher characteristics and student achievement: Evidence from Teach For America. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
12.
DonaldsonM. L. (2012). The promise of older novices: Teach for America Teachers’ age of entry and subsequent retention in teaching and schools. Teachers College Record, 114(10).
13.
DonaldsonM. L.JohnsonS. M. (2010). The price of misassignment: The role of teaching assignments in Teach For America teachers’ exit from low-income schools and the teaching profession. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 25. doi:10.3102/0162373710367680
14.
DonaldsonM. L.JohnsonS. M. (2011). Teach For America teachers: How long do they teach? Why do they leave?Phi Delta Kappan, 93(2), 47-51. doi:10.1177/003172171109300211
15.
DracaM.MachinS.Van ReenenJ. (2011). Minimum wages and firm profitability. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3(1), 129-151. doi:10.1257/app.3.1.129
16.
DufloE. (2001). Schooling and labor market consequences of school construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an unusual policy experiment. American Economic Review, 91(4), 795-813. doi:10.1257/aer.91.4.795
17.
ErautM. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247-273. doi:10.1080/158037042000225245
18.
FeeneyN. (2015, August11). Teach for America welcomes diverse corps after applications drop. Time Magazine.
19.
FrankK. A.ZhaoY.PenuelW. R.EllefsonN.PorterS. (2011). Focus, fiddle, and friends experiences that transform knowledge for the implementation of innovations. Sociology of Education, 84, 137-156. doi:10.1177/0038040711401812
20.
GlazermanS.MayerD.DeckerP. (2006). Alternative routes to teaching: The impacts of Teach for America on student achievement and other outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25, 75-96. doi:10.1002/pam.20157
21.
GlazermanS.ProtikA.TehB.BruchJ.MaxJ. (2013). Transfer incentives for high-performing teachers: Final results from a multisite randomized experiment (NCEE 2014-4003). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
HansenM.BackesB.BradyV. (2016). Teacher attrition and mobility during the Teach For America clustering strategy in Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(3), 495-516. doi:10.3102%2F0162373716638441
24.
HansenM.BackesB.NelsonJ. (2015). Spilling over or watering down? Administrators’ perceptions of Teach For America under a high-density placement strategy. Unpublished manuscript, CALDER Center, Washington, DC.
25.
HermanR.DawsonP.DeeT.GreeneJ.MaynardR.ReddingS.DarwinM. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides
26.
HillC.BloomH.BlackA.LipseyM. (2008). Empirical benchmarks for interpreting effect sizes in research. Child Development Perspectives, 2(3), 172-177.
27.
HockH.IsenbergE. (2017). Methods for accounting for co-teaching in value-added models. Statistics and Public Policy, 4(1), 1-11. doi:10.1080/2330443X.2016.1265473
28.
JacksonC. K.BruegmannE. (2009). Teaching students and teaching each other: The importance of peer learning for teachers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(4), 85-108. doi:10.1257/app.1.4.85
29.
JohnsonS. M. (2015). Will VAMS reinforce the walls of the egg-crate school?Educational Researcher, 44(2), 117-126.
30.
KaneT. J.RockoffJ. E.StaigerD. O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 615-631. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.05.005
31.
KearnsP. (2010). HR Strategy: Creating business strategy with human capital (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
32.
KoedelC. (2009). An empirical analysis of teacher spillover effects in secondary school. Economics of Education Review, 28, 682-692. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.02.003
33.
KraftM. A.PapayJ. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Explaining heterogeneity in returns to teaching experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 476-500. doi:10.3102/0162373713519496
34.
LaneS.Lacefield-ParachiniN.IskenJ. (2003). Developing novice teachers as change agents: Student teacher placements against the grain. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30(2), 55-68.
35.
McDonaldM.ZeichnerK. (2009). Social justice teacher education. In AyersW.QuinnT.StovallK. (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
PapayJ. P.TaylorE. S.TylerJ. H.LaskiM. (2016). Learning job skills from colleagues at work: Evidence from a field experiment using teacher performance data (Working Paper No. 21986). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w21986
37.
PenuelW.RielM.KrauseA.FrankK. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions in a school as social capital: A social network approach. The Teachers College Record, 111(1), 124-163.
38.
RhimL. M.KowalJ. M.HasselB. C.HasselE. A. (2007). School turnarounds: A review of the cross-sector evidence on dramatic organizational improvement. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact.
39.
SpillaneJ. P.KimC. M.FrankK. A. (2012). Instructional advice and information providing and receiving behavior in elementary schools exploring tie formation as a building block in social capital development. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1112-1145. doi:10.3102/0002831212459339
40.
SunM.LoebS.GrissomJ. A. (2017). Building teacher teams: Evidence of positive spillovers from more effective colleagues. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 104-125. doi:10.3102/0162373716665698
41.
TrujilloT.ScottJ. (2014). Superheroes and transformers: Rethinking Teach For America’s leadership models. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(8), 57-61. doi:10.1177/003172171409500813
42.
XuZ.HannawayJ.TaylorC. (2011). Making a difference? The effects of Teach for America in high school. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 447-469. doi:10.1002/pam.20585
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
