DEPARTMENT OF EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY FINAL EVALUATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL

DEPARTMENT OF EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY FINAL EVALUATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL
Dallas Independent School District
FINAL EVALUATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL
PREPARATION AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS
2005-2006
EA06-177-2
DEPARTMENT OF
EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Michael Hinojosa, Ed. D.
General Superintendent
FINAL EVALUATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION AND SUPPORT PROGRAM
2005-2006
REIS06-177-2
Michelle Leake, MPA
Approved Report of the Department of Evaluation and Accountability
Robert L. Mendro, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent
Research and Evaluation
Nancy Kihneman, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Special Projects Evaluation
Cecilia Oakeley, Ph.D.
Associate Superintendent
Evaluation and Accountability
Dallas, Texas
November 2006
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………….
1
Program Description……………………………………………………………………………...
2
Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation………………………………………………………….
2
Major Evaluation Questions and Results………………………………………………………
3
2.1 How Satisfied were Campuses with T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers
Services?................................................................................................................
3
2.2 What was the Classroom Effectiveness of Teachers who Received Services
from Professional Preparation and Support?..........................................................
29
2.2.1 How Effective were Beginning Teachers?........................................
30
2.2.2 How Effective were Alternative Certification Interns?.......................
32
2.2.3 How Effective were Teachers who Received T3 Services?..............
33
2.3 What were the Program Outcomes for Other New Teacher Support and
Development Programs?........................................................................................
35
2.3.1 What were the Program Outcomes for the Ready, Set, Prep
Seminars?..................................................................................................
36
2.3.2 What were the Program Outcomes for Beginning Teacher
Institute?.....................................................................................................
41
2.3.3 What were the Program Outcomes for the New Teacher Center?...
50
2.3.4 What were the Program Outcomes for Grow Your Own?.................
55
2.3.5 What were the Program Outcomes for Advanced Study?................
55
2.3.6 What were the Program Outcomes for Hire Your Own?...................
57
2.3.7 What were the Program Outcomes for Future Educator Programs?
57
2.4 What were the Program Outcomes for Other Alternative Certification
Programs?...............................................................................................................
58
2.4.1 What were the Program Outcomes for the Alternative Certification
School Counseling Program?....................................................................
59
2.4.2 What were the Program Outcomes for the Alternative Certification
Teacher Academy?....................................................................................
65
2.5 How Satisfied were Beginning Teachers with Campus Mentoring Services?
74
2.6 To what Degree did Campus Environmental Factors Influence Beginning
Teacher Satisfaction?............................................................................................
86
2.7 What were the Retainable Attrition Rates for Teachers Served Through the
Professional Preparation and Support Programs?.................................................
96
2.8 How Satisfied were Student Teachers with the Student Teaching Program?
100
i
Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………...
130
Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………
134
Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………
137
A: Beginning Teacher Institute Participants’ Retainable Attrition and
Classroom Effectiveness, 2002 – 2005………………………….…………..
139
B: Universities Attended by Former Student Teachers Hired by the
District……………………………………………………………………………
145
C: New Teacher Support and Development Workshops, 2005-2006…….
149
D: Recruitment Types, Locations, and Number of Contacts for the
Alternative Certification Program, 2005-2006……………………………….
153
E: New Teacher Comprehensive Survey, 2005-2006……………………...
161
F: Student Teacher Surveys: Pre-test, Post-test, and Cooperating
Teacher Evaluation…………………………………………………………….
