2012 AERA Presentation


Published on

New Teacher Excellence: The Impact of State Policy on Induction Program Implementation -- While scholars have argued and research demonstrates that intensive induction support can increase teacher effectiveness, satisfaction and retention, there is little consensus around which specific policy levers have an influence on quality mentoring and induction programs and even less research to explain the growth and development of induction programs that have little or no state policy support.

This paper explores the intersection between state induction policy and local induction program implementation and examines the question: How does state policy impact the development and quality of local induction programs?

Full paper available here: http://www.newteachercenter.org/products-and-resources/new-teacher-excellence-impact-state-policy-induction-program-implementation

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2012 AERA Presentation

  1. 1. Insert Single Funder LogoNew Teacher Excellence:The Impact of State Policyon Induction Program ImplementationLisa Lachlan-Hache, Ed.D.,Liam Goldrick, M.P.P., and Molly LasagnaApril 15, 2012
  2. 2. Purpose of Research Study (2009–2010) • Funded by the Joyce Foundation • Explored the intersection between state induction policy and local induction program implementation • Examined these intersections in three states: California, Hawaii, Illinois2
  3. 3. Research Question How does state policy influence the development and quality of local induction programs?3
  4. 4. Study Design • Multimethod analysis of state-level policy and “on-the-ground” induction practice in the three states • Analysis focused on the following:  Unique aspects of policy-practice relationship  Induction program improvement  Effects of state policy on local induction practice4
  5. 5. What Is Policy? • For the purposes of this study, the term policy refers to all aspects of state efforts to legislate and implement teacher induction.  Formal policies (statutes, regulations, program standards)  Funding streams and their respective requirements  Infrastructure (including mentor training and program accountability) designed to support the statewide policy and the local implementation of programs5
  6. 6. Methods • District program surveys • District program leader interviews • State program leader interviews • Literature reviews  All data collected and synthesized to create case studies of the three states’ policies and practices6
  7. 7. Highlights of State Induction Policies (as of 2009–2010) • California  Induction Program Standards  Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment (BTSA) • Illinois  State-funded programs/pilot • Hawaii  Nonmandatory, flexible state policy  Race to the Top Phase II grantee7
  8. 8. California: Unique Aspects of Relationship • Instrumental to progress:  Funding and support from the state  Tied to Professional Clear Credential  Induction program standards  State-run program visits • Urban districts face ills beyond the remedy of induction:  Service economy model  Teacher turnover8
  9. 9. California: Findings and Recommendations • Provide program improvement support • Use outcome data to demonstrate the impact of induction • Initiate intensive interventions in districts with underperforming induction programs • Streamline the delivery of induction programs in each region9
  10. 10. Illinois: Unique Aspects of Relationship • Some programs ISBE-funded, others not  Those funded by ISBE must follow ISBE guidelines, program standards - Must include a mentoring component • Identified benefits of ISBE funding  High level of state support  Training and program network • Identified challenges to ISBE funding  Too prescriptive • On impetus behind programs, ISBE programs reported that the grant-writing process to secure funding was the driving force.10
  11. 11. Illinois: Findings and Recommendations • Develop statewide program requirements  Use state induction program standards to offer more consistent alignment of local programs • Eliminate unnecessary state program restrictions • Require more rigorous evaluation • Examine the needs of nonfunded districts to enable and encourage their participation in the state program11
  12. 12. Hawaii: Unique Aspects of Relationship • Move toward program standards, dedicated funding (Title II dollars) have helped induction find prominence • Nonmandatory, flexible state policy  Allows for tailored and targeted design (specific to cultural characteristics)  Detrimental to complex areas that need more scaffolding and guidance  Some struggle to implement shared language and common goals • State guidelines and networks have had mixed effects for complex areas with long-standing programs.12
  13. 13. Hawaii: Findings and Recommendations • Leverage federal program dollars in helpful ways  Race to the Top  Title II • Implement induction program standards • Provide greater state support and capacity building for emerging programs • Require more rigorous evaluation to inform program improvement and strengthen state policy • Link teacher induction to licensure13
  14. 14. Overall Findings: State Level • Mandating induction, providing funding, implementing program standards, and requiring some level of accountability appear to increase the prevalence of comprehensive programs • The presence of state induction policy heightens the likelihood that schools and district will provide support to new teachers • There is not a one-to-one relationship between state policy and presence or quality of induction programs14
  15. 15. Overall Findings: State Level •Critical state policy levers: Link between teacher induction and teacher licensure Induction program standards and program networks State program infrastructure -Supports state policy vision -Focuses on program quality -Secures induction as an important element of human capital development State evaluations that broaden the program focus Dedicated state funding15
  16. 16. Overall Findings: District Level •Support from district and school leaders is critical to the successful implementation, sustainability, and overall outcomes of induction programs •Supportive local leadership can: overcome a dearth of state policy support hold programs together integrate programs into school culture16
  17. 17. Overall Findings: District Level •Critical district policy levers: Broad stakeholder commitment -Result: Trained and supported superintendents, principals, school boards, and induction program leaders Collective vision of high-quality, instructionally-focused new teacher induction Evaluations that can both track program data over time and identify the most effective programs Data that can be used to identify specific local program needs17
  18. 18. Questions?18
  19. 19. Insert Single Funder Logo Lisa Lachlan-Hache, Ed.D. P: 202.403.6214 E-Mail: llachlan@air.org Liam Goldrick, M.P.P. P: 608.345.6044 E-Mail: lgoldrick@newteachercenter.org Molly Lasagna P: 202.403.6215 E-Mail: mlasagna@air.org Website: www.air.org Website: www.newteachercenter.org19