Get Updates
Two Years of Comprehensive Teacher Induction Can Boost Student Achievement
Mathematica Study Finds No Impacts on Other Outcomes, Single Year of Intervention Has No Impact
Media Advisory: June 30, 2010
Contact: Cheryl Pedersen, (609) 275-2258
Issue: High teacher turnover and poorly prepared teachers, particularly in urban school districts, can hurt student achievement. Many districts offer beginning teachers some form of teacher mentoring or orientation, but often the support is limited. “Comprehensive” teacher induction programs—which are intensive, instructionally focused, structured, and sequentially delivered through experienced, trained full-time mentors—represent one approach to attracting, retaining, and promoting high quality teaching.
Study: In 2004, Mathematica Policy Research began conducting a large-scale evaluation of comprehensive teacher induction for the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences. This study aimed to determine whether comprehensive teacher induction improves teacher and student outcomes. This is the study’s third and final report on the program’s impacts.
-
The study involved 1,009 teachers in 418 elementary schools in 17 medium and large urban school districts in 13 states.
-
Researchers studied induction programs provided by Educational Testing Service of Princeton, N.J. (ETS), and the New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz (NTC).
-
The study design used random assignment to form one group of teachers exposed to the more intensive and comprehensive teacher induction (treatment) and an equivalent group exposed to the district’s prevailing set of induction services (control).
-
In 10 districts, the treatment teachers were offered one year of comprehensive services. In the remaining 7 districts, treatment teachers were offered two years of such services.
-
Researchers used longitudinal surveys to measure a cohort of beginning teachers’ receipt of induction and related support services, attitudes, and mobility patterns. They observed classrooms and collected student test scores from districts to measure impacts in the classroom.
Findings:
-
During the comprehensive induction program, treatment teachers received more support than control teachers.
-
Neither exposure to one year nor exposure to two years of comprehensive induction had a positive impact on teacher attitudes, retention or the composition of the workforce.
-
For teachers who received one year of comprehensive induction, there was no impact on student achievement.
-
For teachers who received two years of comprehensive induction, there was no impact on student achievement in the first two years. In the third year, there was a positive and statistically significant impact on student achievement, equivalent to increases of 4 percentile points in reading and 8 percentile points in math.
Quote: “There is both good news and bad news in this study for policymakers,” said Steven Glazerman, senior researcher and lead author of the report. “Comprehensive induction, which can be quite expensive, did not help districts retain teachers or make them feel more satisfied or better prepared to teach compared to usual levels of new teacher support. However, the two-year intervention raised test scores, and that is often the bottom line for policymakers.”
Report: “Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Final Results from a Randomized Controlled Study.” Steven Glazerman, Eric Isenberg, Sarah Dolfin, Martha Bleeker, Amy Johnson, Mary Grider, Matthew Jacobus, June 2010. Executive Summary.
About Mathematica: Mathematica Policy Research, a nonpartisan research firm, provides a full range of research and data collection services, including program evaluation and policy research, survey design and data collection, research assessment and interpretation, and program performance/data management, to improve public well-being. Its clients include federal and state governments, foundations, and private-sector and international organizations. The employee-owned company, with offices in Princeton, N.J., Ann Arbor, Mich., Cambridge, Mass., Chicago, Ill., Oakland, Calif., and Washington, D.C., has conducted some of the most important studies of education, health care, nutrition, international, disability, family support, employment, and early childhood policies and programs.