177
G: T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers Coach Surveys………………………
189
H: New Teacher Center Survey………………………………………………
197
ii
List of Tables
Page
Table
1
Areas of Concentration Requested for Instructional Coaching, by Frequency
and Percent of Cases, 2005-2006
5
2
Most Frequently Cited Comment from the Instructional Coach Feedback
Forms, by Category of Comment, 2005-2006
9
3
Areas of Concentration Requested for Instructional Coaching, by Frequency
and Percent of Cases, by School Year
10
4
Most Frequently Cited Comment from the Instructional Coach Feedback
Forms, by Category of Comment, 2004-2006
11
5
Number of Percent of Campus Requests for T3 Services by Area
14
6
Number of Veteran Teachers Who Received T3 Services in 2005-2006, by
Campus
15
7
Primary Classroom Assignments of High School Veteran Teachers Receiving
T3 Assistance
16
8
Primary Classroom Assignments of Middle School Veteran Teachers Receiving
T3 Assistance
16
9
Primary Classroom Assignments of Elementary School Veteran Teachers
Receiving T3 Assistance
17
10
Number of Novice Teachers Who Received T3 Services in 2005-2006, by High
School Campus
18
11
Primary Classroom Assignments of High School Novice Teachers Receiving T3
Assistance
19
12
Number of Novice Teachers Who Received T3 Services in 2005-2006, by
Middle School Campus
20
13
Primary Classroom Assignments of Middle School Novice Teachers Receiving
T3 Assistance
20
14
Number of Novice Teachers Who Received T3 Services in 2005-2006, by
Elementary School Campus
21
15
Primary Classroom Assignments of Elementary School Novice Teachers
Receiving T3 Assistance
22
16
Certification Type of Teachers Served, Including DISD AC Intern Phase
23
17
Areas of Support Covered During T3 Services
24
iii
18
Activities Covered During T3 Visits
25
19
Impact of Number of Days of Service on Satisfaction Indicators
28
20
Mean 2004-2005 CEI Scores for All Beginning Teachers by Subject
30
21
Mean 2004-2005 CEI Scores for All Beginning Teachers by School Level
30
22
Comparison of Mean CEI Scores between 2002-2003 DISD AC Interns and
Traditionally Certified Beginning Teachers
31
23
Comparison of Mean CEI Scores between 2003-2004 DISD AC Interns and
Traditionally Certified Beginning Teachers
31
24
Comparison of Mean CEI Scores between 2004-2005 DISD AC Interns and
Traditionally Certified Beginning Teachers
32
25
Mean 2004-2005 CEI Scores for DISD AC Interns by Phase
33
26
Mean 2004-2005 CEI Scores for Teachers Served by the T3 Program
34
27
Mean CEI Scores for Middle School Teachers Served by the T3 Program
35
28
Mean CEI Scores for Teachers Served by the T3 Program by School Level
35
29
Number of Ready, Set, Prep Attendees by Campus
37
30
Campuses with the Highest Number of Teachers Invited but Not Attending
Ready, Set, Prep Workshops
38
31
Primary Teaching Assignments of Ready, Set, Prep Attendees
39
32
Beginning Teacher Institute Participants in 2005-2006, by Campus, Classroom
Assignment, and Project Title
41
33
Beginning Teacher Institute Participants’ Perceptions of How Participation
Helped Improve Teaching Skills, Area of Improvement
44
34
Beginning Teacher Institute Participants’ Perceptions of Confidence gained
Due to Participation, by Area of Concentration
44
35
Keyword Reponses Regarding Participants’ Perceptions of Facilitators
45
36
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Experiences in Proposing and
Completing Their Grant Proposals and Projects
46
37
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Processes in Creating and
Presenting Their Portfolios
47
38
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Views of the Most Useful/Most
Helpful/Most Valued Components of the Beginning Teacher Institute
47
39
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Views of the Least Useful/Least
Helpful/Least Valued Components of the Beginning Teacher Institute
48
iv
40
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Requests for Follow-Up Activities
in 2006-2007
48
41
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Perceptions of How the Beginning
Teacher Institute Impacted Students and Their Learning
49
42
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Perceptions Whether Participation
in the Beginning Teacher Institute Influenced Their Decisions to Remain
Teaching in DISD
50
43
Top Frequent Campus Usage of the New Teacher Center
52
44
Stations where Usage Difficulties were Reported
54
45
Areas of Study and Graduation Status for Advanced Study Participants, 20052006
