Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

Amanuel Medhanie 

12/13/22 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 2 

TLC Impact Evaluation 2021-2022........................................................................................ 3 

Background ................................................................................................................... 3 

Study Purpose and Design............................................................................................... 3 

Methodology.................................................................................................................. 4 

Evaluation questions ................................................................................................... 4 

Population and Sample ................................................................................................ 4 

Results .......................................................................................................................... 8 

Findings, Limitations, and Conclusions ............................................................................ 14 

P | 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

Executive Summary 

The Total Learning Classroom (TLC) is an AmeriCorps program designed to strengthen school 

capacity to deliver educational support to students. Schools that participate in TLC receive 

whole-school support by a Systems Coach who embeds into the school and works with 

leadership to make system-level improvements. In addition, schools receive AmeriCorps 

members who embed into classrooms and directly augment teacher capacity to support 

students. 

The current evaluation examined year-end literacy outcomes for two types of classrooms in TLC 

schools: those that had an AmeriCorps member, called a Scholar Coach; and those that did not. 

Because the Systems Coach provides school- and grade-level support designed to benefit all 

classrooms, the current evaluation approach focused on analyzing the effect of having a 

Scholar Coach in a TLC classroom over and above the effect of having a Systems Coach 

assigned to the school. 

Data from 39 classrooms were analyzed both descriptively and inferentially, with findings 

showing a potential effect for Scholar Coaches in kindergarten as well as a potential effect for 

evidence-based tutoring in kindergarten and second grade. However, findings were mixed 

overall, and should also be contextualized in light of limitations, particularly with respect to how 

Scholar Coaches are assigned to classrooms and a high percentage of missing data. 

Recommendations for the TLC program, including future evaluations, are noted. 

P | 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

TLC Impact Evaluation 2021-2022 

Background 

The Total Learning Classroom (TLC) program was developed to support whole-school learning 

outcomes in grades kindergarten through three. It does this in two ways. First, it provides the 

school AmeriCorps members trained in evidence-based literacy interventions, called Scholar 

Coaches, with up to one Scholar Coach per classroom. Those individuals deliver effective 

literacy tutoring to as many students as possible; and when they’re not delivering tutoring they 

support teacher-led learning priorities, with a focus on language, literacy, and math. 

The second way TLC supports whole-school learning is through an assigned Systems Coach. 

Systems Coaches add capacity to do several things that schools otherwise may be limited in 

accomplishing. First, they provide ongoing coaching to the Scholar Coaches, ensuring 

interventions are delivered effectively, assisting in the interpretation of student progress data, 

and helping tutors establish strong and responsive relationships with each student. Systems 

Coaches also help school leaders with decisions and practices that affect entire grades or the 

whole school, such as improving systems of data use, setting targets for learning improvement, 

and establishing classwide interventions when needed. 

The TLC Program is an intense allocation of resources; thus, partner schools must meet at least 

three primary criteria: (1) 70% or more students must receive free or reduced price lunch 

(FRPL), (2) 70% or more students must have scored below proficient levels on the previous 

year’s state test in reading, and (3) schools must sign an agreement indicating readiness to 

partner with the TLC Program. Schools that meet these criteria also tend to face other 

challenges (e.g., high student mobility) associated with being systematically under-resourced 

and marginalized by broader communities within which they exist. 

Study Purpose and Design 

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the literacy outcomes of students attending schools 

that participate in the TLC program. More specifically, the current study compared learning 

outcomes for two groups of students. The first group of students were in classrooms at TLC 

schools that had a Scholar Coach supporting learning activities. The second group of students 

were in classrooms at TLC schools but did not have a Scholar Coach supporting their classroom 

learning activities. Spring outcomes on student literacy data were evaluated for both groups. 

