Given concerns with the performance and attrition of novice teachers, North Carolina allocated $7.7 million from Race to the Top to create the New Teacher Support Program (NTSP), an induction model developed and implemented by the state’s public university system and targeted at low-performing schools. In this study, we assess the associations between participation in the university-based program and the performance and retention of novice teachers. Overall, NTSP teachers were more likely to return to the same school. Outcomes varied by NTSP region, cohort, and dosage, with positive performance and retention results for teachers in the region and cohort with the most intensive participation and teachers receiving more coaching. These findings contribute to efforts to develop and retain teachers.
BastianK. C.HenryG. T.ThompsonC. L. (2013). Incorporating access to more effective teachers into assessments of educational resource equity. Education Finance and Policy, 8(4), 560–580.
3.
BoydD.GoldhaberD.LankfordH.WyckoffJ. (2007). The effect of certification and preparation on teacher quality. The Future of Children, 17(1), 45–68.
4.
BoydD.GrossmanP.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), 176–216.
5.
BoydD.LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2005). Explaining the short careers of high-achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. The American Economic Review, 95(2), 166–171.
6.
BrantR. (1990). Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics, 46(4), 1171–1178.
7.
BrouwerN.KorthagenF. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference?American Education Research Journal, 42(1), 153–224.
8.
BrykA. S. (2015). 2014 AERA Distinguished Lecture: Accelerating how we learn to improve. Educational Researcher, 44(9), 467–477.
9.
ChiangH. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93(9–10), 1045–1057.
10.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of novice teachers. Economics of Education Review, 24(4), 377–392.
11.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673–682.
12.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects. Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), 655–681.
13.
ColbertJ. A.WolffD. E. (1992). Surviving in urban schools: A collabortive model for a beginning teacher support system. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 193–199.
14.
DavisB.HigdonK. (2008). The effects of mentoring/induction support on beginning teachers. Journal of Research in Childhoold Education, 22(3), 261–274.
15.
DeAngelisK. J.WallA. F.CheJ. (2013). The impact of preservice preparation and early career support on novice teachers’ career intentions and decisions. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 338–355.
16.
DesimoneL. M.HochbergE. D.PorterA. C.PolikoffM. S.SchwartzR.JohnsonL. J. (2014). Formal and informal mentoring: Complementary, compensatory, or consistent?Journal of Teacher Education, 65(2), 88–110.
17.
EvertsonC. M.SmitheyM. W. (2000). Mentoring effects on proteges’ classroom practice: An experimental field study. Journal of Educational Research, 93(5), 294–304.
18.
Feiman-NemserS.CarverC.SchwilleS.YuskoB. (2000). Beyond support: Taking new teachers seriously as learners. In SchererM. (Ed.), A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers (pp. 3–12). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
19.
FletcherS. H.StrongM. (2009). Full-release and site-based mentoring of elementary grade new teachers: An analysis of changes in student achievement. The New Educator, 5(4), 329–341.
20.
FletcherS. H.StrongM.VillarA. (2008). An investigation of the effects of variations in mentor-based induction on the performance of students in California. Teachers College Record, 110(10), 2271–2289.
21.
FullertonA. S. (2009). A conceptual framework for ordered logistic regression models. Sociological Methods & Research, 38(2), 306–347.
22.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
23.
GlazermanS.IsenbergE.DolfinS.BleekerM.JohnsonA.GriderM.JacobusM. (2010). Impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study (NCEE 2010-4027). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
24.
GoldringE.GrissomJ. A.RubinM.NeumerskiC. M.CannataM.DrakeT.SchuermannP. (2015). Make room value added: Principals’ human capital decisions and the emergence of teacher observation data. Educational Researcher, 44(2), 96–104.
25.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), 326–354.
26.
HenryG. T.BastianK. C.FortnerC. K. (2011). Stayers and leavers: Early-career teacher effectiveness and attrition. Educational Researcher, 40(6), 271–280.
27.
HenryG. T.GuthrieJ. E. (2015). Using multiple measures of developmental teacher evaluation. In GrissomJ. A.YoungsP. (Eds.), Improving teacher evaluation systems: Making the most of multiple measures (pp. 143–155. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
28.
IngersollR.MerrillE. (2012). Seven trends: The transformation of the teaching force (CPRE Working Paper No. WP-01). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
29.
IngersollR.SmithT. M. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter?NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 28–40.
30.
IngersollR.StrongM. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Education Research, 81(2), 201–233.
KellyL. M. (2004). Why induction matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(5), 438–448.
33.
LabareeD. F. (2004). The trouble with ed schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
34.
LankfordH.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62.
35.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2014a). Easy A’s and what’s behind them. Retrieved from www.nctq.org/dmsView/EasyAs
O’ConnellA. A. (2006). Logistic regression models for ordinal response variables (Vol. 146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
38.
PapayJ. P.KraftM. A. (2015). Productivity returns to experience in the teacher labor market: Methodological challenges and new evidence on long-term career improvement. Journal of Public Economics, 130, 105–119.
39.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.YamaguchiR.GallagherL. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958.
40.
RockoffJ. E. (2008). Does mentoring reduce turnover and improve skills of new employees? Evidence from teachers in New York City (NBER Working Paper No. 13868). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
41.
RonfeldtM.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2013). How teacher turnover harms student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 50(1), 4–36.
42.
SchafferE.StringfieldS.WolfeD. (1992). An innovative beginning teacher induction program: A two-year analysis of classroom interactions. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 181–192.
43.
SmithT. M. (2007). How do state-level induction and standards-based reform policies affect induction experiences and turnover among new teachers?American Journal of Education, 113(2), 273–309.
44.
SmithT.IngersollR. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover?American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714.
45.
StanulisR. N.FlodenR. E. (2009). Intensive mentoring as a way to help beginning teachers develop balanced instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 112–122.
WeiR. C.Darling-HammondL.AndreeA.RichardsonN.OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad (Technical report). Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council.
48.
WeisbergD.SextonS.MulhernJ.KeelingD. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED515656.pdf
YoungsP. (2007). District induction policy and new teachers’ experiences: An examination of local policy implementation in Connecticut. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 797–837.
52.
ZeichnerK. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
