State Examples and Follow-up Data Requests for SOQ Proposals April 24, 2019 Dr. Jennifer Piver-Renna Director of Research

Overview Update on distribution of teachers by qualifications Overview of STEM Retention Grants impact data State case studies: Mentoring/coaching programs State case studies: Tiered licensure and teacher leader programs

Distribution of Teacher Qualifications in Virginia Teachers Not Properly Licensed or Endorsed Provisionally Licensed Teachers New Teachers (1st or 2nd year) National Board Certified Teachers All Core All Schools 2.1% 1.6% 7.0% 8.2% 1.7% High Poverty (≥ 75% free- and reduced-price lunch) 2.5% 2.2% 9.3% 12.1% 1.2% Low Poverty (≤ 25% free- and reduced-price lunch) 2.7% 7.2% 6.7% 2.3% High Minority (≥ 75% non-white) 2.4% 9.2% 11.3% Low Minority (≤ 25% non-white) 1.0% 6.4% 6.0% 1.4% Accredited 2.0% 7.6% 1.8% Not Accredited 3.3% 11.2% 12.7% Source: Virginia Department of Education, 2017-2018 school year

STEM Teacher Recruitment and Retention Incentives Provides funding to attract, recruit, retain high-quality diverse individuals to teach STEM subjects in middle and high schools Since 2012-13, eligible teachers were provided $5,000 for the first year and $1,000 for up to three additional years ($8,000 total) For 2018-19, eligible teachers could receive $5,000 per year for three years ($15,000 total) 3 years of data available on 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 cohorts: Metric Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Average percent retained in STEM area 90% 82% 74% Average percent retained in same school 83% 67% 55% Source: Virginia Department of Education, Master Schedule Collection

Induction and Mentoring Programs Four common components of statewide mentoring programs: Include state funding for mentor stipends Establish state-level program standards while allowing for local flexibility Provide state-level mentor training Track program implementation, quality, and outcomes Five program practices having the strongest research evidence: At least two years of comprehensive induction support Rigorous requirements for mentor selection Full-time mentors who are released of classroom duties Assigned mentor Weekly contact between mentors and beginning teachers Source: Appalachia Regional Comprehensive Center

State Example: Texas Beginning Teacher Induction and Mentoring Program Goal to improve beginning teacher retention and performance Targeted school districts with high rates of teacher attrition, beginning teachers, and teaching outside of certification area Funds used for professional development and stipends for mentor teachers and substitute pay; most grantees spent less than $4,000 per beginning teacher (20% local match required) Program outcomes: Positive impact on beginning teacher job satisfaction Beginning teacher retention similar to state-wide average Nearly half of participating beginning teachers attributed their decision to remain in teaching to their mentor

State Example: Florida and Illinois’s Investing in Innovation Grant Program provides all first- and second-year teachers two years of one-on-one mentoring up to four times a month Mentors are rigorously-selected, mentor no more than 15 beginning teachers full-time, and receive over 100 hours of training Program outcomes: Significant, positive impacts on achievement in both reading and mathematics observed for students of teachers who received mentoring services Scored similar to other teachers on measures of classroom management and quality of instruction Similar rates of retention after three years of teaching as teachers receiving typical district supports

State Example: Connecticut’s Teacher Education and Mentoring Program Program goal is to engage teachers in purposeful exploration of professional practice through guided support Beginning teachers work with a rigorously-selected mentor to reflect on their practice, analyze student data, and identify areas for growth and improvement Mentors receive a stipend of $500 to $1,000 per each assigned beginning teacher Program outcomes based on a survey of participants: Beginning teachers received 1-2 hours per week of face-to-face support from mentors Beginning teachers report work with mentor improved their teaching practice and directly affected their decision to remain in teaching

Tiered Teacher Licensure Structures 30 states have licensing systems that allow teachers to advance beyond a standard professional license 17 of those require evidence for effectiveness for teachers to obtain an advanced license, such as student growth or teacher performance evaluations Only one ties additional compensation to the licensure tiers at the state level Source: Education Commission of the States

State Example: Ohio’s Tiered Certification System Goal is to provide opportunities for teachers to advance their professional careers and serve as school improvement leaders, without leaving the teaching profession Recognized by the National Council on Teacher Quality as a best practice Adds two advanced tiers to initial and professional license: Senior Professional Educator: master’s degree; nine years of experience; demonstration of effective practice Lead Professional Educator: master’s degree; nine years of experience; demonstration of effective practice; National Board certification or teacher leader endorsement Advanced license types offer advanced steps on career ladders, resulting in additional compensation

State Teacher Leader Programs 47% of states offer formal supports and/or incentives for teacher leaders Examples include financial incentives, reduced workload, participation in state advisory committees, and professional development 43% of states offer a teacher leader license or endorsement 33% of states have adopted teacher leader standards About half develop their own, and half have adopted or adapted the Teacher Leader Model Standards developed by the Teacher Leadership Exploratory Consortium 25% of states define the role of teacher leaders in statute or regulation Duties include mentoring/coaching, participating in school-level decision making and vision-setting, and advocating for students and the profession Source: Education Commission of the States

State Example: Iowa’s Teacher Leadership and Compensation Program Goal is to provide career pathways and compensation structures to attract, retain, and reward effective teachers Every district submits a plan with the following must-haves: Minimum salary of $33,500 for all full-time teachers “Improved entry into the profession”: coaching, mentoring, and observational opportunities for new teachers Differentiated, multiple, meaningful teacher leadership roles for at least 25 percent of the teacher workforce Rigorous selection process for leadership roles: Criteria based on effectiveness and professional growth Annual review of assignment Experience – 3 years of total experience, 1 year in school district

State Example: Iowa’s Teacher Leadership and Compensation Program Program defines six areas of allowable funds: To raise salaries to the $33,500 minimum Provide salary and/or supplements for teacher leaders To cover salary and benefits for positions hired to replace teachers who are released To cover substitute teacher costs for observations, team meetings, and professional development For teacher leader professional development To pay for books, resources, or technology for teacher leaders Funds are distributed to districts through a higher per-pupil cost Other features: annual report with local goals and evidence; program transparency; online community

State Example: Iowa’s Teacher Leadership and Compensation Program Program effectiveness assessed through district-created annual goals and American Institutes for Research (AIR) evaluation In the third year of implementation, from annual reports: Greater than 80% of school districts fully or mostly met their attract and retain goal, their collaboration goals, and their professional growth goals 56% of school districts fully or mostly met their achievement goals In the third year of implementation, from AIR: Teacher perceptions of program’s impact on instruction and working conditions is high (greater than 80%) and has increased over time 78% of teachers agreed that the program impacted their desire to return to school next year No change in teacher retention or student achievement in the first three years compared to baseline