This design provides insights into the effect of having a Scholar Coach in a TLC classroom over 

and above the effect of having a Systems Coach assigned to the school. Not all classrooms in a 

TLC school receive a Scholar Coach, but all classrooms in a TLC school do benefit from the 

system-level support provided by the Systems Coach, which includes a limited amount of 

capacity for evidence-based tutoring. Scholar Coaches can often provide evidence-based 

tutoring for a limited number of students outside their assigned classroom during times when 

P | 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

students are unavailable (e.g., lunch, recess, specialist). Thus, in a given TLC school all students 

benefit from the Systems Coach working with school leadership, but those with a Scholar Coach 

in their room likely have accelerated access to those benefits, as well as a greater likelihood of 

receiving evidence-based tutoring. 

Methodology 

Evaluation questions 

This evaluation study was designed to answer the following question: To what extent do students 

in classrooms assigned a Scholar Coach demonstrate higher literacy scores relative to similar 

students in classrooms without a Scholar Coach? 

Population and Sample 

The population of interest for this study consists of kindergarten through 3rd grade students 

enrolled in high-poverty elementary schools in Minnesota that also have a high percentage of 

students that do not meet proficiency in reading1. The sample consisted of 1,235 students 

enrolled in one of the 10 schools participating in the TLC program. 

Table 1: School characteristics 

School 

English Language 

Students Consistently 

Characteristic Mean 

31.3% (10) 

82.9% (9) 

(N) 

Learners 

Free or Reduced Priced Lunch 74.2% (10) 

Met ELA Standards in 3rd Grade 

Attend 

20.4% (9) 

A power analysis (using Optimal Design 3.01)2 indicated that, in order to detect a difference 

(i.e. effect size) of 0.4 (Cohen’s d, with a power of 0.85) on post-treatment assessment scores, 

and assuming the use of two-level hierarchical linear model3, the necessary sample size for this 

study is 35 classrooms. 

Sixteen classrooms were not assigned a Scholar Coach and 23 classrooms were assigned a 

Scholar Coach. Below is a table describing the Fall, Winter, and Spring assessment scores for 

1 For this study, “high-poverty” was defined as having 70% or more students must receive free 

or reduced price lunch (FRPL), and “high percentage of students that do not meet proficiency in 

reading” was defined as 70% or more students must have scored below proficient levels on the 

previous year’s state test in reading. Schools that received TLC had to also sign an agreement 

indicating readiness to partner with the TLC program. 

2 Raudenbush, S. W., & Liu, X. (2000). Statistical power and optimal design for multisite 

randomized trials. Psychological methods, 5(2), 199.. 

3 Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data 

analysis methods (Vol. 1). sage. 

P | 4 
Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

the sample of students in this study. Fall assessments for the treatment and comparison 

groups were administered between 2021-09-02 and 2021-09-24. Winter assessments for the 

treatment and comparison groups were administered between 2022-01-11 and 2022-02-18, 

and Spring assessments for the treatment and comparison groups were administered between 

2022-05-05 and 2022-05-27. All assessments were administered through FastBridge Learning4. 

Table 2: Average Assessment Scores by Student Group and Time of School Year 

Student Characteristics Fall 

Mean (SD,N) 

Winter 

Mean (SD,N) 

Spring

Mean (SD,N) 

Kindergarten - Correct Letter 

Sounds (Comparison) 6.7 (9.6,53) 20.1 (17,77) 25.9 (15.2,57) 

Kindergarten - Correct Letter 

Sounds (Treatment) 4 (6.2,125) 24.9 (16.4,126) 37.7 (18,126) 

1st Grade - Correct Nonsense 

Words (Comparison) 23.4 (28.5,82) 20.1 (22.1,65) 

1st Grade - Correct Nonsense 

Words (Treatment) 22.3 (24.5,280) 43.1 (35.4,275) 

1st Grade - CBM-Reading 

(Comparison) 26.2 (32.7,68) 44 (33, 69) 

1st Grade - CBM-Reading 

(Treatment) 27.6 (32.9,280) 47.2 (39.3,279) 

2nd Grade - CBM-Reading 

(Comparison) 43 (36.4, 112) 58.7 (38.8,98) 73.3 (44.6,92) 

