NCEE 2010-4028 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Impacts of Comprehensive 

Teacher Induction 

Final Results from a Randomized Controlled Study 

Executive Summary 
Impacts of Comprehensive 

Teacher Induction 

Final Results from a Randomized Controlled Study 

Executive Summary 

June 2010 

Steven Glazerman 

Eric Isenberg 

Sarah Dolfin

Martha Bleeker 

Amy Johnson 

Mary Grider 

Matthew Jacobus 

Mathematica Policy Research 

Melanie Ali 

Project Officer 

Institute of Education Sciences 

NCEE 2010-4028 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 
iii

U.S. Department of Education 

Arne Duncan 

Secretary 

Institute of Education Sciences 

John Q. Easton 

Director 

June 2010 

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: Glazerman, S., E. Isenberg, S. 

Dolfin, M. Bleeker, A. Johnson, M. Grider, and M. Jacobus. (2010). Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher 

Induction: Final Results From a Randomized Controlled Study (NCEE 2010-4028). 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. 
Acknowledgments 

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

This study would not have been possible without the support and cooperation we received 

from many people. The technical working group for the study provided useful insight into and 

reactions to earlier presentations of methods and findings. The group included Carol Bartell, Mark 

Berends, Larry Hedges, Hamilton Lankford, Rebecca Maynard, Sandra Odell, Jeffrey Smith, and 

Todd Stinebrickner. We wish we could name the many dedicated individuals in the 17 participating 

school districts who provided us with data and cooperated with the study in many ways. These 

people were extraordinarily generous with their time and expertise. 

At WestEd, Edward (Ted) Britton and Cathy Ringstaff did an excellent job coordinating the 

field visits and other work needed to monitor implementation of the induction programs. Staff from 

the two induction programs—Educational Testing Service and the New Teacher Center at the 

University of California, Santa Cruz—were extremely cooperative with study demands and 

generously shared all facets of their programs with us. 

At Mathematica, Pat Nemeth oversaw a complex multi-wave data collection effort as the survey 

director, ably assisted by Linda Mendenko, Nakis Evgeniou, and Joe Baker. Phyllis Schulman and 

Susan Golden played critical roles in achieving high response rates to the surveys. Julieta Lugo-Gil, 

Megan Hague Angus, Andrea Mraz Esposito, Kristin Hallgren, Samina Sattar, Kathy Sonnenfeld, 

and Ama Takyi-Laryea coordinated with districts at several stages. Dominic Harris and Norma 

Altshuler provided expert programming assistance. Korantema Kaleem provided project 

management. Roberto Agodini carefully reviewed drafts of the report and provided helpful 

comments. The report was edited by Laura Bernstein and was produced by Donna Dorsey and Lisa 

Walls. 

This study incorporates data on individual teachers’ college entrance examination scores 

provided to Mathematica by the College Board and by ACT. 
Disclosure 

v 

 

DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL 

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST1

The 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. 
Executive Summary 

vi 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

High teacher turnover and inadequate teacher preparation represent challenges for education 

policymakers. High turnover among teachers in urban school districts can hurt student achievement 

by exposing more students to inexperienced teachers (Darling-Hammond 2000); disrupt schools; 

and impose a high cost on districts that must recruit, hire, and train replacement teachers (Ingersoll 

and Smith 2003; King and Newmann 2000). Even teachers who persist may struggle with pedagogy 

or classroom management if they are not adequately supported early in their careers (Kauffman et al. 

2002). 

To support beginning teachers, most districts offer some form of teacher induction or 

mentoring, but they often provide a limited set of services in response to an unfunded state mandate 

and with modest local resources (Berry et al. 2002; Smith and Ingersoll 2004). We refer to this usual 

level of induction support as informal or low-intensity teacher induction, which may include pairing 

each new teacher with another full-time teacher without providing training, supplemental materials, 

or release time for the induction to occur. 

One policy option in response to the problems of high turnover and inadequate preparation is 

to support teachers with a formal, more comprehensive induction program during their initial years 

in the classroom. Support that is intensive, structured, and sequentially delivered is sometimes 

referred to as “comprehensive” induction. It is often delivered through experienced, trained fulltime mentors and may also include a combination of school and district orientation sessions, special 

in-service training (professional development), classroom observations, and constructive feedback 

through formative assessment. 

In 2004, the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences contracted with 

Mathematica Policy Research to conduct a large-scale evaluation of comprehensive teacher 

induction. The purpose of the study was to determine whether augmenting the set of services 

districts usually provide to support beginning teachers with a more comprehensive program 

improves teacher and student outcomes. This is the study’s third and final report on the program’s 

impacts. 

