Rep presentation octeo_3_31

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


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


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



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


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


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


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 [email protected] Cox [email protected] Lewis [email protected]

Debbie [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]










Rep presentation octeo_3_31

Education

Transcript of Rep presentation octeo_3_31