2nd Grade - CBM-Reading 

(Treatment) 33.4 (37.2,122) 50.9 (43.3,118) 67.5 (46.2,116) 

3rd Grade - CBM-Reading 

(Comparison) 74.1 (48.4,116) 81.4 (48.1,107) 104.4 (50.1,101) 

3rd Grade - CBM-Reading 

(Treatment) 56.8 (38.7,93) 67 (46, 148) 82.8 (46.3,134) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The table above shows that, in general, comparison students had higher average baseline 

scores in the fall. However, the baseline differences between treatment (i.e. students in 

classrooms paired with a Scholar Coach) and comparison students (in classrooms not paired 

with a Scholar Coach) was relatively small for kindergartners and 1st graders (i.e. 2.7 and 1.1 

respectively) and somewhat larger for students in 2nd and 3rd grade (i.e. 9.9 and 17.3 

respectively). 

Treatment vs. Comparison Classrooms 

• All schools in the current study served students in kindergarten through grade three or 

beyond. Per the TLC program, the Systems Coach assigned to each school focused on 

the following factors designed to improve the school’s capacity to facilitate improved 

learning: 

4 Thornblad, S. C., & Christ, T. J. (2014). Curriculum-based measurement of reading: Is 6 weeks 

of daily progress monitoring enough?. School Psychology Review, 43(1), 19-29. 

P | 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

(1) The Systems Coach embedded into the school’s literacy leadership and data 

review practices. This typically took the form of attending meetings to advise on 

data practices, classwide intervention opportunities, or school/grade-level data. 

(2) The Systems Coach completed a “multi-tiered systems of support” (MTSS) 

checklist in partnership with the school. MTSS is a research-based framework for 

organizing school resources, and the MTSS checklist used by TLC is designed to 

assist schools in prioritizing high-value schoolwide changes to improve learning. 

(3) The Systems Coach interpreted class- and grade-level data to help allocate 

evidence-based tutoring services for students not in classrooms with Scholar 

Coaches. 

• 23 classrooms were assigned TLC Scholar Coaches. The assignment process varied by 

school, but was typically led by principals, who in turn worked with individual teachers 

or grade-level teams to determine the best assignments for TLC Scholar Coaches. Some 

sites reported assigning Scholar Coaches to the classrooms with the highest level of 

reported instructional needs; other sites assigned Scholar Coaches to teachers who 

expressed the most interest in having additional support. For students in the treatment 

classrooms: 

(1) Scholar Coaches provided evidence-based literacy tutoring to as many students 

as allowed by the classroom and school schedule (which was often 9 or more 

students in a given day). These tutoring sessions lasted 20 minutes and were 

scheduled daily until data indicated students no longer needed them. 

(2) Scholar Coaches supported teacher-led learning activities and assisted with 

classroom management (e.g., sat with students during large-group instruction to 

facilitate engagement and learning). 

(3) students received supports determined by the Systems Coach, school 

leadership, and/or teachers designed to improve whole-class learning outcomes 

(e.g., a teacher-administered classwide intervention) 

• 16 classrooms were not assigned TLC Scholar Coaches. Students in these comparison 

classrooms received: 

(1) typical classroom instruction without the support of a Scholar Coach 

(2) supports determined by the Systems Coach, school leadership, and/or teachers 

designed to improve whole-class learning outcomes (e.g., a teacheradministered classwide intervention) 

(3) evidence-based tutoring provided by a Scholar Coach from a different 

classroom. (Note: this occurred in select cases, and is not considered to be a 

substantive contamination between treatment and comparison conditions, because 

the principle purpose of the current evaluation is to determine the unique effect of 

having the Scholar Coach embedded into the classroom.) 

Independent and Dependant Variables 

P | 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

There were three dependent variables in this study: 

1) The number of Correct Letter Sounds measured during the spring administration of the 

FastBridge Test of Letter Sounds. The score ranges from 0 to 100+ correct sounds in one 

minute. It reflects a student’s ability to efficiently recognize a common sound associated 

with a given grapheme (i.e., the letters that correspond to a discrete sound in the 

English language). 