To evaluate the impact of comprehensive teacher induction relative to the usual induction 

support, we conducted a randomized experiment in a set of districts that were not already 

implementing comprehensive induction. We assigned 418 elementary schools in 17 urban districts 

by lottery to either (1) a treatment group whose beginning teachers were offered comprehensive 

teacher induction or (2) a control group whose beginning teachers received the district’s usual, less 

comprehensive or intensive induction services. Random assignment ensures that any systematic 

differences in outcomes between the treatment and control group can be attributed to 

comprehensive induction. 

The comprehensive services were provided by either the Educational Testing Service (ETS) of 

Princeton, New Jersey or the New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz 

(NTC), depending on the district’s preference. These program providers implemented their 

respective comprehensive programs in each school and district to which they were assigned. The 

providers began by helping districts select the mentors. Beginning teachers in treatment schools 

were then assigned to a full-time mentor with a 12 to 1 ratio. Mentors received ongoing training and 

a curriculum of materials to support the teachers’ development. Beginning teachers were offered 
Executive Summary 

vii 

 

monthly professional development sessions, opportunities to observe veteran teachers, and an endof-year colloquium. 

In 10 of the 17 districts, the services were offered to treatment schools for one year only (“oneyear districts”). In the remaining 7 districts, services were offered to treatment schools for two years 

(“two-year districts”). Because the two sets of districts implemented different versions of the 

treatment and they were not randomly chosen to implement one or two years of comprehensive 

induction, we present most results separately for one- and two-year districts. 

The research team collected survey and administrative data for four years after the initial 

random assignment in summer 2005. Teacher surveys were used to measure the effect of 

comprehensive induction on support services that teachers reported receiving and the impact it had 

on workforce outcomes (teacher attitudes, teacher retention, and composition of the teacher 

workforce) for the full sample of 1,009 teachers. We conducted classroom observations to measure 

the impact on teaching practices in the first year for the subsample of approximately 700 teachers 

who were teaching literacy skills. District-provided data on student test scores were used to measure 

the impact on test scores for the subsample of approximately 200 teachers in grades and subjects 

that had both an end of year test and a test of prior achievement from the previous year. 

Key findings: 

• During the comprehensive induction program, treatment teachers received more 

support than control teachers.2

 For example, in the first year they were more likely to 

have a mentor assigned to them (90 versus 72 percent in one-year districts and 96 versus 

79 percent in two-year districts), spent more time with a mentor (85 versus 68 minutes 

per week on average in one-year districts and 108 versus 82 minutes per week on 

average in two-year districts), and participated in more activities such as observing other 

teachers (68 versus 39 percent in one-year districts and 72 versus 47 percent in two-year 

districts), as reported in the spring. The pattern of statistically significant differences 

favoring the treatment group continued in the second year for the districts where 

comprehensive services were offered over two years. However, treatment teachers in 

districts receiving one year of comprehensive induction received less support in their 

second year on all these dimensions than control teachers in the same districts. In the 

third and fourth years of teaching, treatment teachers received levels of support that 

were similar to their control group counterparts, whether we considered one-year or 

two-year districts. 

2 Unless stated, all comparisons in the executive summary and in the report are statistically significant at the 0.05 

level using a two-sided hypothesis test. Statistical significance means that the observed differences are not likely due to 

chance. 
Executive Summary 

viii 

• The extra induction support for treatment teachers did not translate into impacts 

on classroom practices in the first year. We observed teachers giving a literacy lesson 

in the spring of their first year and found no impacts on teachers’ implementation of the 

literacy lesson, content of the literacy lesson, or classroom culture. 

• For teachers who received one year of comprehensive induction, there was no 

impact on student achievement. In each of the first three years of teachers’ careers, 

students of treatment teachers receiving one year of comprehensive induction support 

performed no better on average than students of the corresponding control teachers. 

• 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. 

- In the third year, in districts and grades in which students’ test scores from the 

current and prior year are available, students of treatment teachers outperformed 

students of the corresponding control teachers on average. These impacts are 

equivalent to effect sizes of 0.11 in reading and 0.20 in math, which is enough to 

move the average student from the 50th percentile up 4 percentile points in 

reading and 8 percentile points in math. 

- These results are based on the subset of data for which students’ test scores from 

the current and prior year are available. If the analyses are conducted without 

requiring test scores from the prior year, we do not find an impact on math or 

reading scores. This alternative approach nearly doubles the available sample of 

study teachers but the lack of data on students’ prior achievement results in a less 

precise estimate. This means that we are less likely to detect a true impact if it 

exists, despite the larger sample size. 

• Neither exposure to one year nor exposure to two years of comprehensive 

induction had a positive impact on retention or other teacher workforce 

outcomes: 

- Treatment teachers did not report being more satisfied or feeling more prepared 

to teach than control teachers at any of the six time points over the four school 

years in which we collected data. 

