DeCesare, D., McClelland, A., & Randel, B. (2017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ edlabs.
Reviewed: August 2019
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Retired Mentors for New Teachers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
First Year (2013/14);
|
185.60 |
185.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Retired Mentors for New Teachers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Second Year (2014/15);
|
174.00 |
172.60 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Retired Mentors for New Teachers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Second Year (2014/15);
|
179.70 |
178.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Retired Mentors for New Teachers vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
First year (2013/14);
|
180.29 |
178.90 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Teacher retention in the school district after 1 year |
Retired Mentors for New Teachers vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Full sample;
|
97.40 |
94.90 |
No |
-- | |
|
Teacher retention in the school district after 2 years |
Retired Mentors for New Teachers vs. Business as usual |
15 Months |
Full sample;
|
70.30 |
86.50 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 5% | |
| Black | 13% | |
| Other or unknown | 3% | |
| White | 5% |
| Hispanic | 73% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 27% |
The study took place in first through fifth grade classrooms where reading and/or math were taught, from 11 Title I elementary schools in the Aurora Public School district in Colorado.
The participating teachers were all probationary in their first 3 years with the school district, regardless of prior teaching experience. Teachers taught reading and/or math in first through fifth grade. Teachers had an average of 1.4 years experience in the district, with prior teaching experience ranging from 0 to 15 years. In terms of Year 1 students, males ranged from 50.2% to 52.4%, depending on study group and math vs. reading assessment. Those eligible for the federal school lunch program ranged from 88.5% to 90.5%. Gifted and talented students ranged from 1.0% to 2.1%. Students with an IEP ranged from 9.0% to 10.1%. Race/ethnicity information is as follows: Hispanics ranged from 72.1% to 73%; Asian 4.9% to 5.5%; black 11.7% to 14.7%; white 4.4% to 5.0%; other 2.5% to 3.4%. For Year 2 students, males ranged from 50.0% to 54.8%, depending on study group and math vs. reading assessment. Those eligible for the federal school lunch program ranged from 92.5% to 98.9%. Gifted and talented students ranged from 1.0% to 2.6%. Students with an IEP ranged from 8.4% to 9.6%. Race/ethnicity information is as follows: Hispanics ranged from 71.9% to 75.4%; Asian 4.8% to 6.8%; black 12.4% to 14.9%; white 3.3% to 6.4%; other 2.4% to 3.9%.
The intervention included pairing probationary teachers in high-need elementary schools with recently retired master educators. The probationary teachers were in their first three years of teaching with the district. The teachers met regularly with their paired mentor over the course of two years. The program also had two half-days of summer professional development, individualized mentoring and classroom support, cohort support with other teachers in the program, mentor meetings with principals, and quarterly mentor meetings to discuss continually improving practice.
The comparison condition was business as usual and teachers received typical professional development and mentoring.
The average cost of the Retired Teachers Mentor program was estimated to be $171 in local resource costs. Teachers also received professional development in the summer.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube