Impacts of Comprehensive 

Teacher Induction

Results from the Second Year of a Randomized Controlled Study

Executive Summary

NCEE 2009-4073 U . S . D E PA R T M E N T O F E D U C AT I O N
Impacts of Comprehensive 

Teacher Induction

Results from the Second Year of a Randomized Controlled Study

Executive Summary

August 2009

Eric Isenberg

Steven Glazerman

Martha Bleeker

Amy Johnson

Julieta Lugo-Gil

Mary Grider

Sarah Dolfin

Mathematica Policy Research

Edward Britton

WestEd

Melanie Ali

Project Officer

Institute of Education Sciences

NCEE 2009-4073

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

John Q. Easton

Director

National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

Phoebe Cottingham

Commissioner

August 2009

The report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences under Contract No. ED-04-CO-0112/001. The 

project officer is Melanie Ali in the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

IES evaluation reports present objective information on the conditions of implementation and impacts of the 

programs being evaluated. IES evaluation reports do not include conclusions or recommendations or views with 

regard to actions policymakers or practitioners should take in light of the findings in the reports.

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission 

to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: Isenberg, E., Glazerman, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, 

A., Lugo-Gil, J., Grider, M., Dolfin, S. and Britton, E. (2009). Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results From 

the Second Year of a Randomized Controlled Study — Executive Summary (NCEE 2009-4073). Washington, DC: National 

Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education.

To order copies of this report,

• Write to ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 

20794-1398.

• Call in your request toll free to 1-877-4ED-Pubs. If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 800-872-5327 

(800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY) 

should call 800-437-0833.

• Fax your request to 301-470-1244.

• Order online at www.edpubs.org.

This report also is available on the IES website at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee.

Upon request, this report is available in alternate formats such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette. 

For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-260-9895 or 202-205-8113.

D I S C L O S U R E O F P O T E N T I A L 

C O N F L I C T S O F I N T E R E S T 1

he research team for this evaluation consists of a prime contractor, Mathematica 

Policy Research of Princeton, NJ, and one subcontractor, WestEd of San Francisco, 

CA. Neither of these organizations nor their key staff members have financial 

interests that could be affected by findings from the evaluation of the two comprehensive 

induction programs considered in this report. No one on the Technical Working Group, 

convened by the research team to provide advice and guidance, has financial interests that 

could be affected by findings from the evaluation. 

 

1

 Contractors carrying out research and evaluation projects for IES frequently need to obtain expert 

advice and technical assistance from individuals and entities whose other professional work may not be entirely 

independent of or separable from the tasks they are carrying out for the IES contractor. Contractors endeavor 

not to put such individuals or entities in positions in which they could bias the analysis and reporting of results, 

and their potential conflicts of interest are disclosed. 

T

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

ne of the main policy responses to the problems of turnover and inadequate 

preparation among beginning teachers is to support them with a formal, 

comprehensive induction program. Such a program might include a combination of 

school and district orientation sessions, special in-service training (professional 

development), mentoring by an experienced teacher, classroom observation, and formative 

assessment (Berry et al. 2002). 

In practice, teacher induction is common, but induction that is intensive, 

comprehensive, structured, and sequentially delivered in response to teachers’ emerging 

pedagogical needs is not (Berry et al. 2002; Smith and Ingersoll 2004). An example of 

informal or low intensity teacher induction includes pairing each new teacher with another 

full-time teacher without providing any training, supplemental materials, or release time for 

the induction to occur. 

There is little empirical evidence on whether investing resources in a more 

comprehensive, and hence more expensive, induction program would help districts attract, 

develop, and retain beginning teachers. According to several research reviews (Ingersoll and 

Kralik 2004; Totterdell et al. 2004; Lopez et al. 2004), little of the research on teacher 

induction to date has been conclusive or rigorous. Research based on federal statistics (for 

example, Smith and Ingersoll 2004; Henke et al. 2000; Alt and Henke 2007) can provide a 

useful, nationally representative perspective on the issue, but it is limited to the extent it can 

capture the intensity of induction supports and in the range of outcomes that can be 

examined. Research at the local level (for example, Youngs 2002; Fuller 2003; Rockoff 2008) 

has relied on non-experimental approaches that do not necessarily provide unbiased 

estimates of the causal impacts of interest: the retention rate for participants or test scores of 

participants’ students compared to what they would have been in the absence of the 

program. 

Congressional interest in formal, comprehensive teacher induction has grown in recent 

years. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which reauthorized the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), emphasizes the importance of teacher quality 

in student improvement. Title II, Part A of ESEA—the Improving Teacher Quality State 

Grants program—provides nearly $3 billion a year to states to train, recruit, and prepare high 

quality teachers. The implementation of teacher induction programs is one allowable use of 

O
viii

Executive Summary 

these funds. Current discussions on the reauthorization of NCLB argue for a continued 

focus on supporting teachers through professional development opportunities and teacher 

mentoring programs, with a call to fund ―proven models‖ to meet these objectives. In 

addition, the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 authorizes grants that include 

teacher induction or mentoring programs for new teachers. These initiatives highlight the 

need to conduct rigorous research to determine whether comprehensive teacher induction 

programs produce a measurable impact on teacher retention and other positive outcomes for 

teachers and students. 

The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance within the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) contracted with 

Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) to address this issue by evaluating the impact of 

structured and intensive teacher induction programs over a three year time period, beginning 

when teachers first enter the teaching profession. An earlier report (Glazerman et al. 2008) 

presented results from the first year of the evaluation. The current report presents findings 

from the second year of the evaluation and a future report will present findings from the 

third and final year. 

Throughout the report, we refer to the more formal, structured programs as 

―comprehensive‖ induction. The study examines whether comprehensive teacher induction 

programs lead to higher teacher retention rates and other positive teacher and student 

outcomes as compared to prevailing, generally less comprehensive approaches to supporting 

new teachers. More specifically, the study is designed to address five research questions on 

the impacts of comprehensive teacher induction: 

1. What is the effect of comprehensive teacher induction on the types and intensity 

of induction services teachers receive compared to the services they receive 

from the districts’ current induction programs?

2. What are the impacts on teachers’ classroom practices?2

3. What are the impacts on student achievement? 

4. What are the impacts on teacher retention? 

5. What is the impact on the composition of the district’s teaching workforce?

To operationalize the concept of comprehensive teacher induction, we issued a Request 

for Proposals (RFP) in 2004 to select a comprehensive induction program and program 

provider for the study. The RFP specified that the induction program should include several 

 

2

 As Glazerman et al. (2008) reports, there was no impact of comprehensive teacher induction on 

classroom practices in the first year of implementation. Because we did not return to observe classrooms 

during the second year of the evaluation, we do not re-visit the question about classroom practices in the 

current report. 
ix

Executive Summary 

components that earlier research and professional wisdom gleaned from practice had 

suggested were important features of successful teacher induction programs (Alliance for 

Excellent Education 2004; Ingersoll and Smith 2004; Smith and Ingersoll 2004; Kelly 2004; 

Serpell and Bozeman 2000). A group of outside expert reviewers ranked the proposals 

submitted by Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey (ETS) and the New 

Teacher Center at the University of California-Santa Cruz (NTC) as most closely meeting the 

study’s specified requirements. The two programs were roughly comparable in structure and 

included the required components: 

 Carefully selected and trained full-time mentors; 

 A curriculum of intensive and structured support for beginning teachers that 

includes an orientation, professional development opportunities, and weekly 

meetings with mentors; 

 A focus on instruction, with opportunities for novice teachers to observe 

experienced teachers; 

 Formative assessment tools that permit evaluation of practice on an ongoing 

basis and require observations and constructive feedback; and 

 Outreach to district and school-based administrators to educate them about 

program goals and to garner their systemic support for the program. 