- There was no impact on teacher retention over the first four years of the 

teachers’ careers. This was true of retention in the original school, the original 

school district, and the teaching profession. 

- We found no evidence that comprehensive induction improved the composition 

of the teacher workforce through selective retention. There were no statistically 

significant positive differences between treatment teachers retained in the district 

and control teachers retained in the district in teacher characteristics such as 

college entrance exam scores, college selectivity, and advanced degrees; nor in 

performance measures such as first year classroom observation scores or third 

year student test scores. 
Executive Summary 

Participating Teachers: 1,009 teachers participated in the study. Within each study school, all 

eligible teachers participated if they were new to the profession, taught in grades K-6, and were not 

already receiving induction support from a teacher preparation or certification program. 

Random Assignment: Within each district, we randomly assigned schools to either the 

treatment group, in which case teachers at the school were offered comprehensive teacher induction, 

or to the control group, in which case teachers at the school took part in the district’s usual set of 

induction services. Assigning entire schools helps ensure that teachers in the control group are not 

receiving the benefits of services offered to the treatment group. 

Years of Treatment: The treatment included one year of comprehensive induction services for 

10 districts (“one-year districts”) and two years of such services for the other 7 districts (“two-year 

districts.”). We selected a set of districts to receive a second year of the treatment based on such 

factors as whether the mentors were available for a second year. Dividing the sample in this way does 

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

different number of years of treatment. Impacts are presented separately for one-year and two-year 

districts. 

Outcomes: We examined impacts on classroom outcomes—evidence of best teaching practices 

through classroom observations and effects on student test scores—as well as workforce outcomes, 

including teacher satisfaction and preparedness, the rate of teacher retention, and the composition of 

the teacher workforce. 

Model-based Approach: To estimate impacts, we used regression methods, which compare the 

treatment and control groups, controlling for the confounding effects of any chance differences in a 

range of student, teacher, or school characteristics, such as grade level, students’ eligibility for free or 

reduced price lunch, or teacher certification. The regression model is also used to account for the fact 

that teachers or students are clustered within schools.

Study Design 

Participating Districts: 17 school districts in 13 states participated in the study. 

In addition to willingness to participate in the evaluation, districts had to meet criteria for size, 

poverty, and need for induction: at least 570 teachers in elementary schools, at least 10 elementary 

schools with 50 percent or more students eligible for free or reduced-price meals under the federal 

National School Lunch Program, and no existing comprehensive induction program offered in study 

schools. To be in the study, districts had to have schools with no full-time mentors and an 

expenditure on induction of less than $1,000 per beginning teacher. Although the districts did not 

form a statistically representative sample of the nation, they were drawn from states with a variety of 

regulatory, administrative, and demographic contexts. Treatment schools in each district worked with 

one of the two providers of comprehensive induction—ETS or NTC—based primarily on district 

preferences. 

Participating Schools: 418 elementary schools participated in the study. Together with 

participating districts, we selected schools for the study that had eligible beginning teachers and that 

were not already implementing a comprehensive induction program. 

ix 
Executive Summary 

Student Achievement Data: Districts provided student test scores for regularly 

administered reading and math tests as well as associated student background data for each of the 

first three years of the study. For each year, the district provided annual test scores from the 

current year (posttest) and the prior year (pretest). Of the 1,009 teachers who began in the study 

in the 2005-2006 school year, districts provided valid student test score data for teachers in the 

most recent year of the study, the 2007-2008 school year. The other teachers were either no 

longer teaching in the district, teaching grades or subjects that were not tested, or teaching in one 

of the two districts that did not provide test score data for the 2007-2008 school year. 

Classroom Observations: In the first year of the study, trained classroom observers used a 

rubric designed to quantify evidence of best teaching practice in literacy lessons in 

639 classrooms. The observations focused on teachers responsible for English or language arts. 

Data 

Teacher Surveys: A teacher survey designed to measure the background of the study 

teachers, receipt of induction services and alternative support services, teacher attitudes, and 

mobility patterns was administered six times over four years. Response rates on teacher surveys 

ranged from 88 to 97 percent for the treatment group and 83 to 94 percent for the control group. 

Induction Support for Beginning Teachers 

To select a comprehensive induction program and program provider for the study, we issued a 

Request for Proposals (RFP) in 2004. The RFP specified that the induction program include several 

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 and selected ETS and NTC as the providers 

whose programs most closely met 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 

• Outreach to district and school-based administrators to educate them about program 

goals and to garner their systemic support for the program 

x 
Executive Summary 

xi 

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

districts in the study, with nine of the districts assigned to ETS, and the remaining eight to NTC. 

Staff from WestEd, a subcontractor for Mathematica, served on the implementation team and was 

charged with monitoring the implementation of the comprehensive induction services to help 

providers ensure fidelity to the core service model as well as identifying and helping address any 

implementation challenges that arose. 

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 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 two-year 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). During Years 1 and 2, the providers brought their 

respective mentors together for 8-12 days of training spread across 3 to 4 sessions during the 

summer and 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. All induction activities were voluntary for 

beginning teachers. 
Executive Summary 

xii 

We found that assignment to the treatment group changed the pattern of induction services 

reported by beginning teachers. Figures ES.1 and ES.2 summarize the timing and intensity of the 

program’s core support—mentoring—measured in minutes per week spent with mentors. Figure 

ES.1 presents data for one-year districts and Figure ES.2 presents data for two-year districts. The 

figures illustrate statistically significant differences between the treatment and control groups in 

weekly time spent with mentors during the intervention. Meeting time falls significantly for both 

treatment and control groups after the end of the intervention and treatment-control differences 

become statistically insignificant except for a significant negative difference in one-year districts in 

fall 2006. Mentoring is just one measure of induction support. We examined dozens of other 

measures and found similar patterns of support over time: 

• In one-year districts, both treatment and control teachers reported receiving 

substantial induction support. However, treatment teachers received more and 

different support than control teachers during the comprehensive induction 

program (their first year of teaching). For instance, relative to control teachers, 

treatment teachers were more likely to have an assigned mentor (90 versus 70 percent in 

fall 2005, p-value 0.000; 90 versus 72 percent in spring 2006, p-value 0.000) and spent 

more time per week meeting with their mentors (87 versus 67 minutes in fall 2005, 

p-value 0.007; 85 versus 68 minutes in spring 2006, p-value 0.039); these differences 

were all statistically significant. 

• In two-year districts, treatment and control teachers reported receiving 

substantial induction support as well. However, similar to the findings in oneyear districts, treatment teachers received more and different support than 

control teachers during the comprehensive induction program (their first two 

years of teaching). For instance, relative to control teachers, treatment teachers were 

more likely to have an assigned mentor (between fall 2005 and spring 2007, the percent 

of treatment teachers ranged from 80 to 96 and the percent of control teachers ranged 

from 34 to 79; p-values all 0.000) and spent more time per week meeting with their 

mentors (between fall 2005 and spring 2007, time spent by treatment teachers ranged 

from 79 to 124 minutes and the time spent by control teachers ranged from 41 to 

82 minutes; p-values ranged from 0.001 to 0.087); these differences were statistically 

significant with the exception of meeting time in spring 2006. 

• In their second year, immediately following the end of the comprehensive 

induction program, treatment teachers in one-year districts received less and 

different induction support than control teachers. For measures such as the 

percentage of teachers with an assigned mentor and time spent meeting with mentors 

per week, this reflects a significant drop in support among control teachers and an even 

larger significant drop in support among treatment teachers. A survey of teachers in 

one-year districts conducted in fall 2006 showed that there were statistically significant 

differences favoring the control teachers in several areas: for instance, treatment 

teachers were less likely than control teachers to have an assigned mentor (20 percent of 

treatment teachers versus 29 percent of control teachers, p-value 0.017) and spent less 

time per week meeting with their mentors (19 minutes for treatment teachers versus 

39 minutes for control teachers, p-value 0.002). No statistically significant differences 

favoring the treatment teachers were found. 
Executive Summary 

Figure ES.1. Treatment-Control Differences in Total Minutes Spent in Mentoring per Week: One-Year 

Districts 

Fall 2005* Spring 2006* Fall 2006* Fall 2007 Fall 2008

Source: Mathematica First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Induction Activities Surveys administered in fall 2005, 

spring 2006, fall 2006, fall 2007, and fall 2008 to all study teachers. 

Note: N=503 teachers in fall 2005, 499 teachers in spring 2006, 472 teachers in fall 2006, 426 teachers in fall 

2007, and 398 teachers in fall 2008. 

* Treatment-control difference is significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level. 

Figure ES.2. Treatment-Control Differences in Total Minutes Spent in Mentoring per Week: Two-Year 

Districts 

Fall 2005* Spring 2006 Fall 2006* Spring 2007* Fall 2007 Fall 2008

Source: Mathematica First, Second, Third, Fifth, and Sixth Induction Activities Surveys administered in fall 2005, 

spring 2006, fall 2006, fall 2007, and fall 2008 to all study teachers and Fourth Induction Activities 

Survey administered in spring 2007 to study teachers in two-year districts. 

Note: N=395 teachers in fall 2005, 386 teachers in spring 2006, 360 teachers in fall 2006, 372 teachers in 

spring 2007, 326 teachers in fall 2007, and 321 teachers in fall 2008. 

