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. 2  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 What is “Comprehensive Induction”? 2

3. 3 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 Research Questions 3

4. 4  Selected 17 districts  Randomized 418 elementary schools  Followed1,009 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 Study Design 4

5. 5  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 Summary of Findings 5

6. Induction Support

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

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

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

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

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

12. Impacts on the Workforce: Teacher Mobility

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

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

15. Impacts on the Classroom: Student Achievement

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

17. 17 Sensitivity Tests, Reading in Two-Year Districts 17 *Significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level. Model Impact (Effect Size) Standard Error Sample Size (Teachers) 1. Benchmark 0.11*0.05 74 2. Drop data restrictions0.11*0.05 74 3. Allow comparisons across grades 0.16*0.0582 4. Drop pretest, benchmark sample 0.050.0874 5. Drop pretest, expanded sample -0.070.09127

18. 18 Sensitivity Tests, Math in Two-Year Districts 18 *Significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level. Model Impact (Effect Size) Standard Error Sample Size (Teachers) 1. Benchmark 0.20*0.05 68 2. Drop data restrictions0.23*0.05 70 3. Allow comparisons across grades 0.13*0.0677 4. Drop pretest, benchmark sample 0.150.0868 5. Drop pretest, expanded sample -0.030.09120

19. 19  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 Summary of Findings 19

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

21. END (extra slides follow) 21

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

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

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

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

26. Impacts on the Workforce: Teacher Attitudes

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

28. 28 No Composition Effects 28  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. 30 No Impact on Year 1 Classroom Practices 30 No evidence Consistent evidence Limited evidence Extensive evidence Moderate evidence Treatment-control differences are not statistically significant (N = 631 teachers).

31. 31 Sensitivity Tests, Reading in One-Year Districts 31 Treatment-control differences are not statistically significant. Model Impact (Effect Size) Standard Error Sample Size (Teachers) 1. Benchmark 0.010.0499 2. Drop data restrictions0.020.03 107 3. Allow comparisons across grades 0.010.05114 4. Drop pretest, benchmark sample 0.100.0699 5. Drop pretest, expanded sample 0.100.06151

32. 32 Sensitivity Tests, Math in One-Year Districts 32 *Significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level. Model Impact (Effect Size) Standard Error Sample Size (Teachers) 1. Benchmark -0.100.0695 2. Drop data restrictions -0.12*0.06 97 3. Allow comparisons across grades -0.070.06104 4. Drop pretest, benchmark sample 0.030.0995 5. Drop pretest, expanded sample 0.080.07138