MPR contracted with both providers to deliver comprehensive induction services to the 

districts in the study, with one-half of the districts assigned to ETS, the remaining half to 

NTC. Researchers from WestEd, a subcontractor to MPR, monitored the implementation of 

the comprehensive induction services to help the providers ensure there was fidelity to the 

core service model and to identify and help address any implementation challenges that 

arose. 

STUDY DESIGN

The centerpiece of the study design is the use of random assignment to create a group 

of teachers exposed to comprehensive teacher induction (treatment) and an equivalent group 

exposed to the district’s usual set of induction services (control). The study design allows us 

to measure and compare outcomes for these two groups to estimate the impacts of 

comprehensive induction relative to the services teachers receive from their district’s 

prevailing induction program. We used surveys and school records to measure the 

background of the study teachers, their receipt of induction services and alternative support 

services, their attitudes, and the key outcomes of student achievement and teacher mobility. 

We selected 17 school districts to participate in the study. District selection was based 

upon factors such as district size and poverty, whether the district was already implementing 

a comprehensive teacher induction program, and district willingness to participate in the 

evaluation. The selected districts, which were spread across 13 states, served low-income 

students, with every district in the study having more than 50 percent of its students 
x 

Executive Summary 

qualifying for the federal School Lunch Program. We then assigned each district to one of 

the two providers of comprehensive induction, either ETS or NTC, based primarily on 

district preferences. Nine districts participated in the ETS program; eight districts 

participated in the NTC program. The preference-based method of assigning districts to 

providers does not allow for and should not be used to make direct comparisons of one 

provider to the other. 

IES later expanded the treatment to include a second year of services for a subsample of 

the districts, in effect creating two studies: one for districts that received one year of services 

(during the 2005-2006 school year), and the other for districts that received two years (during 

the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years). In the two-year districts, teachers who had been 

assigned to the treatment group were offered continued services for a second year. The goal 

of this expansion was to enable the study to address its main research questions separately 

for one-year and two-year comprehensive induction programs. Policymakers are interested 

in both models of service delivery because they are both viable policy options for future 

implementation. 

We used convenience sampling to select the districts to receive a second year of the 

treatment; we selected the districts based upon factors such as whether the mentors who had 

been trained within the district by ETS or NTC were available for a second year and whether 

the group of districts selected for a second year would include approximately one-half of the 

total number of teachers participating in the evaluation. Dividing the sample in this way does 

not allow for and should not be used to make direct comparisons between the districts that 

received one year of treatment and districts that received two years of treatment, but instead 

allows us to investigate the effectiveness of one-year programs separately from that of twoyear programs. 

In this Year 2 impact report, unlike the Year 1 impact report (Glazerman et al. 2008), 

we present findings separately for the set of 10 districts that received one year of treatment 

(―one-year districts‖) and the other set of 7 districts that received two years of treatment 

(―two-year districts‖). Both sets of findings are based on data collected through two years of 

the study. When appropriate, however, we compare outcomes from the first year of the 

study to outcomes from the second year of the study within the one-year districts and within 

the two-year districts. 

Within each district, a subset of elementary schools participated in the study. As noted 

above, we randomly assigned these elementary schools to either a treatment group, which 

was offered comprehensive teacher induction, or a control group, which took part in the 

district’s usual teacher induction program. The final sample size included 418 schools across 

the 17 districts. 

Within each study school, we selected all eligible teachers, defined as beginning teachers 

who met certain criteria: taught in an elementary grade (K-6); were new to the profession; 

and were not already receiving induction support from a teacher preparation or certification 

program. Under these criteria, the 252 schools in the one-year districts contained 561 eligible 

teachers, and the 166 schools in the two-year districts contained 448 eligible teachers. For 

the student achievement analysis, we limited the collection of student test score data to 
xi

Executive Summary 

teachers meeting another set of eligibility criteria, including teaching a self-contained 

classroom in a tested grade and subject. This resulted in the collection of reading test scores 

for 139 teachers and math scores for 123 teachers in the one-year districts, and of reading 

scores for 96 teachers and math scores for 95 teachers in the two-year districts.3

Eligible teachers in a school were either all exposed or all not exposed to treatment, a 

method known as cluster random assignment. Cluster random assignment was necessary 

because varying the types of induction services available in the same school building could 

result in contamination of the control group. Therefore, we assigned all eligible teachers to 

treatment or control status based on the school where they were expected to teach at the 

point of random assignment. 

METHODS AND DATA

We used a model-based approach to estimate program impacts. The statistical model 

explicitly acknowledges the hierarchical structure of the data—for example, the nesting of 

teachers within schools—an approach that is sometimes referred to as a hierarchical linear 

model (HLM). Accordingly, we can properly specify the units of analysis (teachers and 

schools) and devise unbiased estimates of the standard errors that we used to conduct 

hypothesis tests. The model also allows us to control for the effects of a range of teacher and 

school characteristics on the outcomes of interest to increase the precision of the estimates 

of treatment effects. 

For each outcome, we use a different set of control variables (covariates), described in 

the discussion of key study findings. The control variables used in the body of the report are 

called the benchmark control variables; in sensitivity analyses presented in appendices to the 

report, we alter the control variables to test the robustness of the results. These sensitivity 

tests included re-estimation of the study’s main impacts with different sets of covariates, 

using different samples or sample weights, and different statistical model assumptions. 

Data for the study were collected from a variety of sources. In fall 2005 we surveyed 

mentors participating in the comprehensive induction programs on their background 

characteristics and reviewed program documents from ETS and NTC. We administered a 

baseline survey of beginning teachers in fall 2005, at which time we also requested teachers’ 

permission to obtain their college entrance examination scores (SAT or ACT). The baseline 

survey asked teachers about their formal education, professional training, current teaching 

assignment, and personal background. We surveyed teachers twice during the 2005-2006 

school year on the induction activities in which they participated, including questions about 

duration and intensity of mentoring and professional development as well as questions about 

satisfaction with different aspects of their current teaching position. During the 2006-2007 

school year, we surveyed teachers in the two-year districts twice and teachers in the one-year 

 

3

 The standard errors of test score impact estimates were in the range of 0.05 to 0.08, meaning that an 

impact in effect size units of 0.10 to 0.16 would be statistically significant. The study was originally designed to 

detect test score impacts of 0.10 to 0.22 (Glazerman et al. 2005). 
xii 

Executive Summary 

districts once on the induction activities in which they participated and on their job 

satisfaction. 

For the report’s core outcomes measuring the impacts of comprehensive teacher 

induction, we collected districts’ student records data at the end of the 2006-2007 school 

year and conducted the second of three mobility surveys in fall 2007 to learn about teacher 

retention. We measured student achievement outcomes using district-administered test score 

data from the spring 2007 (posttest) for students taught by study teachers in the 2006-2007 

school year and students’ linked scores from the prior grade in spring 2006 (pretest).4 We 

conducted all treatment-control comparisons within grade and within district to ensure that 

treatment status was not confounded with properties of the test. Response rates on teacher 

surveys ranged from 88 percent to 97 percent for the treatment group and 78 percent to 92 

percent for the control group. We used nonresponse adjustment weights and sensitivity 

analyses to address the differential response rates in the analysis of teacher mobility. 

THE TREATMENT: COMPREHENSIVE INDUCTION SERVICES

Treatment teachers in each district were given the opportunity (but were not required) 

to participate in the comprehensive induction program implemented there. The 

comprehensive induction program components included carefully selected and trained fulltime mentors; a curriculum of intensive and structured support for beginning teachers; a 

focus on instruction, with opportunities for novice teachers to observe experienced teachers; 

formative assessment tools that permit evaluation of practice on an ongoing basis and 

require observations and constructive feedback; and outreach to district and school-based 

administrators to educate them about program goals and to garner their systemic support for 

the program. 

Both the ETS and NTC programs are based on a curriculum expected to promote 

effective teaching. The ETS program defines effective teaching in terms of 22 components 

organized into four domains of professional practice. The components are aligned with the 

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC 1992) principles. 

The NTC induction model defines effective teaching in terms of six Professional Teaching 

Standards. Each standard, or domain, is broken into a succession of more discretely defined 

categories of teaching behaviors. 

The curriculum that formed the foundation of both programs included a number of 

activities. Mentors were asked to meet weekly with treatment teachers for approximately two 

hours. Conversation was expected to center around the induction programs’ teacher learning 

activities, but mentors also exercised professional judgment in selecting additional activities 

to meet beginning teachers’ needs, including observing instruction or providing a 

demonstration lesson; reviewing lesson plans, instructional materials, or student work; or 

interacting with students to gain an additional perspective on teachers’ instructional 

 

4

 For three districts that tested at least some students in the fall, we used a fall 2006 test as a pretest 

and/or a fall 2007 test as a posttest. 
xiii 

Executive Summary 

practices. Treatment teachers were provided monthly professional development sessions to 

complement their interactions with mentors, and the ETS districts also offered monthly 

study groups—mentor-facilitated peer support meetings for treatment teachers during which 

beginning teachers met monthly to discuss their local needs and practices. Treatment 

teachers also observed veteran teachers once or twice during the year. At the end of each 

school year, treatment teachers in both ETS and NTC districts participated in a colloquium 

celebrating the year’s successes and teachers’ professional growth. 

The providers adapted the curricula of the second year of their usual induction 

programs for the second year of induction services in the two-year districts. While programs 

provided induction activities to these districts’ treatment teachers during the second year that 

were similar to those in the first year, the content was designed to reflect the growth of 

mentors and beginning teachers and the evolution of their circumstances and needs. In twoyear 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 two-year districts served by NTC, mentors elaborated on 

standardized topics and designed activities to reflect local needs. 

At the heart of the comprehensive induction services was the support provided by a 

full-time mentor trained by the program providers. The goal of the study was to assign each 

mentor to 12 beginning teachers. At the outset of the study, the program providers sought 

mentor candidates with a minimum of five years of teaching experience in elementary 

school, recognition as an exemplary teacher, and experience in providing professional 

development or mentoring other teachers (particularly beginning teachers). 

In Year 1, the providers brought their respective mentors together for 10 to 12 days of 

training. The training was spread across four sessions of 2 to 3 days, with the first session 

held during the summer of 2005 and the rest taking place throughout the school year. 

Trainings previewed the content of upcoming professional development sessions and 

gradually introduced processes of mentor/mentee work in such areas as reflecting on 

instructional practices and analyzing student work. During Year 2, ETS and NTC continued 

intensive training of their respective mentors in the seven districts that were selected to 

continue program implementation. ETS brought mentors together for a total of 8 days over 

3 sessions. NTC did so over 10 days and 4 sessions. The providers devoted 1.5 to 2.5 days 

per session. All mentors participated in the trainings, which reflected a focus similar to Year 

1. In sum, in two-year districts ETS mentors participated in 18 days of training; NTC 

mentors participated in 22 days. 

Practitioners and policymakers should be aware of two issues related to program 

implementation. The first is the voluntary nature of teachers’ participation in the treatment 

services. The program models that were implemented did not necessarily require teachers to 

participate but rather made services available to them, so not all teachers attended every 

professional development session provided. 
xiv 

Executive Summary 

The second issue for practitioners and policymakers to be aware of is that the programs 

implemented in this study by ETS and NTC were not necessarily the same models that 

would be delivered outside the study context. First, for study purposes, we aimed for 

consistent implementation of each program, with a high level of fidelity to the program 

design and a quick response to any implementation issues. Second, the providers adapted 

their program for the study to ensure that the required components were included in a oneyear curriculum. Once it was decided to add a second year, the programs made additional 

modifications and adaptations to extend the curriculum another year. Finally, each provider 

organized off-site mentor training sessions, bringing together the mentors from all of the 

provider’s study districts. For district-wide implementation with a larger number of mentors, 

training typically occurs within the district, rather than off-site together with mentors from 

other districts. 

THE COUNTERFACTUAL: PREVAILING INDUCTION SERVICES

We designed the study to compare teachers who were exposed to comprehensive 

teacher induction services (treatment) to an equivalent group that was exposed to the 

induction services normally offered by the districts (control). We purposefully selected 

districts whose schools were not already working with ETS or NTC on induction projects, 

were not using the providers’ induction materials, were not spending more than $1,000 per 

teacher on induction, and did not assign full-time release mentors to work with beginning 

teachers. 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AFTER ONE YEAR: ONE-YEAR AND TWO-YEAR DISTRICTS 

COMBINED

An earlier report (Glazerman et al. 2008) presented findings after the first year of 

implementation of the comprehensive induction program within study districts. That report 

showed that teachers assigned to the treatment group reported significantly more induction 

support, but also that the additional support did not translate into positive impacts on key 

outcomes after one year.5 The additional induction support amounted to a greater likelihood 

of having a mentor formally assigned to beginning teachers (93 versus 75 percent), more 

time spent in meetings with the mentor (95 versus 74 minutes per week), and greater 

likelihood of receiving ―a moderate amount‖ or ―a lot‖ of assistance from mentors in areas 

such as classroom management (65 versus 40 percent), reviewing student work (55 versus 30 

percent), and communicating with parents (38 versus 31 percent). There were no positive 

impacts on classroom practices, student achievement, teacher retention, or the composition 

of the district’s teaching workforce after one year. Nor did we find any evidence of positive 

impacts on teachers’ satisfaction or feelings of preparedness. 

 

5 All references to ―significance‖ in this report refer to statistical significance. A difference is deemed 

statistically significant in this report if the probability that it was observed by chance is less than 5 percent. The 

term ―statistically insignificant‖ does not imply irrelevance for policymakers and similarly the term ―statistically 

significant‖ does not necessarily mean ―large‖ or meaningful for policy.
xv

Executive Summary 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AFTER TWO YEARS: TREATMENT-CONTROL DIFFERENCES IN 

ONE-YEAR DISTRICTS

Induction Services Received 

Within one-year districts, during Year 1—the year in which comprehensive teacher 

induction was implemented—we found statistically significant differences between the 

treatment and control group; the treatment group reported receiving more induction support 

than the control group across a broad range of measures of the amount, types, and content 

of supports. 

In Year 2—the year in which treatment teachers no longer received comprehensive 

teacher induction supports—the percentage of teachers with an assigned mentor and the 

weekly minutes spent with that mentor declined from Year 1 to Year 2 (differences with a pvalue of 0.000) for both the treatment and control groups. During this second year, we 

found statistically significant negative impacts on these and other measures of support, as 

described below. 

Because teachers in one-year districts were not surveyed in the spring of Year 2, we 

focus the discussion on findings for the fall of each year.6 Estimates were computed using an 

ordinary least squares model with district and grade assignment fixed effects that accounted 

for clustering of teachers within schools; weights were applied to adjust for survey 

nonresponse and the study design.7

Amount of Mentoring. In Year 1, we found statistically significant differences in the 

likelihood of teachers reporting having a mentor assigned to them and having a full-time 

mentor. As part of the intervention, every treatment teacher was assigned a mentor by ETS 

or NTC, but that did not guarantee that all teachers would work with their mentor or 

acknowledge having had one assigned to them. Still, treatment teachers were more likely 

than control teachers to report having a mentor assigned to them (90 versus 70 percent) and 

to report having a full-time mentor (74 versus 8 percent). We found statistically significant 

differences in teachers’ likelihood of having a mentor who was another teacher and in the 

amount of time teachers reported spending with a mentor during the most recent full week 

of teaching. Treatment teachers were less likely than control teachers to report having a 

mentor who was another teacher (25 versus 64 percent). In addition, treatment teachers 

reported spending an average of 87 minutes per week in mentor meetings compared to 67 

minutes for control teachers, with the 20-minute difference attributable entirely to 

differences in the duration of scheduled meetings, as opposed to informal meetings. 

In Year 2, we found statistically significant differences in the prevalence of and time 

spent in mentoring. Treatment teachers were less likely than control teachers to report having 

 

6

 Findings from the fall of Year 1 can be compared to findings from the spring of Year 1, which are 

shown in Appendix C. 

7

 Across all outcomes, the same methods were used in the analysis of two-year districts. 
xvi 

Executive Summary 

a mentor assigned to them (20 versus 29 percent). Treatment teachers were also less likely 

than control teachers to report having a mentor who was another teacher (21 versus 31 

percent). Treatment teachers spent less time in mentor meetings than control teachers (19 

versus 39 minutes per week). Figure ES.1 shows treatment-control differences for having an 

assigned mentor and time in mentor meetings in Year 1 and Year 2. 

Figure ES.1. Treatment-Control Differences in Percent Assigned a Mentor and Total 

Minutes Spent in Mentoring Per Week: One-Year Districts, Fall 2005 and Fall 

2006

Note: All treatment-control differences are significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level, 

two-tailed test (N=503 teachers in fall 2005 and 472 teachers in fall 2006). 

Mentor Activities and Assistance. In Year 1, treatment and control teachers’ reports 

showed statistically significant differences in the amounts of time in various mentor activities 

and the kinds of assistance received from their mentors. Treatment teachers reported 

spending more time during the most recent full week of teaching being observed by mentors 

(34 versus 10 minutes), meeting one-on-one with mentors (34 versus 23 minutes), meeting 

with mentors together with other first-year teachers (29 versus 9 minutes), and having 

mentors model lessons (9 versus 6 minutes). During the most recent full week of teaching, 

treatment teachers were 14 to 27 percentage points more likely than control teachers to 

report having received mentors’ assistance in a variety of topic areas, such as receiving 

suggestions to improve practice (77 versus 53 percent) and discussing instructional goals (73 

versus 48 percent). 

By Year 2, we found statistically significant differences in the amount of time teachers 

reported being observed by mentors during the most recent full week of teaching in fall 

2006. Treatment teachers reported less time in a list of six common mentoring activities (22 

versus 36 minutes per week) including less time being observed by mentors than control 

89.8%

19.7%

86.8

min.

19.1

min.

69.9%

29.2%

66.7

min.

38.5

min.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent with assigned mentor: 

Fall 2005

Percent with assigned mentor: 

Fall 2006

Usual and informal mentor 

time: Fall 2005

Usual and informal mentor 

time: 

Fall 2006

Percentage (assigned mentor) and 

Minutes during last week (mentor time)

Treatment Control
xvii 

Executive Summary 

teachers (2 versus 6 minutes). No statistically significant differences were found between 

treatment and control group teachers on their reported time spent in any of the other five 

activities covered by the survey. During the most recent full week of teaching in fall 2006, 

treatment and control teachers’ reports showed statistically significant differences in the 

likelihood of receiving mentors’ assistance in each of the topic areas covered by the survey. 

Treatment teachers were less likely than control teachers to report receiving mentors’ 

assistance in each topic area, with effects ranging from 8 to 14 percentage points, including, 

for example, impacts on receiving suggestions to improve practice (15 versus 27 percent) 

and discussing instructional goals (14 versus 24 percent). 

Professional Development. We did not find statistically significant differences 

between treatment and control teachers in their reported attendance in professional 

development, except in certain areas. Of the 12 professional development topics covered by 

the survey, treatment teachers were less likely than control teachers to report having 

attended professional development sessions in two areas in fall 2005 (Year 1): content area 

knowledge (61 versus 72 percent) and preparing students for standardized testing (30 versus 

41 percent). We did not find statistically significant differences between treatment and 

control teachers in their reported attendance in any of the 12 professional development 

activities in fall 2006 (Year 2). 

Student Achievement 

In Year 2 (school year 2006-2007), we found no statistically significant impacts on 

reading or math scores in the one-year districts. We compared the test scores for students of 

treatment teachers to those of control teachers using post-test scores measured in 2007 

adjusted for pre-test scores measured in 2006. The test score analysis was based on 

standardized achievement tests that the district normally conducts.8 Though districtadministered test scores do not cover every domain of student achievement that induction 

might affect, they do capture the content that school districts or states deem most important 

and worthy of assessing. We aggregated test scores across districts and grades by 

standardizing each test to a common metric called a z-score, which has a mean of zero and a 

standard deviation of one. We kept two broad subject areas, math and reading, distinct. The 

benchmark model accounts for the nesting of students within schools, using the normalized 

student pretest score and district-by-grade fixed effects as covariates. 

The benchmark impacts on math and reading scores in Year 2 were not significantly 

different from zero (see Table ES.1). We confirmed that the impact on math and reading in 

the second year was not statistically significant when the impacts were re-estimated using 

different samples, sets of covariates, or estimation techniques. 

 

8

 The specific test differs from district to district, and in some cases by grade within district. However, all 

treatment-control comparisons were made using a common set of tests within grade within district. 
xviii 

Executive Summary 

Table ES.1. Impacts on Test Scores: One-Year Districts, 2006-2007 School Year

Adjusted Mean 

Test Scores

Difference 

Effect 

Size

Unweighted Sample Sizes

Subject Treatment Control P-value Students Teachers Districts

Reading 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.380 2,245 135 9

Math 0.05 -0.02 0.08 0.08 0.367 1,995 117 9

Source: MPR analysis of data from 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years provided by participating 

school districts. 

Notes: Data are regression-adjusted to account for pretest, district-by-grade fixed effects, and clustering 

of students within schools. For Reading, there were 1,193 students and 72 teachers in the 

treatment group, and 1,052 students and 63 teachers in the control group. For Math, there were 

994 students and 57 teachers in the treatment group, and 1,001 students and 60 teachers in the 

control group. 

 

 None of the differences is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test. 

Teacher Retention 

We found that comprehensive teacher induction had no statistically significant impact 

on teacher retention after two years. We measured teacher retention in terms of the 

percentage of teachers who remained in their originally assigned school, their district, and 

the teaching profession. Table ES.2 shows the result of the three hypothesis tests specifically 

focused on retention in the school, in the district, and in the profession as binary outcomes. 

For each of the outcomes, there was no statistically significant impact. The same result was 

obtained when we expanded the number of outcomes to differentiate between moving to a 

school in another public school district and moving to a private, parochial, or other school, 

and expanded the outcomes for leaving to include leaving to stay at home, leaving to attend 

school or take a new job, and other reasons for leaving. 

Table ES.2. Impacts on Teacher Retention Rates after Two Years (Percentages): 

One-Year Districts 

Outcome All Teachers Treatment Control Difference P-value

Retained in the same school 62.5 60.3 64.7 -4.5 0.280

Retained in the same district 79.5 78.6 80.3 -1.7 0.619

Retained in the teaching profession 90.1 90.4 89.8 0.7 0.789

Unweighted Sample Size (Teachers) 476 244 232

Unweighted Sample Size (Schools) 227 114 113

Source: MPR Mobility Survey administered in 2007-2008 and Teacher Background Survey administered 

in 2005-2006 to all study teachers. 

Note: Data are regression-adjusted using a logit model with robust standard errors to account for 

baseline characteristics and clustering of teachers within schools. 

 None of the differences is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test. 
xix 

Executive Summary 

We also examined the reasons that teachers who left their districts (movers) or left the 

teaching profession (leavers) gave for leaving and found no statistically significant impacts of 

treatment. When we asked leavers whether they expected to return and if so, when they 

would do so, we did not find evidence of a treatment-control difference. In addition, we 

found that treatment teachers did not report feeling more satisfied with their jobs than 

control teachers. 

Composition of District Teaching Force 

The last major research question concerned the impact of comprehensive teacher 

induction on the composition of the teaching workforce in the district. As shown below, we 

found no statistically significant impacts on the composition of the district teaching force in 

one-year districts after two years. 

For comprehensive teacher induction to affect the composition of the district’s teaching 

workforce, it has to produce a difference in the types of teachers who decide to remain in 

the district. As teachers leave the district, the average qualifications of the teachers who 

remain in the district begin to change, perhaps differentially between the treatment and 

control groups. We tested this hypothesis by comparing the characteristics of district stayers 

between the treatment and control groups along two dimensions: (1) their impact on student 

achievement; and (2) their professional characteristics such as SAT/ACT scores and 

advanced degrees. The student achievement outcome is regression-adjusted using the same 

model used in the main analysis. 

We found that the treatment had no statistically significant impacts on the student 

achievement or professional background characteristics of district stayers. Table ES.3 

presents the impacts on student achievement outcomes for district stayers. Table ES.4 shows 

the background characteristics of teachers by mobility status. 

Table ES.3. Impacts on Test Scores, District Stayers Only: One-Year Districts, 2005-2006 

School Year 

Outcome Treatment Control Difference Effect Size P-value

Reading scores (all grades) 0.02 -0.03 0.05 0.05 0.331

Unweighted Sample Size (Students) 975 942 1,917

Unweighted Sample Size (Teachers) 53 56 109

Unweighted Sample Size (Schools) 47 41 88

Math scores (all grades) 0.01 -0.02 0.03 0.03 0.629

Unweighted Sample Size (Students) 826 857 1,683

Unweighted Sample Size (Teachers) 47 52 99

Unweighted Sample Size (Schools) 43 38 81

Source: MPR analysis of data from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years provided by participating school 

districts; MPR Second Mobility Survey administered in 2007-2008 to all study teachers. 

Notes: Data are regression-adjusted to account for pretest, district-by-grade fixed effects, and clustering of 

students within schools. 

 

 None of the differences is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test. 
xx

Executive Summary 

Table ES.4. Characteristics of District Stayers, Movers, and Leavers after Two Years by 

Treatment Status (Percentages Except Where Noted): One-Year Districts 

Treatment Control Difference

Teacher characteristic Stayers Movers Leavers Stayers Movers Leavers Stayers Movers Leavers

College entrance exam 

scores (SAT combined 

score or equivalent)

1,026 1,029 1,082 1,021 984 1,080 4 45 2

Attended highly selective 

college

30.3 27.3 46.0 27.2 50.5 33.3 3.1 -23.2 12.7

Major or minor in education 79.8 65.5 76.1 81.1 65.9 67.2 -1.3 -0.4 8.9

Student teaching 

experience (Weeks)

16.5 13.9 14.2 15.1 13.5 12.4 1.5 0.4 1.8

Entered the profession 

through traditional fouryear program

64.4 61.0 45.8 60.3 58.7 30.8 4.1 2.4 15.0

Unweighted Sample Size 

(Teachers)

191 29 24 187 23 22

Unweighted Sample Size 

(Schools)

100 25 18 104 22 21

Source: MPR calculations using data from the College Board and ACT, Inc.; MPR Teacher Background Survey administered in 

2005-2006, MPR Second Mobility Survey administered in 2007-2008; MPR First and Second Induction Activities Surveys 

administered in fall/winter 2005-2006 and spring 2006 to all study teachers. 

Notes: Data are weighted to account for the study design. Sample sizes vary due to item nonresponse. The analysis of college 

entrance exam scores relied on a smaller sample of teachers (191/29/24 treatment stayers/movers/leavers and 187/23/22

control stayers/movers/leavers) and schools (100/25/18 treatment and 104/22/21 control). 

Stayer: retained in the same school district. 

Mover: retained in the teaching profession, but not in the same school district. 

Leaver: no longer teaching. 

