1 / 25

Paying Attention to and Leveraging Induction

Paying Attention to and Leveraging Induction. SCEE Summit on Educator Effectiveness. Liam Goldrick, Director of Policy May 3, 2012. when we focus on teachers, our students succeed. NTC Policy Goals.

ahmed-benjamin
Download Presentation

Paying Attention to and Leveraging Induction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Paying Attention to and Leveraging Induction SCEE Summit on Educator Effectiveness Liam Goldrick, Director of Policy May 3, 2012

  2. when we focus on teachers, our students succeed

  3. NTC Policy Goals • To inform and encourage the development of federal, state, and school district policies focused on providing robust induction and mentoring support to beginning educators. • To assist policymakers in developing statutes, regulations, program standards, and funding sources to support the growth, quality and sustainability of induction programs. • To strengthen NTC’s role as a national resource for policymakers and practitioners seeking information about high-quality induction.

  4. Why Induction Matters • New teachers are the norm in American classrooms today (NCTAF, Ingersoll). • Baby Boomer retirements will increase the hiring of new teachers in the next 3-10 years. • Research shows positive impact of induction on: • New teacher practice • Retention • Educator effectiveness • Student achievement

  5. Retention – Santa Cruz New Teacher Project • Overview of Findings: • In the Santa Cruz New • Teacher Project (SCNTP), • which uses the NTC principles • of induction, retention was • 32% points better than the • national average and 12% • points better than California’s • average. • Rates of retention are • even higher (up to 94%) when • transitions to leadership roles • are included. * Extrapolated Sources: Nation = Ingersoll, R.M. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86(631,June), 16–31. CA = CCTC (2002). Preliminary report on teacher retention in California. http://134.186.81.70/reports/PrelimRptOnTeacherRetInCA.pdf SCNTP = St. John, L. and Strong, M. (2001). A Study of Teacher Retention: The Effects of Mentoring for Beginning Teachers. Working Paper #3, Santa Cruz, Calif.: New Teacher Center.

  6. Student Learning – Santa Cruz New Teacher Project Overview of Findings: Beginning teachers are making similar student gains as their veteran counterparts on SAT9 tests. This is in spite of the fact that new teachers in this program are assigned with a greater proportion of ELL students. Contextual Note: Total N for this study is 271. * Source: Fletcher, Stephen, Michael Strong, and Anthony Villar. 2003. An investigation of teacher experience and teacher preparedness on the performance of Latino students in California. Santa Cruz, Calif.: New Teacher Center.

  7. Student Learning – IES/Mathematica Study Overview of Findings: A federally-funded randomized controlled trial found that beginning teachers who received two years of induction produced greater student learning gains when compared with those who received less intensive mentoring. These gains are equivalent of a student moving from the 50th to the 58thpercentile in math and from the 50thto the 54th percentile in reading. Contextual Notes: The study did not show results until year three. This may be due to start-up challenges and suggests that programs must commit to intensive focus on implementation in the first year. * Source: Glazerman, S. et. al. (2010) Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction:FinalResults from a Randomized Controlled Study. Mathematica Policy Research. Institute for Educational Sciences. U.S. Department of Education.

  8. Return On Investment A $1 upfront investment in high quality induction yields a return of $1.66 after five years. Source: Villar, A., & Strong, M. (2007). Is mentoring worth the money? A benefit-cost analysis and five-year rate of return of a comprehensive mentoring program for beginning teachers. ERS Spectrum, 25(3), 1-17.