2) The number of Correct Nonsense Words measured during the winter administration of 

the FastBridge Test of Nonsense Words. The score ranges from 0 to 100+ correct 

nonsense words in one minute and reflects a student’s ability to efficiently decode 

common (but unfamiliar) sequences of basic consonant-vowel-consonant words (e.g., 

nim). 

3) The number of words read correctly per minute during the spring administration of the 

FastBridge Curriculum-based measure of reading fluency (CBM-Reading). The score 

ranges from 0 to 250+ words read correctly in one minute and reflects a student’s ability 

to efficiently read connected text that is at a controlled level of difficulty. 

The independent variables in this study were as follows: 

• The score from the fall administration of the corresponding FastBridge assessment. 

• Scholar Coach: A dichotomous variable indicating whether the student was in a class 

that was assigned a Scholar Coach (1 = yes, 0 = no). 

• Tutored: A dichotomous variable indicating whether the student received direct tutoring 

through a Scholar Coach during the study period (1 = yes, 0 = no). 

• ClassID: A numeric code indicating the unique classroom in which the student was 

enrolled during the timeframe of this study. 

Analysis 

The evaluation question – “To what extent do students in classrooms paired with a Scholar Coach 

demonstrate higher literacy scores relative to similar students in classrooms without a Scholar 

Coach?” – was answered using the lme function in the nlme5 package for the statistical 

programming language R6. Separate models were fit for each of the four outcomes (i.e. Correct 

Letter Sounds for Kindergarten, Correct Nonsense Words for 1st grade, CBM-Reading for 2nd 

5 Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., Heisterkamp, S., Van Willigen, B., & Maintainer, R. 

(2017). Package ‘nlme’. Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models, version, 3(1). 

6 R Core Team (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation 

for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ 

P | 7 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YYiiii = ββ0ii + ββ1iiXX1iiii + ∑ββppiiXXppiiii + eeiiii Student - level 

ββ0ii = γγ00 + γγ01WW1ii + bb0ii Class - level 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

grade, and CBM-Reading for 3rd grade)7. Baseline differences were controlled for by including 

these assessment scores as covariates in the model. 

The two-level hierarchical linear models took the general form: 

Where YYiiii is the ith student’s post-treatment assessment score (i.e. Correct Letter Sounds, 

Correct Nonsense Words, etc.), ββ0ii is the average value for the outcome for class j, ββ1ii is a 

coefficient reflecting the relationship between a student-level variable XX1iiii (e.g. student’s 

baseline assessment score) and the outcome, γγ00 is the overall average value for the outcome, 

γγ01 is a coefficient reflecting the relationship between a class-level variable WW1ii (e.g. whether the 

class was assigned a Scholar Coach) and the average value for the outcome. 

The authors hypothesized that the results would show a positive and statistically significant 

relationship between the Scholar Coach variable and the post-treatment assessment scores for 

each grade. This would support the hypothesis that classrooms paired with a Scholar Coach 

demonstrate higher literacy scores relative to similar students in classrooms without a Scholar 

Coach. 

Results 

The evaluation team performed descriptive and inferential analyses to answer the evaluation 

question “To what extent do students in classrooms assigned a Scholar Coach demonstrate higher 

literacy scores relative to similar students in classrooms without a Scholar Coach?”. This section 

presents these results. 

The figure below presents the average Correct Letter Sounds by treatment group for 

kindergarteners in the sample. It shows that treatment and comparison kindergarten students 

in the sample began with similar baseline average correct letter sounds. After treatment 

(i.e. the classroom being paired with a Scholar Coach), the students in the treatment classes 

had higher average correct letter sounds compared to comparison students. 

7 1st grade CBM-Reading scores wer not modeled because these data were only collected 

during winter (after treatment classrooms had already been served by a Scholar Coach) and 

spring. 

P | 8 
 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

Figure 1: Kindergarten Average Correct Letter Sounds by Treatment Group 

P | 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

The figure below presents the average Correct Nonsense Words by treatment group for 1st 

graders in the sample. It shows that treatment and comparison 1st grade students in the 

sample began with similar baseline average correct correct nonsense words. After treatment, 

the students in the treatment classes had higher average correct nonsense words compared to 

comparison students. 

Figure 2: 1st Grade Average Correct Nonsense Words by Treatment Group 

P | 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

The figure below presents the average CBM-Reading scores by treatment group for 2nd graders 

in the sample. It shows that treatment and comparison 2nd grade students in the sample 

began with different baseline average CBM-Reading scores. The size of this gap between 

treatment and comparison students did not substantively change after one year of TLC 

program implementation. 

Figure 3: 2nd Grade Average CBM-Reading Score by Treatment Group 

P | 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

The figure below presents the average CBM-Reading score by treatment group for 3rd graders 

in the sample. It shows that treatment and comparison 3rd grade students in the sample began 

with different baseline average CBM-Reading scores. The size of this gap between treatment 

and comparison students did not substantively change after one year of TLC program 

implementation. 

Figure 4: 3rd Grade Average CBM-Reading Score by Treatment Group 

P | 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable 

Intercept 

Coefficient (SE) 

Kindergarten -

Correct Letter 

Sounds 

Coefficient (SE)1st

Grade - Correct 

Nonsense Words 

Coefficient (SE)2nd 

Grade - CBM -

Reading 

Coefficient (SE)3rd

Grade - CBM -

Reading 

17.54** (2.69) 6.7 (8.44) 27.08** (4.07) 22.31** (4.06) 

Baseline Score 1.42** (0.18) 0.92** (0.05) 1.07** (0.05) 1.01** (0.04) 

Tutored 11.87** (2.96) 2.11 (2.68) 9.05* (3.71) 7.1 (3.8) 

Scholar Coach 7.8* (3.04) 13.72 (8.26) 1.5 (4.19) 5.4 (3.37) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

The table below presents the results from the hierarchical linear models used to answer the 

evaluation question for each of the grades. Cells containing an “*” indicate that a variable was a 

statistically significant (p < 0.05) predictor of that student outcome for that grade level. 

Table 3: Model results by grade 

Note: * denotes statistical significance at p < 0.05, ** denotes statistical significance at p < 0.01. 

These results are based on a model assuming the normal distribution8. 

The results in the table are described for each grade and outcome below: 

Kindergarten Correct Letter Sounds: The results of the model suggest that the baseline number of 

correct letter sounds of kindergarten students was positively associated with post scores (B = 

1.42, p < 0.01). Also, on average, students who received tutoring had a higher number of correct 

letter sounds during the last observation, even after controlling for other factors (B = 11.87, p < 

0.01). Finally, classrooms with a Scholar Coach had a higher number of correct letter sounds on 

average compared to classrooms without a Scholar Coach (B = 7.8, p < 0.05). 

1st Grade Correct Nonsense Words: The results of the model suggest that the baseline number of 

correct nonsense words of 1st grade students was positively associated with post scores (B = 

0.92, p < 0.01). However, neither tutoring nor having a scholar coach assigned to the classroom 

were associated with the final number of correct nonsense words after controlling for the other 

variables (B = 2.11, p > 0.05; B = 13.72, p > 0.05). 

2nd Grade CBM-Reading: The results of the model suggest that the baseline CBM-Reading score 

of 2nd grade students was positively associated with post scores (B = 1.07, p < 0.01). Also, on 

average, students who received tutoring had a higher CBM-Reading score during the last 

observation, even after controlling for other factors (B = 9.05, p < 0.05). There was no 

association between whether classrooms had a Scholar Coach and students’ post CBM-Reading 

score (B = 1.5, p > 0.05). 

