Summary of Findings
The report presents findings from an experimental test of the impact of comprehensive
teacher induction on student achievement in beginning teachers‘ classrooms and on
the teachers‘ retention rates in urban elementary schools. In ten of the study districts,
a comprehensive induction program was implemented during beginning teachers‘ first
year in the classroom. In the remaining seven study districts, comprehensive induction
was implemented during beginning teachers‘ first two years in the classroom. This
design does not allow for and should not be used to make direct comparisons between
the districts that received one year of treatment and districts that received two
years of treatment, but instead allows us to investigate the effectiveness of one-year
programs separately from that of twoyear programs. The main findings are summarized
below.
- During their first year in the classroom, in both one- and two-year districts, treatment
and control teachers‘ reports showed statistically significant differences in the
amount and types of support received. Treatment teachers were more likely than control
teachers to report having an assigned mentor (90 versus 70 percent of teachers reported
having an assigned mentor in one-year districts; 94 versus 79 percent in two-year
districts) and reported spending more time per week with a mentor (87 versus 67
minutes in one-year districts; 124 versus 81 minutes in two-year districts). Treatment
teachers reported spending more time being observed by mentors (34 versus 10 minutes
during the most recent full week of teaching in one-year districts; 38 versus 17
minutes in twoyear districts) and meeting with mentors together with other first-year
teachers (29 versus 9 minutes in one-year districts; 38 versus 11 minutes in two-year
districts).
- During their second year in the classroom, treatment teachers in one-year districts
received less support than did control teachers. During Year 2, we found a statistically
significant difference favoring the control group in teachers‘ likelihood of having
an assigned mentor and in the amount of time teachers spent per week with a mentor.
Treatment teachers were less likely than control teachers to report having an assigned
mentor (20 versus 29 percent) and reported spending less time per week with a mentor
(19 versus 39 minutes).
- During their second year in the classroom, treatment teachers in two-year districts
received more support than did control teachers. During Year 2, we found a statistically
significant difference favoring the treatment group in teachers‘ likelihood of having
an assigned mentor and in the amount of time teachers spent per week with a mentor.
Treatment teachers were more likely than control teachers to report having an assigned
mentor (80 versus 34 percent) and reported spending more time per week with a mentor
(82 versus 48 minutes).
- No impacts of comprehensive teacher induction were found on student achievement
during teachers‘ second year in the classroom. In both one- and two-year districts,
we did not find statistically significant impacts on student achievement across
all elementary grade levels in reading or math during the teachers‘ second year.
- No impacts of comprehensive teacher induction were found on teacher retention rates
after two years. There was also no evidence that comprehensive teacher induction
induced a change in the kind of teachers retained within the district. In both one-
and two-year districts, we did not find statistically significant impacts of comprehensive
teacher induction on teacher retention rates in the school, district or profession
after two years. In both one- and twoyear districts, we did not find statistically
significant impacts on the composition of the district teaching workforce after
two years, whether measured by district stayers‘ impacts on student achievement
or by their professional background characteristics (for example, SAT/ACT scores
or whether the teacher attended a highly selective college).
- In a correlational (nonexperimental) analysis of induction and student test scores,
the relationship between four composite induction measures (considered jointly)
and test scores was statistically insignificant for both math and reading. When
we tested the variables individually, one of the four measures of beginning teacher
support (years had a mentor) was positively related to math scores (coefficient
= 0.12, p-value = 0.015) and none were related to student achievement in reading.
The significant result can be interpreted as a student scoring 12 percent of a standard
deviation higher on the math test for each year the beginning teacher had a mentor.
The nonexperimental results should be interpreted with caution because the analyses
are correlational and not causal.
- In the correlational analysis of induction and teacher mobility, there was a positive
relationship between the four composite induction measures and retention that was
statistically significant for both retention in the district (pvalue= 0.016) and
retention in the profession (p-value=0.001). When we tested the induction indices
one at a time, one of the four explanatory variables was positively related to retention
in the district, none were positively related to retention in the profession, and
none were negatively related to either type of teacher retention. The estimate of
the regression coefficient on the Induction Services Index for remaining in the
district was 0.02. This implies that, for example, if the retention rate in a district
were 80 percent, then an additional induction service, such as meeting with a study
group in one semester, would be associated with a district retention rate of 82
percent, all else equal. As mentioned above, the nonexperimental results should
always be interpreted with caution because the analyses are correlational and not
causal.
Top