Post on 19-Feb-2017
Similarities and Differences among
Ohio’s Newest Teachers
Ohio Confederation of Teacher Education Organizations
Spring 2016
Presentation OverviewORE Program Evaluation OverviewOOhio New Teacher Demographics, Mobility, and RetentionONew Teachers’ Perceptions of Professional Support and Collaboration ONew Teachers’ Perceptions About and Impacts on Instructional Practice
Evaluation OverviewOEvaluation TeamORE Program
Theory and Goals
OEvaluation FociOEvaluation
Activities
Resident Educator Program Evaluation Team Miami University, : Discovery Center
Dr. Sarah Woodruff, Chris Cox, Dr. Queenie Nian
University of Cincinnati, Evaluation Services Center:Dr. Debbie Zorn, Dr. Julie Morrison and Dr. Julia DeGreg
Ohio University, Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs: Dr. Marsha Lewis and Margaret Hutzel
Resident Educator Program Theory and Goals
The Ohio RE Program has been designed to:• improve teacher
retention, • enhance teacher
quality and effectiveness, and
• result in improved student achievement.
Resident Educators and RE Mentors
develop supportive relationships and
collaboratively engage in cycles of inquiry to
reflect on and improve practice, strategically
using data and resources with principal and
school/district active support.
Program Evaluation FociEvaluation
Focus Overarching Evaluation Questions
Implementation Fidelity and Compliance
To what extent did the State develop an infrastructure and provide support to facilitate faithful implementation of local RE Programs, and how did schools, districts, REs, RE Mentors, and principals utilize State support to implement effective local RE Programs?
Implementation Quality and Effectiveness
To what extent were the State RE Program and local RE Programs implemented with quality as perceived by RE Program stakeholders, including REs, RE Mentors, and principals?
Implementation Influence and Impact
What were the nature and extent of State and local RE Programs’ impact on local policy, procedures, and practices regarding support for new educators, and impact on REs’, RE Mentors’, and principals’ effectiveness as educators?
Implementation Scale-up and Sustainability
What are the benefits and trade-offs for the State, for schools and districts, and for REs, RE Mentors, and principals of sustaining the Ohio RE Program in its current form?
6
Evaluation ActivitiesOSurveys O Interviews OAnalyses of CORE DatabaseOObservations OCase Study of Sample of
Districts/SchoolsOStudy of RE-RE Mentor DyadsOStudy of RE Program Impact on
Teachers, Students, and Schools (in progress)
Ohio New Teacher Demographics, Mobility, and Retention
Ohio’s New Teachers
O 30,504 new teachers entered Ohio schools between Fall 2011 and Fall 2015
Year Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Cohort 4 Cohort 5 Total% Completing
Program Requirements
2011-2012 4116 4116 97 %
2012-2013 3675 5662 9337 97 %
2013-2014 3499 5146 6989 15634 97 %
2014-2015 3397 4872 6413 6708 21390 97 %
2015-2016 3442 4466 6111 6147 7029 24560 --
Resident Educator Program Participation
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-20164116
9337
15634
2139024560
Number of Teachers in Resident Educator
Program
2,635 new teachers have successfully completed the RE Program and are no longer registered as REs
Resident Educator Program Participation
O By Spring 2015, 20% of Ohio’s teachers were Resident Educators
O Among schools and districts studied by the evaluation, between 13% and 65% of teachers were Resident Educators, and between 22% and 91% of all educators were involved directly in the RE Program (i.e., RE, RE Mentor, RESA Facilitator)
New Teacher Demographics
O 77% are WomenO 92% are White; 3.5% are African
American; 1.5 % are HispanicO 11% teach PreK; 23% Grades K-3; 48%
Grades 4-7; and 18% teach Grades 9-12O 15% teach ELA; 17% teach math; 13%
science; 11% social studies; 16% are intervention specialists
O 83% were prepared at an Ohio college/university; 10% out-of-state; and 7% via alternative licensure pathways
Entering Fall 2011 – Fall 2015
First-year Teachers’ Schools
O 30% teach in suburban schools; 34% in urban schools; 31% in rural schools; and 5% teach in other settings
O 84% teach in public schools; 14% in non-public schools; and 2% in other settings
O 54% teach in schools with fewer than 500 students
O Average class size is between 21 and 30 students
Entering Fall 2011 – Fall 2015
New Teachers’ First Workplace
2011 2012 2013 2014 20150