3rd Grade CBM-Reading: The results of the model suggest that the baseline CBM-Reading score 

of 3rd grade students was positively associated with post scores (B = 1.01, p < 0.01). However, 

8 Because the dependent variables reflect count data, the authors used Poisson and negative 

binomial models in addition to the Gaussian/normal model. The conclusions from these results 

did not change and so the results from the Gaussian/normal model are presented for 

simplicity. 

P | 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

neither tutoring nor having a Scholar Coach assigned to the classroom were associated with the 

final CBM-Reading score after controlling for the other variables (B = 7.1, p > 0.05; B = 5.4, p > 

0.05). 

Findings, Limitations, and Conclusions 

Main Findings: The current evaluation sought to better understand the effects of the TLC 

program on student learning outcomes. Specifically, it investigated the effect of different 

classroom-level contexts on year-end literacy outcomes. Overall, the findings were mixed and 

need to be interpreted in the context of the evaluation’s limitations (as noted below). 

The following findings are worth highlighting: First, baseline assessment scores were correlated 

with post assessment scores, an expected outcome as it is common for students who score 

higher in a pretest assessment to also score higher at posttest. Second, the presence of a 

Scholar Coach was positively associated with an increase in correct letter sounds in 

kindergarten, even after controlling for baseline scores as well as whether a student received 

tutoring, but that was the only grade where this finding was observed. Third, students who 

received tutoring tended to have higher scores in kindergarten and 2nd grade, although this 

relationship was not present among 1st graders (for correct nonsense words) or 3rd graders 

(for CBM-Reading). 

Taken together, these findings provide tentative evidence that some aspects of the TLC 

program may be associated with improved student outcomes; however, what aspects support 

learning and in which grades are unclear. Only in kindergarten did the Scholar Coach presence 

have a statistically significant impact on year-end outcomes. That may be due to something 

unique to the kindergarten experience (e.g., many students accessing formal schooling for the 

first time), which in turn allows for a greater effect of the Scholar Coach, but that is a tentative 

interpretation. A similarly tentative interpretation may be made with respect to tutoring in 

kindergarten and second grade, where access to tutoring was significantly associated with yearend outcomes. That finding is consistent with robust research that shows evidence-based 

tutoring is effective, so it is less surprising. But in the context of non-significant associations in 

the two other grades, the extent to which TLC facilitates effective tutoring is unclear (though 

small sample sizes urge caution in any interpretation). 

Limitations: Three primary limitations are important to consider when interpreting the above 

findings. First, the assignment mechanism behind what TLC classrooms get a Scholar Coach 

and what classrooms do not is largely unknown. Thus, it is unclear whether other factors (e.g., 

teacher quality or experience) might be influencing the results. In the future, it would be 

beneficial to either control Scholar Coach assignment (e.g., randomization) or fully understand 

the assignment mechanisms so as to establish a stronger quasi-experimental comparison. 

Second, incomplete data resulted in approximately 40% of the sample missing class-specific 

data. This was due to the fact that several schools desired to not identify their classroom 

teacher (all data in this report are fully aggregated and anonymized), which resulted in the main 

inferential results being based on only 60% of all students in the sample. Third, students in both 

treatment and comparison conditions potentially benefit from the school-wide support 

P | 14 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Learning Classroom Impact Evaluation 

provided by Systems Coach, as described above. The evaluation was designed to not control for 

the presence of a Systems Coach and, therefore, did not capture a possible significant benefit 

the program has on student literacy outcomes. 

Conclusions for TLC Evaluation and Practice: Despite the limitations and mixed findings, the 

current study provides tentative evidence that the TLC program produces a net benefit on 

learning outcomes. Kindergarten students and second grade students who were tutored 

demonstrated improved outcomes. When considered in light of existing research on tutoring– 

as well as descriptive outcomes in the current study and elsewhere that indicate benefits from 

the program–a pattern emerges that efforts to augment school capacity for improved learning 

outcomes are promising. The current findings can be interpreted as evidence that such efforts 

should continue, and that stronger research designs might better identify the true effects they 

have on learning outcomes. In particular, determining feasible designs that control for Scholar 

Coach classroom assignments holds particular promise. 

P | 15