56
46
District Participation in Future Educator Organizations by School Level
57
47
Alternative Certification School Counselor Intern Placement, Total Number of
Counselors on Campus, and Student Ratio
60
48
Most Frequently Cited Factors Which Influenced Alternative Certification
Counselor Interns to Remain Employed with the District
61
49
Suggested Ways to Improve Counselor Retention
63
50
Certification Exam pass Rates for Alternative Certification Teacher Academy
Participants, by Academy Cohorts
67
51
Campus and Content Area Assignments for the Alternative Certification
Teacher Academy – Cohort 1
69
52
Campus and Content Area Assignments for the Alternative Certification
Teacher Academy – Cohort 2
71
53
Campus and Content Area Assignments for the Alternative Certification
Teacher Academy – Cohort 3
73
54
Campus and Content Area Assignments for the Alternative Certification
Teacher Academy – Cohort 4
74
55
Number of Mentors, Beginning Teachers, and Additional Year DISD Alternative
Certification Interns Assigned at Each Campus – High Schools
76
56
Number of Mentors, Beginning Teachers, and Additional Year DISD Alternative
Certification Interns Assigned at Each Campus – Middle Schools
77
57
Number of Mentors, Beginning Teachers, and Additional Year DISD Alternative
Certification Interns Assigned at Each Campus – Elementary Schools
78
58
Summary of Districtwide Mentor-to-Mentee Ratios
79
v
59
Number of Beginning Teachers per Mentor, by School Area and School Year,
2002-2006
82
60
Providers of Assistance for Beginning Teachers, by Type of Service Provided
(Top Three Responses)
84
61
New Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Principals, by Survey Statement
87
62
Factors Impacting Beginning Teachers’ Decisions to Stay with the District
94
63
Frequency of Student Teachers Seeking Certification in One or More Critical
Needs Areas, by Percentage of Cases
101
64
Certification Exams Bilingual Student Teachers have Taken or Plan to Take, by
Percentage of Cases
103
65
Workshops Student Teachers Intended to Attend, by Percent of Cases
103
66
Intended Areas of Certification for Non-Bilingual Student Teachers
108
67
Areas of Certification Sought by Fall 2005 Student Teachers
112
68
Workshops Attended by Fall 2005 Student Teachers
112
69
Areas of Certification for Student Teachers Who were Offered Teaching
Positions with the District
113
70
Credentialing Status of Student Teachers Seeking Certification in Critical
Needs Areas
115
71
Workshop Attendance by Percent Attended and Recommended
117
72
Anticipated Employment Plans and Hiring Status of Student Teachers with
Critical Needs Certification
118
73
Student Teacher Rating of Cooperative Teachers’ Coverage of Areas of
Concern (fall 2005)
120
74
Student Teacher Rating of Cooperative Teachers’ Coverage of Areas of
Concern, 2004-2005
122
75
Student Teacher Rating of Cooperative Teachers’ Coverage of Areas of
Concern (spring 2006)
123
76
Areas of Certification Sought by DISD Graduates Completing Their Student
Teaching with the District (fall 2005)
128
77
Areas of Certification Sought by DISD Graduates Completing Their Student
Teaching with the District (spring 2006)
129
1C
New Teacher Support and Development Workshops, 2005-2006
151
1D
Recruitment Types, Locations, and Number of Contacts for the Alternative
Certification Program, 2005-2006
155
vi
List of Figures
Figure
Page
1
Campuses Served by Instructional Coaches, by Area and School Level
5
2
Number of Areas of Concentration Requested per Visit
6
3
Mean Number of Dates of Service Instructional Coaches Spent with Teachers
per Request, by Area of Concentration
7
4
Number of Areas of Concentration Requested per Visit, 2004-2006
10
5
Number of Teachers Served by Instructional Coaches, by Year and Time of
Service
13
6
Comparisons between Years of Teacher Experience of Survey Respondents
and All Teachers Receiving Instructional Coach Services, by Percent
14
7
Frequency of Usage for New Teacher Center Stations
53
8
Areas of Study for Grow Your Own Participants, 2003-2006
55
9
Areas of Study for Advanced Study Program Participants, 2003-2006
56
10
Number of Mentors in Each School Level, by School Year
80
11
Number of Mentees in Each School Level, by School Year
80
12
Ratio of Mentees to Each Trained Mentor, by School Year
81
13
Net Changes in Mentor-to-Mentee Ratio, by School Level and School Year
81
14
Beginning Teachers’ Perceptions of Departmental/Grade-Level Meetings
90
15
