Study: 77774

Grant Competition

Review Details

Reviewed: January 2023

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Grant Competition (findings for Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI))

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.

This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Findings

Teacher retention in the profession outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Retention in teaching profession	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 882 teachers	94.70	94.50	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Teacher retention in the profession	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	2 Years	1-year districts; 464 teachers	88.60	86.30	No	--
Teacher retention in the profession	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	1-year districts; 476 teachers	90.40	89.80	No	--
Teacher retention in the profession	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	2 Years	2-year districts; 375 teachers	84.40	85.10	No	--
Teacher retention in the profession	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	2-year districts; 364 teachers	86.90	90.80	No	--

Teacher Retention in the School outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Teacher retention in the school	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 882 teachers	74.50	75.30	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Teacher retention in the school	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	2 Years	2-year districts; 375 teachers	54.20	47.10	No	--
Teacher retention in the school	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	2 Years	1-year districts; 464 teachers	53.90	52.70	No	--
Teacher retention in the school	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	2-year districts; 364 teachers	62.20	66.20	No	--
Teacher retention in the school	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	1-year districts; 476 teachers	60.30	64.70	No	--

Teacher retention in the school district outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Teacher retention in the school district	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	0 Days	Full sample; 882 teachers	85.90	85.70	No	--
Show Supplemental Findings
Teacher retention in the school district	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	2 Years	2-year districts; 375 teachers	64.90	60.90	No	--
Teacher retention in the school district	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	2 Years	1-year districts; 464 teachers	69.10	69.60	No	--
Teacher retention in the school district	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	1-year districts; 476 teachers	78.60	80.30	No	--
Teacher retention in the school district	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	1 Year	2-year districts; 364 teachers	69.60	75.30	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

Female: 87%
Male: 13%
Urban
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California, Louisiana, Ohio, Texas

Race
Black		14%
Other or unknown		11%
White		76%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		6%
Not Hispanic or Latino		95%

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch
Other or unknown		100%

Study Details

Setting

The study took place in 17 urban school districts located across 13 states. These states were located throughout the South, Northeast, and Midwest.

Study sample

The districts included in the study served mostly African American students (7 of the 17 districts), Hispanic students (2 of 17), and White students (3 of 17); five diverse districts did not have a racial/ethnic majority. The districts were located throughout the south, Northeast, and Midwest. All of the districts were urban; 9 of 17 districts enrolled more than 50,000 students, and 11 of 17 included more than 50 elementary schools. Teachers in the study were 13 percent male and 87 percent female. The majority were White, non-Hispanic (76%), with 14 percent African American, 6 percent Hispanic, and 5 percent other/unknown/mixed.

Intervention Group

Comprehensive Teacher Induction is a comprehensive program that offers services to support beginning teachers with the goal of improving teacher and student outcomes. The intervention was provided by either the Educational Testing Service (ETS) or the New Teacher Center, based on each school district's preference. Beginning teachers were assigned to a mentor, who received ongoing training and materials to support the teachers’ development. Beginning teachers were offered monthly professional development sessions, opportunities to observe veteran teachers, and an end-of-year colloquium. Ten of the districts provided the intervention for 1 year, while the remaining seven provided the intervention for 2 years.

Comparison Group

Teachers in the comparison condition continued to receive business-as-usual programs and support.

Support for implementation

Intervention districts received support to implement the induction programs, including the following: (1) training for full-time mentors; (2) a curriculum, including orientation, professional development opportunities, and weekly meetings with mentors; (3) opportunities for beginning teachers to observe experienced teachers; (4) formative assessment tools; and (5) outreach to district and school-based administrators to describe the program and obtain their support for the program.

Grant Competition

Review Details

Reviewed: February 2018

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Grant Competition (findings for New Teacher Center Induction Model)

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.

Findings

Teacher retention outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Teacher retention rate	New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual	Teachers in schools offering the intervention, a comprehensive teacher induction program, for only one year.; 464 teachers	0.89	0.86	No	--
Teacher retention: same school	New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual	Teachers in schools offering the intervention, a comprehensive teacher induction program, for only one year.; 464 teachers	0.54	0.53	No	--
Teacher retention: same district	New Teacher Center Induction Model vs. Business as usual	Teachers in schools offering the intervention, a comprehensive teacher induction program, for only one year.; 464 teachers	0.69	0.70	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

Female: 87%
Urban

Race
White		76%

Study Details

Setting

Seventeen school districts in 13 states participated in the study.

