1. Meeting the Teacher Quality Imperative: New Evidence on Teacher Induction and Professional Development ————————— October 30, 2008 Charles Sumner School Washington, DC

2. SEE Forums:  Steve Fleischman, SEE Forums Director & VP, American Institutes for Research (www.air.org)  Supported through a grant from the Institute of Education Sciences (ies.ed.gov) of the U.S. Department of Education

3. Question 1:  Raise a green card if you think that improving teacher quality is the Number 1 challenge facing education today.  Raise a blue card if you think that improving teacher quality is among the Top 3 challenges facing education today.

4. Question 2: Which of the following do you believe is the issue in teacher quality that needs the most attention and improvement in the coming years?  Raise your:  Green card for Teacher Recruitment  Blue card for Teacher Induction and Support  Yellow card for Teacher Professional Development  Purple card for Teacher Retention

5. Panelists:  Steve Glazerman, Senior Researcher, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.  Michael S. Garet, Chief Research Scientist, American Institutes for Research (AIR)  Kate Walsh, President, National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ)

6. IES Evaluation of the Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions: Background  Most teachers in the U.S. participate in some form of in- service PD each year.  But little is known about the impact of the PD on teachers’ knowledge or instructional practice or on the achievement of their students.  Thus, IES funded a randomized study of two PD interventions focusing on 2 nd grade reading in high- poverty schools: A. An 8-day content-focused institute series B. The 8-day institute series plus in-school coaching

7. IES Evaluation of the Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions: Key Findings  The PD was delivered and teachers participated as intended.  There were significant impacts on teacher knowledge and on 1 of the 3 teaching practices promoted by the PD at the end of the 1-year treatment, but not on student test scores.  The added effect of coaching on teacher practices was not significant.  There were no significant impacts on measured teacher or student outcomes in the follow-up year.

8. IES Evaluation of the Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions: Exploratory Analyses  What might explain why the impacts on teacher knowledge and practice did not translate into impacts on student achievement?  Why were the impacts on teacher outcomes found during the implementation year no longer significant at follow-up?  What might explain why the PD affected teachers’ word- but not meaning-level knowledge?  Why didn’t the coaching plus institutes produce greater impacts relative to the institutes alone?

9. National Impact Evaluation of Comprehensive Teacher Induction *  What is “comprehensive teacher induction”?  What are we comparing it to?  How was the study designed? RCT with:  1,009 teachers  418 schools  17 districts  13 states * Authors: Steven Glazerman, Sarah Dolfin, Martha Bleeker, Amy Johnson, Eric Isenberg, Julieta Lugo-Gil, Mary Grider, Edward Britton

10. Findings: Positive impacts on teacher induction support Control group received support…  75% had an assigned mentor (13% full time)  74 minutes/week with mentor (38% during school hours)  81% say mentor meeting time is adequate  28% kept log, 42% observed others teaching …but treatment group received more  93% had an assigned mentor (74% full time)  95 minutes/week with mentor (77% during school hours)  Positive impacts on types and intensity of assistance received, all 22 areas of guidance, many areas of PD

11. Findings: No positive impacts on outcomes after one year  No impact on classroom practices  No positive impacts on student achievement  Some evidence of negative impacts at selected grades  No impact on teacher retention  No positive impacts on composition of teaching workforce

12. Future reports  Year 2  Provide second year of services to 7 districts  Continue to observe all districts  Follow-up and report on each type of district  Year 3  Follow-up and report on each type of district

13. Questions and Discussion What implications does the research presented today have on policy, practice, and future research?

14. Contact Us: SEE FORUMS American Institutes for Research 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Washington, DC 20007 Attn: Steve Fleischman sfleischman@air.org If you are a member of the media, please contact Becky Powell at rpowell@air.org or (202) 403-6843. info@seeforums.org www.seeforums.org