Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Final Results from a Randomized Trial

1. Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Final Results from a Randomized Trial IES Summer Research Conference, June 2010 Steven Glazerman ● Eric Isenberg ● Sarah Dolfin ● Martha Bleeker Amy Johnson ● Mary Grider ● Matthew Jacobus

2. What is “Comprehensive Induction”? • Mentors • Carefully selected and trained • Full-time release with ratio of 12:1 • Curriculum • Instructionally focused • Structured and sequenced • Activities • Weekly meetings with mentor, written logs • Monthly study groups • Classroom observation with formative assessment • End-of-year colloquium • Coordination with administrators and program staff

3. Research Questions Compared to prevailing induction, what is the impact of comprehensive induction on… • Induction services? • Whether assigned a mentor • Time spent with mentor • Activities • Workforce outcomes? • Teacher attitudes • Teacher retention • Classroom outcomes? • Teacher practices • Student test scores

4. Study Design • Selected 17 districts • Randomized 418 elementary schools • Followed 1,009 teachers • 698 eligible for classroom observation • 190 eligible for test-score analysis in year 3 • In second year of study, created two experiments • “One-year districts” with a single year of treatment • “Two-year districts” with two years of treatment

5. Summary of Findings • Induction services • Control group received induction services • Treatment group received more during intervention period • Workforce outcomes • No impact on attitudes • No impact on teacher retention, mobility • Classroom outcomes • No impacts on classroom practices in first year • No impacts on test scores in one-year districts • Positive impacts on test scores in two-year districts • Years 1 and 2: no impacts • Year 3: Effect size = 0.11 (reading) and 0.20 (math) • Positive impacts sensitive to sample definition

6. Induction Support

7. Time Spent with Mentors: One-Year Districts Solid squares = Treatment-control difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

8. Time Spent with Mentors: One-Year Districts Intervention period Solid squares = Treatment-control difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

9. Time Spent with Mentors: One-Year Districts Intervention period Solid squares = Treatment-control difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

10. Time Spent with Mentors: Two-Year Districts Solid squares = Treatment-control difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

11. Time Spent with Mentors: Two-Year Districts Intervention period Solid squares = Treatment-control difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

12. Impacts on the Workforce:Teacher Mobility

13. Retention in the District: One-Year Districts Note: No impacts are significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level.

14. Retention in the District: Two-Year Districts Percent Note: No impacts are significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level.

15. Impacts on the Classroom:Student Achievement

16. Impacts on Test Scores, Year 3 *Treatment-control difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

17. Sensitivity Tests, Reading in Two-Year Districts *Significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level.

18. Sensitivity Tests, Math in Two-Year Districts *Significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level.

19. Summary of Findings • Induction services • Control group received induction services • Treatment group received more during intervention period • Workforce outcomes • No impact on attitudes • No impact on teacher retention, mobility • Classroom outcomes • No impacts on classroom practices in first year • No impacts on test scores in one-year districts • Positive impacts on test scores in two-year districts • Years 1 and 2: no impacts • Year 3: Effect size = 0.11 (reading) and 0.20 (math) • Positive impacts sensitive to sample definition

20. For More Information • Please contact • Steven Glazerman • sglazerman@mathematica-mpr.com • Report is available online at: • http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104027/

21. END(extra slides follow)

22. Percent With a Mentor Assigned: One-Year Districts Intervention period Solid squares = Treatment-control difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

23. Percent with a Mentor Assigned:Two-Year Districts Intervention period Solid squares = Treatment-control difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

24. Retention in Teaching: One-Year Districts Note: No impacts are significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level.

25. Retention in Teaching: Two-Year Districts Note: No impacts are significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level.

26. Impacts on the Workforce:Teacher Attitudes

27. No Impacts on Teacher Attitudes • No significant impacts on satisfaction with— • Career • Class • School • No significant impacts on feelings of preparedness to— • Instruct • Work with others • Work with students

28. No Composition Effects • Treatment stayers vs. control stayers • Findings • Professional characteristics of teachers: no difference • Classroom practices in year 1: no positive impact • Student achievement in year 3: no positive impact

29. Impacts on the Classroom:Teacher Practices

30. No Impact on Year 1 Classroom Practices Extensive evidence Consistent evidence Moderate evidence Limited evidence No evidence Treatment-control differences are not statistically significant (N = 631 teachers).

31. Sensitivity Tests, Reading in One-Year Districts Treatment-control differences are not statistically significant.

32. Sensitivity Tests, Math in One-Year Districts *Significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level.