Heleig and Jez (2010) conducted an extensive literature review of all peer
reviewed published articles focused on the performance of Teach for America Teachers.
In their review, they found that novice TFA classrooms perform about the same in
reading as other classes within the same school and slightly better in math. However, the
teachers within schools are significantly less traditionally prepared than the average
teacher and are less likely to hold traditional certification or have had a teaching practice.
An extensive randomized study by Mathematica corroborates this assertion. In a large
scale, randomized experiment to determine Teach for America effectiveness within
schools, they found that only 31% of the novice non-TFA teachers in a school where a
TFA recruit was placed had more than ten weeks experience in a classroom prior to
starting (Decker, Mayer & Glazerman, 2006). In only five weeks of training, TFA
recruits had roughly equivalent classroom experience to the majority of novice teachers
in their building. Most alarmingly, this same study found that over half of the novice
non-TFA teachers had no student teaching experience at all. By the end of the first year
teaching, 40% of Teach for America teachers were certified, compared to 38% of the
novice teachers within the same school (Decker, Mayer & Glazerman, 2006). It is
compared to this group that multiple studies have found that having a Teach for America
teacher is likely to show reading achievement holding constant, or slightly above average
school performance with higher than average performance in math (Heilig, Cole,
Springel, 2011).
However, when Teach for America teachers are compared to traditionally
prepared teachers, one study finds that they do not perform as well. In a large-scale study
in Houston, hierarchical linear modeling was used to analyze how Teach for America
teachers were performing relative to other alternatively certified teachers and traditional
teachers. The authors found that on the whole, a Teach for America recruit did not out
perform a traditional teacher while controlling for demographics, background and
experience (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005). However, they did
out perform other alternatively certified teachers and that TFA recruits were most likely
to teach almost exclusively in minority, impoverished schools. This point is not a subtle
one. In every case, the Teach for America recruits are in very impoverished areas with
high need students and studies that compare them to traditional teachers must control for
these demographics. Darling-Hammond et al. did through controls for poverty, student
prior achievement, race and gender, making the results of their study applicable to policy.
Teacher experience has proven to be an important predictor of student
achievement up to three years experience (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2007 & Boyd et al.,
2006). After the initial three years, the effect of experience trails off, but having an
inexperienced or ineffective teacher year after year can have a negative cumulative effect
that can make catching up impossible for a student and decrease the likelihood of future
financial earnings on par with students that have had experienced and or effective
teachers (Hanushek, 2007).
In 2004, Noell and Gansel conducted a longitudinal study to determine the
effectiveness of Teach for America in Louisiana schools. They used hierarchical linear
modeling (HLM) and value added modeling to control for student demographics. Teach
for America provided data for this study that was merged with Louisiana student data. It
is necessary to note that the study spans the time in which Hurricane Katrina hit New
Orleans in 2005, the study ranges from 2004-2007 and Teach for America Teachers have
a strong presence in New Orleans and gulf coast schools. Across the years of the sample,
a measure of persistence was taken, which was the percentage of new teachers and the
percentage of TFA teachers stayed five years. They found that after five years 4-20% of
the TFA recruits were still teaching. In that same time period, they found 60-65% of the
new teachers with standard teaching certificates were still teaching.
When compared to other first and second year teachers, Noell et al. found TFA
recruits had a statistically positive impact on English language arts, reading, science, and
mathematics. They also found that Teach for America students performed closer to
experienced teachers than other new teachers, but were not likely to stay teaching in
Louisiana beyond three years (Noell & Gansell, 2009). This study was not published in a
peer-reviewed publication and a portion of the dataset is private.
Districts have immediate needs for teachers, the turnover is very high in low SES
urban schools and every year there are places to fill (Hanushek, Kain & Rivkin, 2004). If
a district’s need to hire is based on shortage that will have to be filled with other
alternatively certified teachers or substitutes, TFA recruits have proved more effective
(Heilig et al., 2010, Boyd et al., 2006, Noell et al., 2009). In that case, it would be
advantageous to hire a TFA teacher versus another teacher from an unproven alternative
certification program. The research does show TFA recruits perform at least as well if
not better. As a stopgap solution, TFA at least offers a do-no-harm option, however,
there are real costs to a district that keeps turning over teachers. It can cost a district up
to $5,000 per teacher to enter into a contract where it is paying TFA finders’ fees for its
teachers (Strauss & Lee, 2011). Once those new recruits are hired, it is estimated to cost
a district between $10,000 and $20,000 in new teacher training, support and professional
development (Heilig et al., 2011).
In the interim it is possible to reduce costs of staff turnover if districts negotiate
with Teach for America to provide them with recruits with math and social science as
opposed to science backgrounds. One study by Donaldson and Johnson found that when
TFA recruits with math and social studies backgrounds were assigned to teach those
subjects they stayed longer and performed better than assigning a TFA recruit without a
background in that subject. Interestingly, they found that TFA teachers who did not have
a background in science, but were assigned to teach it stayed longer than those with a
background in science (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010). Districts should also advise
principals not to assign TFA teachers to multiple grades in elementary school; they stay
longer in a single grade assignment (Donaldson & Johnson, 2010).
Further, principals should be advised to stack TFA recruits in math where they
best perform and try to shift experienced teachers so that no cohort of students has two
first year TFAs in a row. That would reduce the damage done to anyone year of students
by having a sequence of teachers in their least effective year and reduce the cumulative
effects of beginning teachers multiple years in a row (Hanushek, 2011, Hanushek et al.,
2004).
Districts are trying to buy one thing, effective teachers in the classroom.
Unfortunately, they are entering into staffing contracts with Teach for America that are
twice as long as most TFA teachers will stay. The recommendations presented are to
help guide districts to what works with TFA in the short-term while offering principals
evidenced-based practical staffing recommendations designed to reduce staff turnover
and increase student achievement.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How
changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student
achievement. Education Finance and Policy 1(2) (Spring 2006). 176-216.
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S., & Heilig, J. (2005). Does Teacher
Preparation Matter? Evidence about Teacher Certification, Teach for America,
and Teacher Effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 131-47.
Decker, P. T., Mayer, D. P., & Glazerman, S (2006). Alternative routes to teaching: the
impacts of Teach for America on student achievement and other outcomes.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(1), 75–96.
Donaldson, M. L., & Johnson, S. (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 & Policy Analysis,
32(2), 299-323. doi:10.3102/0162373710367680
Hanushek, E. A. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics Of
Education Review, 30, 466-479.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.libraries.smu.edu/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.006
Hanushek, E., Kain, J. & Rivkin, S. (2004). “Why Public Schools Lose Teachers.”
Journal of human Resources, 39(2): 326–54.
Hanushek, E., & Rivkin, S. (2007). Pay, working conditions, and teacher quality. Future
Of Children, 17(1), 69-86.
Heilig, J., Cole, H. A., & Springel, M. A. (2011). Alternative Certification And Teach
For America: The Search For High Quality Teachers. Kansas Journal Of Law &
Public Policy, 20 (3), 388-412.
Heilig, J.V. & Jez, S.J. (2010). Teach For America: A Review of the Evidence. Boulder
and Tempe:Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research
Unit. Retrieved April, 2013, from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/teach-for-amer
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 April 2013, from
http://www.nctq.org/docs/TFA_Louisiana_study.PDF