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

3

Research Question

How does state policy influence the development and quality of local induction programs?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

15

Overall Findings: State Level

•Critical state policy levers:Link between teacher induction and teacher licensureInduction program standards and program networksState 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 focusDedicated state funding

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 supporthold programs togetherintegrate programs into school culture

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 inductionEvaluations that can both track program data over time and identify the most effective programsData that can be used to identify specific local program needs

18

Questions?

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