None of the differences between treatment and control stayers, between treatment and control movers, or between 

treatment and control leavers is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test. P-values are suppressed to make 

the table easier to read.
xxi

Executive Summary 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AFTER TWO YEARS: TREATMENT-CONTROL DIFFERENCES IN 

TWO-YEAR DISTRICTS

Induction Services Received 

During Year 1 and Year 2, both years in which comprehensive teacher induction 

services were offered to the treatment group in the two-year districts, treatment and control 

teachers’ reports showed statistically significant differences favoring the treatment group on 

many measures of the amount, types, or content of supports. For consistency with the way 

in which results are reported for one-year districts, we report on findings for the fall of each 

year.9

Amount of Mentoring. We found statistically significant differences between the 

treatment and control teachers with regard to the likelihood of teachers reporting having a 

mentor assigned to them, having a full-time mentor, and having a mentor who was another 

teacher. Treatment teachers were more likely than control teachers to report having a 

mentor assigned to them (94 versus 79 percent in Year 1; 80 versus 34 percent in Year 2), 

and to report having a full-time mentor (72 versus 16 percent in Year 1; 64 versus 7 percent 

in Year 2). Treatment teachers were less likely than control teachers to report having a 

mentor who was another teacher (38 versus 62 percent in Year 1; 12 versus 27 percent in 

Year 2). We also found statistically significant differences in the amount of time teachers 

reported spending with their mentors. Treatment teachers reported spending more time 

working with their mentors than control teachers did during the most recent full week of 

teaching. Treatment teachers reported spending more time on average in mentor meetings 

(124 minutes per week versus 81 minutes in Year 1; 82 minutes versus 48 minutes in Year 2). 

In both years, the differences were attributable primarily to differences in the duration of 

scheduled meetings. Figure ES.2 shows treatment-control differences for having an assigned 

mentor and time in mentor meetings in Year 1 and Year 2. 

Mentor Activities and Assistance. Treatment and control teachers’ reports showed 

statistically significant differences in the amount of time in various mentor activities and in 

the kinds of assistance teachers reported receiving from their mentors. Treatment teachers 

reported spending more time being observed by mentors (38 versus 17 minutes in Year 1; 22 

versus 7 minutes in Year 2), meeting one-on-one with mentors (43 versus 23 minutes in Year 

1; 25 versus 12 minutes in Year 2), meeting together with mentors and other first-year 

teachers (38 versus 11 minutes in Year 1; 25 versus 6 minutes in Year 2), and having mentors 

model lessons (16 versus 10 minutes in Year 1; 12 versus 5 minutes in Year 2). During the 

most recent full week of teaching, treatment teachers were more likely than control teachers 

to report receiving mentors’ assistance in each of the topic areas covered by the survey:

effects ranged from 14 to 28 percentage points in Year 1 and 28 to 44 percent in Year 2.

 

9

 For two-year districts, findings from spring of Year 1 were consistent with the findings from fall of 

Year 1. Likewise, findings from spring of Year 2 were consistent with the findings from fall of Year 2. 
xxii 

Executive Summary 

Figure ES.2. Treatment-Control Differences in Percent Assigned a Mentor and Total 

Minutes Spent in Mentoring Per Week: Two-Year Districts, Fall 2005 and Fall 

2006

Note: All treatment-control differences are significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level, 

two-tailed test (N=395 teachers in fall 2005 and 360 teachers in fall 2006). 

Professional Development. We did not find statistically significant differences 

between treatment and control teachers’ reported attendance in professional development, 

except that treatment teachers were more likely than control teachers to report having 

attended sessions focused on classroom management techniques (61 versus 48 percent) in 

fall 2005 (Year 1). 

Student Achievement 

We found no evidence of statistically significant impacts on student test scores in twoyear districts. The benchmark impacts on math and reading scores in the second year of the 

study were not significantly different from zero (Table ES.5). The data confirm that the 

impacts on reading and math in the second year were not statistically significant when we reestimated the impacts using different samples, different sets of covariates, or different 

estimation techniques. 

93.9%

80.0%

124.0

min.

81.8

min. 78.7%

33.5%

80.9

min.

47.7

min.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Percent with assigned mentor: 

Fall 2005

Percent with assigned mentor: 

Fall 2006

Usual and informal mentor 

time: Fall 2005

Usual and informal mentor 

time: Fall 2006

Percentage (assigned mentor) and 

Minutes during last week (mentor time)

Treatment Control
xxiii 

Executive Summary 

Table ES.5. Impacts on Test Scores: Two-Year Districts, 2006-2007 School Year 

Adjusted Mean 

Test Scores

Difference 

Effect

Size

Unweighted Sample Sizes

Subject Treatment Control P-value Students Teachers Districts

Reading 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.967 1,732 100 7

Math -0.03 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 0.746 1,736 99 7

Source: MPR analysis of data from 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years provided by participating 

school districts. 

Notes: Data are regression-adjusted to account for pretest, district-by-grade fixed effects, and clustering 

of students within schools. For Reading, there were 856 students and 52 teachers in the 

treatment group, and 876 students and 48 teachers in the control group. For Math, there were 

780 students and 50 teachers in the treatment group, and 956 students and 49 teachers in the 

control group. 

 

 None of the differences is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test. 

Teacher Retention 

We found that comprehensive teacher induction had no statistically significant impact 

on teacher retention after two years. Table ES.6 shows the result of the three hypothesis 

tests specifically focused on retention in the school, in the district, and in the profession as 

binary outcomes. For each of the outcomes, there was no statistically significant impact. The 

same result was obtained when we expanded the number of outcomes to differentiate 

between moving to a school in another public school district and moving to a private, 

parochial, or other school, and expanded the outcomes for leaving to include leaving to stay 

at home, leaving to attend school or take a new job, and other reasons for leaving. 

We also examined the reasons that teachers who left their districts (movers) or left the 

teaching profession (leavers) gave for leaving and found no statistically significant impacts of 

treatment. When we asked leavers whether they expected to return and if so, when they 

would do so, we did not find evidence of a treatment-control difference. In addition, we 

found that treatment teachers did not report feeling more satisfied with or prepared for their 

jobs than control teachers. 
xxiv 

Executive Summary 

Table ES.6. Impacts on Teacher Retention Rates after Two Years (Percentages): 

Two-Year Districts 

Outcome

All 

Teachers Treatment Control Difference P-value

Retained in the same school 64.1 62.2 66.2 -4.0 0.386

Retained in the same district 72.3 69.6 75.3 -5.7 0.208

Retained in the teaching profession 88.8 86.9 90.8 -3.9 0.241

Unweighted Sample Size (Teachers) 364 203 161

Unweighted Sample Size (Schools) 151 81 70

Source: MPR Second Mobility Survey administered in 2007-2008 and Teacher Background Survey 

administered in 2005-2006 to all study teachers. 

Note: Data are regression-adjusted using a logit model with robust standard errors to account for 

baseline characteristics and clustering of teachers within schools. 

 None of the differences is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test. 

Composition of the District Teaching Force 

We found that the treatment had no statistically significant impacts on the student 

achievement outcomes or professional background characteristics of district stayers. Table 

ES.7 presents the impacts on student achievement outcomes for district stayers. Table ES.8 

shows the background characteristics of teachers by mobility status. 

Table ES.7. Impacts on Test Scores, District Stayers Only: Two-Year Districts, 2005-2006 

School Year 

Outcome Treatment Control Difference 

Effect 

Size P-value

Reading scores (all grades) 0.03 -0.03 0.06 0.06 0.591

Unweighted Sample Size (Students) 745 558 1,303

Unweighted Sample Size (Teachers) 45 30 75

Unweighted Sample Size (Schools) 31 24 55

Math scores (all grades) -0.04 0.07 -0.11 -0.11 0.162

Unweighted Sample Size (Students) 693 549 1,242

Unweighted Sample Size (Teachers) 43 30 73

Unweighted Sample Size (Schools) 29 24 53

Source: MPR analysis of data from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years provided by participating 

school districts; MPR Second Mobility Survey administered in 2007-2008 to all study teachers. 