* Treatment-control difference is significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level. 

xiii 
Executive Summary 

xiv 

 

• In the third and fourth years of teaching, after the intervention ended for all 

districts, treatment and control teachers received similar levels of support. In 

both one- and two-year districts, there were statistically significant differences in fewer 

than 7 percent of the 134 measures we surveyed. 

Impacts on the Classroom 

To measure the effect of comprehensive induction in the classroom, we compared these 

outcomes for teachers in the treatment and control groups: (1) the use of best practices in teaching a 

literacy lesson and (2) standardized test scores for teachers’ students. For the classroom practices 

analysis, we focused on those teachers responsible for English language arts or literacy classes 

(698 teachers). For test score analyses, we focused on teachers in tested grades and subjects (about 

200 teachers per year). Results pertaining to literacy instruction do not necessarily apply to teachers 

of other subjects. Similarly, results for teachers in tested grades do not necessarily apply to teachers 

of other grades or subjects. 

Classroom Practices. We sent trained observers into treatment and control classrooms to 

administer the Diagnostic Classroom Observation (DCO) in spring 2006 (year 1 of the study). We 

observed literacy (or reading/language arts) lessons in 639 classrooms. Based on a set of 

16 indicators, observers scored teachers on a five-point scale, ranging from “no evidence” to 

“extensive evidence” of effective teaching practice. We produced summary scores by averaging the 

indicators within each of three domains. 

After controlling for teacher and school characteristics, we observed no statistically significant 

differences between treatment and control teachers’ performance on the three domains measured by 

the DCO: implementation of a literacy lesson, content of a literacy lesson, or classroom culture. 

Student Achievement. To measure impacts on student achievement we compared the test 

scores for students of treatment teachers at the end of the year (posttest) to those of control 

teachers, accounting for any preexisting differences in prior achievement (pretest) and background 

characteristics of students and teachers. We present results in this report for the teachers’ third year, 

the 2007–2008 school year.3

 This was the second year after the treatment ended in one-year districts, 

and the first year after the treatment ended in two-year districts. 

For one-year districts, the impacts on math and reading scores in the study’s third year were not 

significantly different from zero. For two-year districts, the impacts on math and reading scores were 

both positive and statistically significant. The results for the two-year districts, presented in Figure 

ES.3, show that comprehensive induction led to an increase in test scores of 11 percent of a 

standard deviation in reading, which is enough to move the average student from the 50th percentile 

up 4 percentile points, and an increase of 20 percent of a standard deviation in math scores, enough 

to move the average student up 8 percentile points. 

3 Results for the first year showed no overall impacts in either math or reading, as documented in an earlier report 

(Glazerman et al. 2008). In the second year, when we looked separately at one- and two-year districts, we continued to 

find no overall impacts in either subject (Isenberg et al. 2009). 
Executive Summary 

As specified in the study design (Glazerman et al. 2005), the eligible sample for the test score 

analysis was limited to teachers in tested grades and subjects. Because our design also aimed to 

account for preexisting differences in student achievement, we included only students who took 

both a pretest and posttest, thereby excluding the lowest tested grade. For example, in many 

districts, the lowest tested grade was grade 3. If we expand the sample of teachers and grades by not 

requiring test scores from the prior year (approximately doubling the number of teachers included in 

the analyses), we do not find an impact on math or reading scores in either one-year or two-year 

districts. However, the lack of data on students’ prior achievement produces a less precise estimate. 

This means that with the expanded sample we are less likely to detect a true impact if it exists, 

despite the larger sample size. 

Figure ES.3. Impacts on Test Scores, Year 3, (grades with current and prior year tests) 

0.01

0.11*

- 0.10

0.20*

- 0.15

- 0.10

- 0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

One- Year Districts Two- Year Districts

Effect Size

Reading

Math

Source: Mathematica analysis using data from the 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 school years provided 

by participating school districts; Mathematica Teacher Background Survey administered in fall 

2005 to all study teachers. 

Note: Data are regression adjusted and account for clustering of students within schools. N = 99 

teachers and 1,690 students in reading and 95 teachers and 1,629 students in math in oneyear districts; 74 teachers and 1,347 students in reading and 68 teachers and 1,198 students 

in math in two-year districts. 

*Treatment-control difference is significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level. 

xv 
Executive Summary 

xvi 

Impacts on the Teaching Workforce 

To measure the effect of comprehensive induction on the teacher workforce, we examined the 

impacts of comprehensive induction on (1) teachers’ attitudes that relate to career decisions, 

including their satisfaction with teaching and their feelings of preparedness to deal with different 

aspects of their jobs; (2) teachers’ mobility; and (3) the mix of teachers who decide to stay in the 

district. 