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000Workplace of First-year Teachers 2011-2015
OtherCTCESCNon-PublicCommunityDistrict
School Year
Num
ber o
f Firs
t-yea
r Tea
cher
s
Entering Fall 2011 – Fall 2015
Teachers’ Plans after First Year of Teaching
My future plans are to… 2012 (n = 1889)
2013(n = 944)
2014(n = 2815)
2015(n = 2646)
Stay in my current position 67% 69% 69% 67%
Move to another grade level or content area but continue teaching 12% 11% 11% 13%
Leave the profession 1% 1% 1% 1%
Move to another school within the district 2% 3% 2% 3%
Move to another school outside of the district 13% 13% 12% 15%
Move to a non-teaching position within my school 1% 1% 1% 1%
Future Plans of Cohort 1 REs
Spring 2012
Spring 2013
Spring 2014
Fall 2014 before RESA
2015 after RESA
Took RESA
Did not take RESA
Stay in my current position 67% 64% 70% 70% 70% 66%
Move to another grade/content area 12% 12% 8% 8% 5% 0%
Leave the profession 1% 2% 3% 3% 4% 13%Move to another school within the district
3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 0%
Move to another school outside of the district
13% 15% 12% 12% 11% 8%
Move to a non-teaching position with my school
< 1% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3%
Agreement with the Statement
I feel effective in my teaching 97% 96% 95% 93% 96% 95%
Cohort 1 Future Plans 2012 - 2015
New Teacher Mobility 2011-2015
First-year of Teaching
Never Changed LEA
Changed LEA
% who changed LEA
2011-2012 2710 1406 34.2%2012-2013 3766 1896 33.5%2013-2014 5108 1881 26.9%2014-2015 5597 1111 16.6%2015-2016 7029 N/A N/A
Total 24210 6294 20.6%
New Teacher Retention 2011-2015
First year of Teaching
Retained after 1
year
Retained after 2 years
Retained after 3 years
Retained after 4 years
2011-2012 89% 85% 82% 84%
2012-2013 91% 86% 79%
2013-2014 92% 87%
2014-2015 92%
New Teacher Retention
Entering Class of 2011
66%
18%
16%
New Teacher Retention and Mobility 2011-2015
Teaching in Same DistrictTeaching in Dif -ferent DistrictNot Teaching in Ohio
Initial n = 4116
New Teacher Retention
Entering Class of 2012
67%
12%
21%
New Teacher Retention and Mobility 2012-2015
Teaching in Same DistrictTeaching in Dif -ferent DistrictNot Teaching in Ohio
Initial n = 5662
Perceptions of Professional Support
and Collaboration
New Teacher Mentoring and Learning CommunitiesO20% of new teachers received a
combination of one-to-one and cohort mentoring during first year of teaching
O70% of new teachers met weekly or bi-weekly with their mentors for 30 min to 1 hour
OMore than 50% of new teachers reported that their mentors significantly impacted their decisions to remain in the profession
Entering Fall 2011 – Fall 2015
First-year Teacher Mentoring
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
District/School Type # of REs RE/M
Ratio# of REs RE/M
Ratio# of REs
RE/M Ratio
# of REs
RE/M Ratio
# of REs
RE/M Ratio
District 2491 1.3 3501 1.2 4667 1.3 4345 1.2 4807 1.3
Community 795 2.2 1155 2.5 1226 2.3 1212 2.3 980 2.2
Non-Public 497 1.3 567 1.3 613 1.3 610 1.3 657 1.4
ESC 161 1.3 207 1.4 241 1.3 236 1.4 244 1.4
CTC 132 1.2 123 1.2 142 1.1 136 1.2 151 1.2
Other 40 1.5 109 1.5 100 1.4 169 1.9 190 2.1
Total 4116 1.4 5662 1.4 6989 1.4 6708 1.4 7029 1.4
Entering Fall 2011 – Fall 2015
New Teachers’ Time with Mentors
1. Classroom management2. Goal setting3. Discussing mentor
observation of teaching4. Emotional support5. Differentiating instruction
Instructional Supports Provided by Mentors
Assists me in developing a repertoire of instructional strategies
Provides me with strategies to help me understand and deliver the curriculum
Provides me with strategies to use student data to guide instruction
Provides opportunities for me to assess and reflect on my practice
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Types of Instructional Support for New Teachers
2014 2013 2012
Teacher CollaborationO Educators involved in RE Programs at their schools
had better perceptions of teacher collaboration than did non-REP colleagues.
O REP participants’ views of collaborative teaming, data-based decision-making, teacher-driven and embedded professional development, and participative leadership focused on teaching and learning were significantly more positive (p < .05) than were views of their non-REP colleagues.
O As % of educators involved in REP increased so did the staffs’ positive perceptions of teacher collaborative culture with regard to an interdependent culture based on trust.