Study sample

Elementary schools with 50% or more students qualified for free or reduced price lunch were included in the study. About 76% teachers were non-Hispanic White in Year 1 districts and 45% of teachers were non-Hispanic White in Year 2 districts. Eighty-seven percent were female teachers in Year 1 district and 90% in Year 2 districts. Close to half of the teachers were 20-25 years of age in year 1 (50%) and Year 2 (47%) districts.

Intervention Group

Induction services were provided either by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) or the New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz (NTC), depending on the district’s preference. Nine districts used the ETS program and eight used the NTC program. Providers worked with districts to select and train mentors. Beginning teachers in treatment schools were assigned a mentor who worked full time with 12 teachers. Beginning teachers were offered monthly professional development sessions, opportunities to observe veteran teachers, and an end-of-year colloquium. In the second year, programs delivered induction activities to treatment teachers that were similar to those in the first year, but the content was designed to reflect growth of mentors and beginning teachers and changes in their circumstances and needs. In 2-year districts served by ETS, mentors led Teacher Learning Communities, an adaptation of the first year’s study groups that included specific content for each session and a formal structure for teachers to try out approaches to instruction. During second year professional development sessions in the 2-year districts served by NTC, mentors elaborated on standardized topics and designed activities to reflect local needs. After the first year of the program, 94% of beginning teachers in the intervention group reported having a mentor, and spending on average 95 minutes per week in meetings with their mentors.

Comparison Group

After the first year of the program, 83% of beginning teachers in the comparison group reported having a mentor, and spending an average of 74 minutes per week in meetings with their mentors.

Support for implementation

The programs are commercially available and implementation support is provided by ETS and NTC.

New Teacher Center Induction Model Intervention Report - Teacher Training, Evaluation, and Compensation

Review Details

Review Details

Reviewed: July 2015

For:

New Teacher Center Induction Model Intervention Report - Teacher Training, Evaluation, and Compensation

Using:

Rating:

Additional source not reviewed (View primary source).

Findings

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Study sample characteristics were not reported.

Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study (NCEE 2010-4027).

Review Details

Reviewed: September 2013

No statistically significant positive
findings

Meets WWC standards without reservations

For:

Single Study Review (114 KB) (findings for Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI))

Using:

Rating:

Meets WWC standards without reservations

Absence of conflict of interest: This study was conducted by staff from Mathematica Policy Research. Therefore, Mathematica reviewers were not involved in the WWC review of this study.

Findings

Teacher retention at the school outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Retention in school	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	After year 3 of intervention	Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools; 464 students	0.54	0.53	No	--
Retention in school	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	After year 1 of intervention	All teachers; 882 students	0.75	0.75	No	--
Retention in school	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	After year 2 of intervention	Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools; 476 students	0.60	0.65	No	--

Teacher retention in the profession outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Retention in teaching profession	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	After year 3 of intervention	Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools; 464 students	0.89	0.86	No	--
Retention in teaching profession	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	After year 2 of intervention	Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools; 476 students	0.90	0.90	No	--
Retention in teaching profession	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	After year 1 of intervention	All teachers; 882 students	0.95	0.95	No	--

Teacher retention in the school district outcomes—Indeterminate effect found for the domain
Outcome measure	Comparison	Period	Sample	Intervention mean	Comparison mean	Significant?	Improvement index
Retention in district	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	After year 1 of intervention	All teachers; 882 students	0.86	0.86	No	--
Retention in district	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	After year 3 of intervention	Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools; 464 students	0.69	0.70	No	--
Retention in district	Comprehensive Teacher Induction (CTI) vs. Business as usual	After year 2 of intervention	Teachers in districts where a single yr of induction was offered to intervention schools; 476 students	0.79	0.80	No	--

Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.

Sample Characteristics

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.

Female: 89%
Male: 11%
Urban

Race
Black		19%
Other or unknown		5%
White		61%

Ethnicity
Hispanic		15%
Not Hispanic or Latino		85%