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

1. Insert Single Funder
Logo
New Teacher Excellence:
The Impact of State Policy
on Induction Program Implementation
Lisa Lachlan-Hache, Ed.D.,
Liam Goldrick, M.P.P., and Molly Lasagna
April 15, 2012

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, Illinois
2

3. Research Question
How does state policy influence the
development and quality of local
induction programs?
3

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 practice
4

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 programs
5

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 practices
6

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 grantee
7

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 turnover
8

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 region
9

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. 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 program
11

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. 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 licensure
13

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
programs
14

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 funding
15

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 culture
16

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
needs
17

18. Questions?
18

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.org
19