Principal Support for New Teachers
O Since 2011, 87-95% of new teachers report that principals visit their classrooms fewer than 10 times each year
O Since 2011, nearly 50% of mentors report that they do not meet to discuss the needs of new teachers with their principals
Improved Organizational Support
for New TeachersO Increased formality to induction
O Greater focus on instruction
O More meaningful and direct conversations
O More rigor
O Less variance in induction experiences within and across schools
O Greater collaboration between new teachers and mentors
O More consistent support for new teachers
Improved Organizational Support
for New TeachersO Aligned RE
Program to OTES
O Provided and supported state-trained mentors
O Gave greater attention to new teacher assignment
Entering Fall 2011 – Fall 2014
Support for New Teachers
REs’ perceptions of the quality of supports received were correlated with the % of district REs who successfully completed all 5 RESA tasks in 2013-2014.
O Supports significantly correlated with RESA success:
Mentor Match (RE and Mentor teach same grade/content area and/or in same building)Mentor Quality focused on Instructional Practice was more highly correlated with RESA success than was Mentor Quality focused on Relationships
Support for New TeachersRE Program Component
Schools with Better Perceptions of Support
Schools with Less Positive Perceptions of Support
Principal Engagement
Suburban and Rural schoolsLarger schools (> 2,000 students)Elementary schoolsCommunity schools and CTE Centers
Urban schoolsSmaller schools (<750 students)Middle/junior high schools
Mentor MatchSuburban and Rural schools Multi-grade schoolsCommunity schools
Urban schoolsPre-K schools
Mentor Collaboration
Multi-grade schoolsNon-public schools and Community schools
Very small schools (< 250 students)Pre-K schools
Mentor Quality – Instructional
Suburban and Rural schools Multi-grade and middle/junior high schools
Non-public schools and Community schools
Urban schoolsVery small schools (< 250 students)
Mentor Quality – Relationships
Suburban and Rural schoolsMulti-grade and middle/junior high schools
Non-public schools and Community schools
Urban schools
Perceptions About and Impacts on Instructional Practice
Agreement with Statement 2012 2013 Spring
2014Fall 2014
before RESA
2015 after RESA
Took RESA
Did not take RESA
I feel effective in my teaching 97% 96% 95% 93% 96% 95%
New Teachers’ Views of their Effectiveness
No measurable differences in REs’ perceptions of their own teaching effectiveness based on whether they passed all RESA tasks on the first attempt (M = 4.32) or were retaking tasks (M = 4.30) in 2014-2015.
New Teachers’ Reported Improvement in Teaching
Practice
2012 2013 20140%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
A great deal
Quite a bit
Some
Hardly any
At the end of first year of teaching
New Teachers’ Reports of Improved Teaching
PracticeInterviews suggest participation in the RE Program improved REs’ confidence in teaching and leadership
“I’m definitely more confident now ... and I think it has a lot to do with it [REP]. It has helped me realize that I
am a better teacher than I think sometimes.”
“My lesson plans have been restructured more fully. I now use a more consistent schedule, largely because
the [REP] shaped my thinking about my lessons.”
Evidence of Improved Instruction
O Use of assessments
O Differentiated instruction
O Use of data O PlanningO Enhanced range
of instructional strategies
O Self-confidence O Ability to reflect O Higher
expectationsO CreativityO Collaboration O Resourcefulness
New teachers, their mentors, and principals provided specific examples of how REs’ instruction had improved:
Evidence of Improved Instruction
Review of a sample of new teachers’ RE Program documentation found that about one-third of the reviewed samples included evidence of projects and planning demonstrating substantial progress in understanding: 1. How students learn and 2. How to individualize instruction
Implications for Teacher Educators?
Implications for Teacher Educators
O New teachers are required to reflect on and base instructional decisions on evidence. What opportunities does my program provide pre-service teachers to do so?
O Responsibility for instructional support of new teachers has broadened to include more members of the school community. How does my program prepare pre-service teachers to develop professional networks for collaboration and support?
Implications for Teacher Educators
O Expectations for teachers’ professional practice have expanded to include a range of activities beyond teaching content. Does my program provide a sufficiently diverse range of experiences to fully develop pre-service teachers professional practice?
To learn more about the Resident Educator
Program EvaluationSarah Woodruffsbwoodruff@miamioh.eduChristopher Cox chris.cox@miamioh.eduMarsha Lewis lewism5@ohio.edu
Debbie Zornzorndl@ucmail.uc.eduJulia DeGregdegregja@mail.uc.eduMargaret HutzelHutzel@ohio.edu