  9. Why Policy Matters • What role do state policies play in ensuring the provision of induction support to all new teachers and in establishing expectations for program quality? • Influences the design and scope of induction and mentoring programs. • Creates a supportive context & establishes an expectation that induction will be provided to every beginning teacher. • States with more comprehensive policies provide local programs enhanced opportunities & guidance to implement high-quality induction/mentoring. • Greater receipt of induction/mentoring support in states with requirements/mandates

  10. Review of State Policies on Teacher Induction • Policy paper plus individual summaries for all 50 states • Contextual summary of state policies (statutes, regulations, codes, rules, program standards & other guidance) • Web-based, annual updates • Formative in nature – did NOT grade/rank states

  11. NTC State Policy Criteria

  12. Findings/Analysis Criterion 1: Teachers Served • 27 states require some form of induction or mentoring for all beginning teachers (BTs). • 11 states require induction for all first- & second-year BTs. • 6 states require induction for more than two years (typically three).

  13. Findings/Analysis Criterion 2: Administrators Served • 17 states require some form of professional support for all beginning school principals. • 3 states require induction or mentoring for all first- and second-year school administrators.

  14. Findings/Analysis Criterion 3: Program Standards • 15 states have formalized induction program standards. • Another 20 states provide detailed program requirements in administrative code, regulations or through informal program guidelines.

  15. Findings/Analysis Criterion 4, 5, 6: Mentor Selection, Training & Assignment • At least 29 states clearly define who is eligible to serve as a mentor teacher. • 31 states require mentor training. 15 require training plus ongoing mentor professional development. • 22 statesaddress mentor assignment within their policies. • 3-4 states affirmatively allow for full-time mentors. 10 states effectively prohibit the utilization of full-time mentors.

  16. Findings/Analysis Criterion 7: Program Delivery • 30 states mention the issue of mentoring time within their policies in some fashion. • 11 states quantify a minimum amount of mentor-BT contact time • At least 16 states address formative assessment. • At least 25 states address classroom observation, either by and/or of the BT. • 9 states address all three elements (contact time, formative assessment, and classroom observation).

  17. Findings/Analysis Criterion 8: Funding • 18 states provided dedicated funding for induction and mentoring in the 2010-2011 school year. • 11 states provide induction funding to all of its school districts, and among them only 4 states provide funding for local induction program costs. • 4 states made funding available through a competitive induction grant program but don’t require induction and mentoring. • 6 states reserve all funding for mentor stipends.

  18. Findings/Analysis Criterion 9: Teacher Accountability • At least 22 states require participation in or completion of an induction program to advance from an initial to professional teaching license. • Only 10 states require induction for certification/licensure & also require a program of at least two years in length.

  19. Findings/Analysis Criterion 10: Program Accountability • At least 22 states have a clear focus on induction program quality & program improvement. • 6 states create the tightest linkage between program evaluation & state induction program standards. • 12 states take a compliance-focused approach, requiring local programs to submit program plans, verify the provision of induction and mentor support or require some local evaluation activities. • 16 states require local evaluation activities, but don’t play an active or leadership role.

  20. State Policy Summary • Number of states that require teacher induction or mentoring roughly doubled over last 12-14 years. • Only three states require & provide dedicated funding for a multi-year teacher induction program: • Connecticut • Delaware • Iowa

  21. Most states’ induction policies are… Incomplete

  22. NTC Policy Insights • Induction must be part of a systemic approach to human capital development • Simply mandating induction is insufficient • Induction is more than just mentoring • Embrace a strong vision of induction and build a state program infrastructure to support that vision • Don’t overlook induction’s power to transform teaching practice and strengthen teacher effectiveness

  23. NTC Policy Insights • Comprehensive induction policies don’t guarantee strong programs; the absence of strong policies doesn’t preclude strong programs • Allow flexibility in implementation to allow for contextualization of induction to local settings • Accompany robust funding with high expectations and capacity building • Prioritize and fund evaluation to inform program improvement and demonstrate impact

  24. Closing Question • How could you use this information to help re-shape induction policy in your state? • What are some of the challenges and obstacles to strengthening state policy?

  25. Thank you! 50 state summaries: http://www.newteachercenter.org/policy/policy-map Liam Goldrick Director of Policy 608.345.6044 lgoldrick@newteachercenter.org

More Related