Notes: Data are regression-adjusted to account for pretest, district-by-grade fixed effects and clustering 

of students within schools. 

 

 None of the differences is statistically significant at the 0.05 level, two-tailed test. 
xxv

Executive Summary 

Table ES.8. Characteristics of District Stayers, Movers, and Leavers after Two Years by 

Treatment Status (Percentages Except Where Noted): Two-Year Districts 

Treatment Control Difference

Teacher Characteristic Stayers Movers Leavers Stayers Movers Leavers Stayers Movers Leavers

College entrance exam 

scores (SAT combined 

score or equivalent)

916 1,006 1,095 967 1,040 1,081 -51 -34 14

Attended highly selective 

college

23.4 28.6 59.9 25.1 37.1 52.4 -1.7 -8.5 7.5

Major or minor in education 67.0 70.9 38.9 66.6 70.8 74.7 0.4 0.0 -35.8

Student teaching 

experience (weeks)

12.2 14.1 6.2 11.9 11.7 9.3 0.3 2.4 -3.1

Entered the profession 

through traditional fouryear program

61.5 76.8 25.2 66.0 61.3 56.1 -4.5 15.5 -30.9

Unweighted Sample Size 

(Teachers)

143 35 25 121 25 15

Unweighted Sample Size 

(Schools)

71 28 20 62 21 13

Source: MPR calculations using data from the College Board and ACT, Inc.; MPR Teacher Background Survey 

administered in 2005-2006, MPR Second Mobility Survey administered in 2007-2008; MPR First and Second 

Induction Activities Surveys administered in fall/winter 2005-2006 and spring 2006 to all study teachers. 

Notes: Data are weighted to account for the study design. Sample sizes vary due to item nonresponse. The analysis of 

college entrance exam scores relied on a smaller sample of teachers (143/35/25 treatment stayers/movers/leavers 

and 121/25/15 control stayers/movers/leavers) and schools (71/28/20 treatment and 62/21/13 control). 

Stayer: retained in the same school district. 

Mover: retained in the teaching profession, but not in the same school district. 

Leaver: no longer teaching. 

None of the differences between treatment and control stayers, between treatment and control movers, or 

between treatment and control leavers is statistically different from zero. P-values are suppressed to make the 

table easier to read. 
xxvi 

Executive Summary 

CORRELATIONAL ANALYSES

Given the prevalence of supports reported by control teachers, we explored the 

relationship between induction supports and outcomes independent of group assignment 

(treatment or control) and district type (one-year or two-year). Using data from the first 

three Induction Activities surveys, we created a variable that reflects the number of years (0, 

1, or 2) the beginning teacher had an assigned mentor and constructed three other new 

measures10: 

 The Induction Services Index measuring breadth of services received by the 

beginning teacher, 

 The Instructional Support Index measuring suggestions, guidance, and feedback 

on teaching, and 

 The Induction Intensity Index measuring program duration and intensity. 

The analyses use the same methods as the experimental analyses, but instead of 

assignment to treatment status, which was randomly determined, the key explanatory 

variables are the number of years the beginning teacher had an assigned mentor and the 

three indices, included jointly in a regression model. The results should be interpreted with 

caution because the analyses are correlational and not causal. In particular, a 

nonexperimental estimate of the relationship of induction services with outcomes may be 

spurious, as it will confound the true (causal) impact of mentoring with the effect of the 

teacher’s own ability or motivation.

Overall, we found that induction measures were not significantly related to math test 

scores (p-value of F-test = 0.068) or reading scores (p-value of F-test = 0.651). However, we 

found that the association between the years the beginning teacher had a mentor and math 

test scores was statistically significant (regression coefficient = 0.12, p-value = 0.015). For 

measures of teacher retention, there was a statistically significant relationship between the 

induction activities variables and retention (p-value of F-test = 0.016 for remaining in the 

 

10 The variable that reflects the number of years the beginning teacher had an assigned mentor is 

constructed using three items: the indicator variables at fall 2005, spring 2006, and fall 2006, on whether the 

beginning teacher had an assigned mentor. This variable has the values 0, 1, and 2 years. The Induction 

Services Index is the sum of nine indicator variables at fall 2005, spring 2006, and fall 2006, on whether the 

beginning teacher: (1) met with a literacy or math coach, (2) met with a study group, and (3) observed others 

teaching. The Induction Services Index has values in the range 0 to 9. The Instructional Support Index is 

constructed similarly using eight indicator variables on whether the beginning teacher received: (1) suggestions 

from a mentor to improve his/her teaching, (2) at least a moderate amount of guidance in subject area content, 

and (3) feedback on teaching. The Instructional Support Index has values in the range 0 to 8. The Induction 

Intensity Index is the sum of the average number of hours per week at fall 2005, spring 2006, and fall 2006 (3 

items) that beginning teachers reported spending: (1) in mentoring sessions, (2) being observed teaching by 

mentor, (3) in professional development learning instructional techniques and strategies, and (4) in professional 

development learning content area knowledge, specifically language arts, math, and science. The Induction 

Intensity Index has values in the range 0 to 20.8. 
xxvii 

Executive Summary 

district; p-value of F-test = 0.001 for remaining in teaching). One measure—the Induction 

Services Index—was positively related and no measures were negatively related to teacher 

mobility for both remaining in the district and remaining in teaching. The estimate of the 

regression coefficient on the Induction Services Index for remaining in the district was 0.02; 

for remaining in teaching, it was 0.01. This implies that, for example, if the retention rate in a 

district were 80 percent, then an additional induction service, such as meeting with a study 

group in one semester, would be associated with a district retention rate of 82 percent, all 

else equal. All results were robust to alternate methods of constructing the indices and 

alternate model specifications. 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The report presents findings from an experimental test of the impact of comprehensive 

teacher induction on student achievement in beginning teachers’ classrooms and on the 

teachers’ retention rates in urban elementary schools. In ten of the study districts, a 

comprehensive induction program was implemented during beginning teachers’ first year in 

the classroom. In the remaining seven study districts, comprehensive induction was 

implemented during beginning teachers’ first two years in the classroom. This design does 

not allow for and should not be used to make direct comparisons between the districts that 

received one year of treatment and districts that received two years of treatment, but instead 

allows us to investigate the effectiveness of one-year programs separately from that of twoyear programs. The main findings are summarized below. 

 During their first year in the classroom, in both one- and two-year districts, 

treatment and control teachers’ reports showed statistically significant 

differences in the amount and types of support received. Treatment teachers 

were more likely than control teachers to report having an assigned mentor (90 

versus 70 percent of teachers reported having an assigned mentor in one-year 

districts; 94 versus 79 percent in two-year districts) and reported spending more 

time per week with a mentor (87 versus 67 minutes in one-year districts; 124 

versus 81 minutes in two-year districts). Treatment teachers reported spending 

more time being observed by mentors (34 versus 10 minutes during the most 

recent full week of teaching in one-year districts; 38 versus 17 minutes in twoyear districts) and meeting with mentors together with other first-year teachers 

(29 versus 9 minutes in one-year districts; 38 versus 11 minutes in two-year 

districts). 