Teacher Attitudes. Using items from the induction activities surveys, we measured teachers’ 

feelings of satisfaction in 19 areas on a four-point scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very 

satisfied” and teachers’ feelings of preparedness in 13 areas on a four-point scale from “not at all 

prepared” to “very well prepared.” Factor analysis suggested that teacher satisfaction and teacher 

preparedness could be grouped into three categories each: satisfaction with (1) school, (2) class, and 

(3) career; and preparedness to (1) instruct, (2) work with students, and (3) work with others. 

Comprehensive induction did not make teachers feel more satisfied or prepared. Teachers from 

the treatment and control groups reported feelings of satisfaction and preparedness that differed by 

0.1 or less on the four-point scales at all points in time at which we measured these attitudes. These 

results are robust to alternate ways of aggregating the data, including rescaling the responses as 

binary variables and considering each original area of satisfaction or preparedness individually rather 

than combined into larger categories. 

Teacher Mobility. Comprehensive induction did not make beginning teachers more likely to 

stay in their schools, their districts, or the profession. To measure teacher mobility, we surveyed 

teachers annually to learn whether they were still teaching, and if so, where they were teaching. By 

the end of the study period, 69 percent of teachers in one-year districts and 63 percent of teachers in 

two-year districts were still teaching in their original district. Figures ES.4 and ES.5 illustrate the lack 

of statistically significant treatment-control differences. They show a set of survival curves that plot 

the percentage of teachers retained in their original district in each year of the study for the one-year 

districts (Figure ES.4) and two-year districts (Figure ES.5) separately by treatment status. 

The treatment group is represented by a solid line and the control group is represented by a 

dashed line. The differences were statistically insignificant at each time point in both one-year and 

two-year districts. When we conducted similar analyses of retention in the profession and the 

original school, we also found no significant treatment-control differences. For example, in terms of 

retention in the profession, 87 percent of teachers in one-year districts returned for a fourth year of 

teaching, with no significant difference between treatment and control teachers; 85 percent of 

teachers in two-year districts returned for a fourth year of teaching with the treatment-control 

difference being statistically insignificant. 

When we examined in more detail where the movers and leavers went, we still did not find 

significant differences between treatment and control group mobility patterns in one-year or twoyear districts. For example, statistically similar percentages of treatment and control teachers (about 

47 percent) stayed in the same school in one-year districts, whereas 15 percent moved within the 

district, 10 percent moved to a new district (including charter schools), and 5 percent moved to 

private schools. We examined the reasons teachers gave for moving to a teaching position outside 

their original school or for leaving the profession and again found no significant treatment-control 

differences. 
Executive Summary 

Figure ES.4. Survival Curve for One-Year Districts: Percentage Remaining in the District 

Source: Mathematica First, Second, and Third Teacher Mobility Surveys administered in fall 2006, fall 2007, and 

fall 2008 to all study teachers. 

Note: Data pertain to teachers in one-year districts participating in the study. N = 561 teachers in fall 2005, 500 

teachers in fall 2006, 476 teachers in fall 2007, and 417 teachers in fall 2008. 

Treatment-control differences are not significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level. 

Figure ES.5. Survival Curve for Two-Year Districts: Percentage Remaining in the District 

Source: Mathematica First, Second, and Third Teacher Mobility Surveys administered in fall 2006, fall 2007, and 

fall 2008 to all study teachers. 

Note: Data pertain to teachers in two-year districts participating in the study. N = 448 teachers in fall 2005, 382 

teachers in fall 2006, 364 teachers in fall 2007, and 345 teachers in fall 2008. 

Treatment-control differences are not significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level. 

xvii 
Executive Summary 

xviii 

We conducted sensitivity analyses to confirm the findings of no impacts on retention rates. To 

address concerns about potential bias introduced by which teachers respond to the surveys, we used 

a variety of alternative methods for defining mobility, defining the eligible sample, and estimating 

the impacts, and continued to find no impact on mobility for all plausible assumptions regarding 

survey nonrespondents. 

Composition of the Workforce. We investigated the impacts of comprehensive induction on 

the composition of the teaching force in the district to understand whether comprehensive 

induction raised the quality of teaching by encouraging the weakest teachers to leave or lowered it by 

discouraging the strongest ones from staying. To test this hypothesis, we used measures of teachers’ 

professional qualifications, classroom practice ratings from their first year, and student test data 

from the third year of teaching. 

We found similar levels of professional qualifications for treatment and control teachers who 

remained in their original district in their fourth year of teaching (“stayers”). Restricting the sample 

to stayers, we compared the average values of several teacher characteristics for treatment teachers 

to control teachers. The top panel of Table ES.1 shows results for one-year districts; Table ES.2 

shows results for two-year districts. For each teacher characteristic, we found no statistically 

significant difference between treatment stayers and control stayers. 

