We measure the initial impact of the EITP on a school's math and reading achievement by comparing student achievement between the Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 schools at the end of the 2008-09 school year, during which Cohort 1 schools implemented the EITP but Cohort 2 schools did not.
In its first year, the EITP increased student achievement in the Cohort 1 schools by 5.
In the second year, as Cohort 2 schools implemented EITP, we might have expected the difference between the two groups of schools to shrink or even disappear as the Cohort 2 schools benefited from the same program that had a positive impact on Cohort 1 schools the prior year.
The effect of EITP at lower-poverty schools--those with just 60 percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch--was double the effect for the full sample, at more than 20 percent of a standard deviation (see Figure 2).
We also find evidence that schools with higher student achievement before the start of the EITP benefited the most from the program.
Why did the EITP only improve achievement in certain schools and only in the first year?
Leadership turnover in CPS led to a decline in institutional and district support for EITP between the first and second years of the pilot program.
While Duncan's arrival in Washington in early 2009 was followed by a national emphasis on refining teacher evaluation systems, his departure from Chicago marked a move away from the rigorous year one implementation of the EITP pilot.
When the EITP expanded to include the Cohort 2 schools in 2009, doubling the number of schools implementing the pilot, the budget for district support of the program did not increase.
Finally, in the summer of 2010, prior to the third year of implementation, CPS ended EITP.
The implementation of the EITP pilot in Chicago occurred prior to the nationwide shift toward more rigorous teacher-evaluation systems.
Chicago's decision to abandon the EITP pilot, after supporting it fully for just one year, illustrates the difficulty urban school districts have in sustaining large-scale policy changes that require ongoing support from the central office and significant investment on the part of educators in specific schools.