 During their second year in the classroom, treatment teachers in one-year 

districts received less support than did control teachers. During Year 2, we 

found a statistically significant difference favoring the control group in teachers’ 

likelihood of having an assigned mentor and in the amount of time teachers 

spent per week with a mentor. Treatment teachers were less likely than control 

teachers to report having an assigned mentor (20 versus 29 percent) and 

reported spending less time per week with a mentor (19 versus 39 minutes). 
xxviii 

Executive Summary 

 During their second year in the classroom, treatment teachers in two-year 

districts received more support than did control teachers. During Year 2, we 

found a statistically significant difference favoring the treatment group in

teachers’ likelihood of having an assigned mentor and in the amount of time 

teachers spent per week with a mentor. Treatment teachers were more likely 

than control teachers to report having an assigned mentor (80 versus 34 

percent) and reported spending more time per week with a mentor (82 versus 48 

minutes). 

 No impacts of comprehensive teacher induction were found on student 

achievement during teachers’ second year in the classroom. In both one- and 

two-year districts, we did not find statistically significant impacts on student 

achievement across all elementary grade levels in reading or math during the 

teachers’ second year.

 No impacts of comprehensive teacher induction were found on teacher 

retention rates after two years. There was also no evidence that comprehensive 

teacher induction induced a change in the kind of teachers retained within the 

district. In both one- and two-year districts, we did not find statistically 

significant impacts of comprehensive teacher induction on teacher retention 

rates in the school, district or profession after two years. In both one- and twoyear districts, we did not find statistically significant impacts on the composition 

of the district teaching workforce after two years, whether measured by district 

stayers’ impacts on student achievement or by their professional background 

characteristics (for example, SAT/ACT scores or whether the teacher attended a 

highly selective college). 

 In a correlational (nonexperimental) analysis of induction and student test 

scores, the relationship between four composite induction measures (considered 

jointly) and test scores was statistically insignificant for both math and reading. 

When we tested the variables individually, one of the four measures of 

beginning teacher support (years had a mentor) was positively related to math 

scores (coefficient = 0.12, p-value = 0.015) and none were related to student 

achievement in reading. The significant result can be interpreted as a student 

scoring 12 percent of a standard deviation higher on the math test for each year 

the beginning teacher had a mentor. The nonexperimental results should be 

interpreted with caution because the analyses are correlational and not causal. 

 In the correlational analysis of induction and teacher mobility, there was a 

positive relationship between the four composite induction measures and 

retention that was statistically significant for both retention in the district (pvalue=0.016) and retention in the profession (p-value=0.001). When we tested 

the induction indices one at a time, one of the four explanatory variables was 

positively related to retention in the district, none were positively related to 

retention in the profession, and none were negatively related to either type of 

teacher retention. The estimate of the regression coefficient on the Induction 
xxix 

Executive Summary 

Services Index for remaining in the district was 0.02. This implies that, for 

example, if the retention rate in a district were 80 percent, then an additional 

induction service, such as meeting with a study group in one semester, would be 

associated with a district retention rate of 82 percent, all else equal. As 

mentioned above, the nonexperimental results should always be interpreted with 

caution because the analyses are correlational and not causal.

FUTURE RESEARCH

This report focused on the second year of findings, updating an earlier report 

(Glazerman et al. 2008) that presented results after one year of implementation for one-year 

and two-year districts combined. The research team is conducting a follow-up analysis that 

will include a third and final year of test score and teacher mobility data in one-year and twoyear districts. 
R E F E R E N C E S

Alliance for Excellent Education. Tapping the Potential: Retaining and Developing High-Quality 

New Teachers. New York: Carnegie Corporation, 2004. 

Alt, Martha Naomi, and Robin R. Henke. ―To Teach or Not to Teach: Teaching Experience 

and Preparation Among 1992-93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients 10 Years After College.‖ 

(NCES 2007-163). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics. July 2007. 

Berry, Barnett, Peggy Hopkins-Thompson, and Mandy Hoke. ―Assessing and Supporting 

New Teachers: Lessons from the Southeast.‖ Chapel Hill, NC: Southeast Center for 

Teaching Quality, December 2002. 

Fuller, Edward J. ―Beginning Teacher Retention Rates for TxBESS and Non-TexBESS 

Teachers.‖ Austin, TX: State Board for Educator Certification, 2003.

Glazerman, Steven, Sarah Dolfin, Martha Bleeker, Amy Johnson, Eric Isenberg, Julieta 

Lugo-Gil, Mary Grider, and Edward Britton. ―Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher 

Induction: Results from the First Year of a Randomized Controlled Study.‖ (NCEE 

2009-4034). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education 

Sciences, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, 2008. 

Glazerman, Steven M., Sarah Senesky, Neil Seftor, and Amy Johnson. ―Design of an Impact 

Evaluation of Teacher Induction Programs.‖ Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc., September 2005. 

Henke, Robin R., Xianglei Chen, and Sonya Geis. ―Progress Through the Teacher Pipeline: 

1992–93 College Graduate and Elementary/Secondary School Teaching as of 1997.‖ 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics, 2000. 

Ingersoll, Richard M., and Jeffrey M. Kralik. ―The Impact of Mentoring on Teacher 

Retention: What the Research Says.‖ Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, 

2004, pp. 1–23.

Ingersoll, Richard M., and Thomas M. Smith. ―Do Teacher Induction and Mentoring 

Matter?‖ NASSP Bulletin, vol. 88, no. 638, 2004, pp. 28–40.
R-2 

References 

Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium. ―Model Standards for 

Beginning Teacher Licensing, Assessment and Development: A Resource for State 

Dialogue.‖ Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers, 1992. 

Kelly, Linda Molner. ―Why Induction Matters.‖ Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 55, no. 5, 

winter 2004, pp. 438–448.

Lopez, Alejandra, Andrea Lash, Monika Schaffner, Patrick Shields, and Mary Wagner. 

―Review of Research on the Impact of Beginning Teacher Induction on Teacher 

Quality and Retention.‖ Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, 2004.

Rockoff, Jonah. ―Does Mentoring Reduce Turnover and Improve Skills of New Employees? 

Evidence from Teachers in New York City.‖ NBER Working Paper 13868. Available 

at [www.nber.org/papers/w13868]. 2008. 

Serpell, Zewelanji, and L.A. Bozeman. ―Beginning Teacher Induction: A Report on 

Beginning Teacher Effectiveness and Retention.‖ Washington, DC: American 

Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 2000. 

Smith, Thomas M., and Richard M. Ingersoll. ―What Are the Effects of Induction and 

Mentoring on Beginning Teacher Turnover?‖ American Educational Research Journal, 

vol. 41, no. 3, 2004, pp. 681–714. 

Totterdell, Michael, Lynda Woodroffe, Sara Bubb, and Karen Hanrahan. ―The Impact of 

NQT Induction Programmes on the Enhancement of Teacher Expertise, Professional 

Development, Job Satisfaction or Retention Rates: A Systematic Review of Research 

Literature on Induction.‖ London: University of London Institute of Education, EPPICentre, 2004. 

Youngs, Peter A. ―State and District Policy Related to Mentoring and New Teacher 

Induction in Connecticut.‖ New York, NY: National Commission on Teaching and 

America’s Future, 2002.