Similarly, when we measured teacher quality using classroom performance measures, 

comprehensive induction did not improve composition of the teacher workforce. The bottom 

panels of Tables ES.1 and ES.2 focus on performance measures. Restricting the sample to the 

stayers, treatment teachers did not exhibit stronger evidence than control teachers of effective 

classroom practices during the first year of the study. As shown in the bottom panel of Table ES.1, 

which refers to one-year districts, stayers in the control group outperformed stayers in the treatment 

group in raising students’ math test scores by a statistically significant margin in year 3. There was no 

significant difference in reading test scores. Results for two-year districts are shown in Table ES.2. 

Unlike the full group of teachers included in the analysis in the third year of the study, among stayers 

returning for a fourth year in their original district there was no significant difference between 

treatment and control teachers in reading or math. 

Association Between Levels of Induction Support and Outcomes 

To complement the experimental analysis, which was based on the random assignment of 

teachers to treatment and control groups, we conducted two correlational analyses. Correlational 

analyses should be interpreted with caution because they are not causal. Unlike with the randomized 

experiment that used variation in treatment status, the variation in induction services that we explore 

here can be caused by confounding factors that also explain teachers’ attitudes, workforce 

attachment, and effectiveness in the classroom. 

The first correlational analysis tests whether there is a relationship between the study outcomes 

and the level or intensity of induction services more generally. We exploit the natural variation in 

induction support that occurred across teachers within and between experimental groups to 

determine whether there is a relationship between the level of induction support and the study 

outcomes. We use the same sample (treatment and control) and the same regression methods as the 

experimental analyses, but instead of assignment to treatment status as the key explanatory variable, 

we used four measures of induction support based on the number of years the teacher had an 

assigned mentor and indices of the breadth, intensity, and instructional focus of induction services 

constructed from the survey data on induction activities. 
Executive Summary 

xix 

Table ES.1. Characteristics of District Stayers After Three Years, by Treatment Status (Percentages 

Except Where Noted): One-Year Districts 

Teacher Characteristic

Treatment 

Stayers

Control 

Stayers Difference P-value

Background Characteristic

College entrance exam score

(SAT combined score or equivalent)

1040 1013 27 0.325

Attended highly selective college 27.5 27.2 0.3 0.954

Major or minor in education 78.7 80.9 -2.1 0.665

Student teaching experience (weeks) 15.8 15.4 0.4 0.772

Highest degree Is master’s or doctorate 22.4 28.2 -5.8 0.311

Entered the profession through traditional 

four-year program

67.6 58.9 8.7 0.171

Certified (regular or probationary) 94.7 94.7 0.0 0.999

Career changer 14.5 12.8 1.7 0.682

Sample Size (Teachers) 148 139

Sample Size (Schools) 88 84

Year 1 Classroom Observation Score (on 1 to 5 

scale)

Content of a literacy lesson 2.3 2.6 -0.3* 0.024

Implementation of a literacy lesson 2.6 2.8 -0.2 0.151

Classroom culture 3.0 3.1 -0.1 0.607

Sample Size (Teachers) 100 94

Sample Size (Schools) 71 65

Year 3 Test Scores (standard deviation units)

Reading -0.27 -0.28 0.02 0.764

Math -0.26 -0.11 -0.15* 0.008

Sample Size (Teachers) 25 36

Sample Size (Schools) 23 29

Source: Mathematica analysis using data from the College Board and ACT, Inc.; data from the 2006-

2007 and 2007-2008 school years provided by participating school districts; Mathematica 

Third Teacher Mobility Survey administered in fall 2008 to all study teachers; Mathematica 

classroom observations conducted in spring 2006. 

Note: Data pertain to teachers in one-year districts participating in the study. Data are weighted to 

account for the study design. The analysis of college entrance exam scores relied on a smaller 

sample (84 treatment and 86 control teachers and 61 treatment and 62 control schools). The 

analysis of Year 3 Test Scores relied on a different sample for reading (26 treatment and 

34 control teachers and 24 treatment and 27 control schools) and math (per table values). 

*Significantly different from zero at the 0.05 level. 
Executive Summary 

xx 

Table ES.2. Characteristics of District Stayers After Three Years, by Treatment Status (Percentages 

Except Where Noted): Two-Year Districts 

Teacher Characteristic

Treatment 

Stayers

Control 

Stayers Difference P-value

Background Characteristic

College entrance exam scores 

(SAT combined score or equivalent)

905 935 -30 0.330

Attended highly selective college 23.7 21.4 2.3 0.703

Major or minor in education 67.8 66.6 1.2 0.874

Student teaching experience (weeks) 12.3 12.3 0.1 0.975

Highest degree Is master’s or doctorate 16.7 10.2 6.5 0.196

Entered the profession through traditional 

four-year program

61.1 66.4 -5.4 0.443

Certified (regular or probationary) 95.8 92.9 2.9 0.366

Career changer 17.1 11.7 5.4 0.292

Sample Size (Teachers) 124 93

Sample Size (Schools) 67 52

Year 1 Classroom Observation Score (on 1 to 5 

scale)

Content of a literacy lesson 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.690

Implementation of a literacy lesson 2.7 2.6 0.1 0.583

Classroom culture 3.1 3.1 0.1 0.624

Sample Size (Teachers) 87 62

Sample Size (Schools) 50 41

Year 3 Test Scores (standard deviation units)

Reading -0.23 -0.27 0.05 0.302

Math -0.12 -0.24 0.11 0.054

Sample Size (Teachers) 31 16

Sample Size (Schools) 21 14

Source: Mathematica analysis using data from the College Board and ACT, Inc.; data from the 2006-

2007 and 2007-2008 school years provided by participating school districts; Mathematica 

Third Teacher Mobility Survey administered in fall 2008 to all study teachers; Mathematica 

classroom observations conducted in spring 2006. 

Note: Data pertain to teachers in two-year districts participating in the study. Data are weighted to 

account for the study design. The analysis of college entrance exam scores relied on a smaller 

sample (56 treatment and 47 control teachers and 40 treatment and 35 control schools). The 

analysis of Year 3 Test Scores relied on a different sample for reading (33 treatment and 

17 control teachers and 24 treatment and 15 control schools) and math (per table values). 

None of the differences is statistically significant at the 0.05 level. 
Executive Summary 

xxi 

The relationships between induction support and student achievement were mixed: statistically 

significant (positive) and statistically insignificant. For math, there were both positive, statistically 

significant associations and statistically insignificant associations. For reading, there were only 

statistically insignificant associations. 

Beginning teachers who received more induction support reported being more satisfied, on 

average, than those who received less. Induction intensity and instructional focus stood out as the 

two aspects of support that were positively related to teacher attitudes. The relationship of induction 

services to teachers’ reported feelings of preparedness exhibited a similar pattern but with only one 

statistically significant relationship (induction intensity). These feelings of satisfaction and 

preparedness did not translate into better retention. None of the four measures of beginning teacher 

support was related to retention in the district or in the profession. 

In the second correlational analysis, we examined whether better outcomes are associated with 

matching between the mentor and mentee on two dimensions, race/ethnicity and grade. We 

conducted this analysis using only the treatment group, which is the part of the sample for which we 

have detailed information on mentor background. 

Beginning teachers who had the same race/ethnicity as their mentor or taught the same grade 

as had their mentor had lower rates of retention in the district and in the profession than those who 

did not have such a match. This contradicts the hypothesis that better matching would produce 

better outcomes. When we examined the other two outcomes, teacher attitudes and student 

achievement, we found no evidence of a statistically significant relationship with a mentor match. 
Executive Summary 

xxii 

REFERENCES 

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

Teachers. New York: Carnegie Corporation, 2004. 

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. 

Darling-Hammond, Linda. “Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of 

State Policy Evidence.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, vol. 8 , no. 1, 2000. 

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, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, 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, 

September 2005. 

Ingersoll, Richard M., and Thomas M. Smith. “Do Teacher Induction and Mentoring Matter?” 

NASSP Bulletin, vol. 88, no. 638, 2004, pp. 28-40. 

Ingersoll, Richard, and Thomas M. Smith. “The Wrong Solution to the Teacher Shortage.” 

Educational Leadership, vol. 60, 2003, pp. 30-33. 

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. 

Isenberg, Eric, Steven Glazerman, Martha Bleeker, Amy Johnson, Julieta Lugo-Gil, Mary Grider, 

Sarah Dolfin, and Edward Britton. Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results from the Second 

Year of a Randomized Controlled Study (NCEE 2009-4072). Washington, DC: National Center for 

Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 

Department of Education, 2009. 

Kauffman, David, Susan Moore Johnson, Susan M. Kardos, Edward Liu, and Heather G. Peske. 

“‘Lost at Sea’: New Teachers’ Experiences with Curriculum and Assessment.” Teachers College 

Record, vol. 104, no. 2, 2002, pp. 273-300. 

Kelly, Linda Molner. “Why Induction Matters.” Journal of Teacher Education, vol. 55, no. 5, winter 

2004, pp. 438-448.

King, M. Bruce, and Fred M. Newmann. “Will Teacher Learning Advance School Goals?” Phi Delta 

Kappan, vol. 81, no. 8, 2000, pp. 576-580. 
Executive Summary 

xxiii 

Serpell, Zewelanji, and Leslie 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. 
Acknowledgments 

xxiv