Sources of Advice for Beginning Teachers
91
16
Intended Length of Tenure for Survey Respondents, 2005-2006
95
17
Retainable Attrition Rates for Beginning Teachers by School Year
97
18
Retainable Attrition Rates for DISD Alternative Certification Interns by Cohort
Phase
98
19
Retainable Attrition Rates of Former DISD Student Teachers by Semester of
Student Teaching
99
20
Primary Benefit to Student Teaching, by Percent
102
21
Number of Days of Observation Student Teachers Felt They Needed Before
Taking Over the Classroom, Spring 2003 to Fall 2005, by Percent
105
22
Number of Student Teachers, by University Attended
106
vii
23
Number of Times Student Teachers Visited the New Teacher Center by
Percent
117
24
Number of Days Student Teachers Observed Cooperating Teachers Before
Taking Over Classrooms by Percent of Responses
125
1A
Retainable Attrition Rate for Beginning Teacher Institute Participants, 20022005
141
2A
Reasons for Separation from the District for BTI Participants
142
3A
Quintile Distribution for BTI Program Participants’ CEI Scores
143
1B
Universities Attended by Former Student Teachers Hired by the District
147
viii
EA06-177-2
FINAL REPORT
EVAULATION OF THE PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION AND SUPPORT PROGRAMS
2005-2006
Abstract
The evaluation of the Professional Preparation and Support Department
examined the impact of the department’s efforts upon the effectiveness, job
satisfaction, and attrition of the teachers whom the department served. In its
fourth school year of operation, the Professional Preparation and Support
Department continued to enjoy attrition levels of beginning teachers below those
experienced by the district prior to the department’s inception. The T3: Teachers
Teaching Teachers Program continued to help increase the classroom
effectiveness of the teachers it served. The Alternative Certification Department
introduced the Alternative Certification Teacher Academy to provide the district
with a pool of highly qualified teacher candidates. Academy participants
underwent the same training as teacher interns. Ninety percent of Academy
participants were eventually hired by campuses. Beginning teachers expressed
concerns over the effectiveness of their campus mentors. Higher percentages of
beginning teachers reported that their mentors were either unwilling, or unable to
meet with them on a regular basis. Experienced “buddy” teachers were widely
cited as support providers. Beginning teachers continued to request more
training and support with regard to paperwork and procedures. Teachers
reported receiving conflicting or inaccurate information from various campus
sources. Positive and frequent principal interaction invariably contributed to a
new teacher’s perception of a supportive campus environment. The more
frequently principals interacted with beginning teachers, the more likely these
teachers were to report their intentions to remain with the district. Student
teachers enjoyed the support provided through the Student Teaching Program.
The majority of student teachers seeking certification in critical needs areas
intended to seek employment. Since the paid teacher assistant program began
in fall 2003, all bilingual student teachers who have participated in the program
and were hired by the district as teachers have retained with the district
1
Program Description
The Professional Preparation and Support Department (formerly New Teacher Initiatives)
completed its fourth school year of operation. The New Teacher Support and Development
Department (NTSD) oversees various support initiatives for new teachers, including: districtwide
mentoring, intensive mentoring services, campus-based support teams, a centralized help center,
as well as several planned activities and workshops.
In addition, NTSD manages several
pre-service programs designed to prepare future educators for teaching in the district.
The
Alternative Certification Department (AC) administers the recruitment, training, certification, and
support for teacher interns selected for its program. For additional information regarding the
various program initiatives of the Professional Preparation and Support Department, please refer
to REIS03-177-2, REIS04-177-2, and REIS05-177-2.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION
The purpose of the evaluation is to provide context, implementation, and outcome data
for the various programs administered by the Professional Preparation and Support Department,
and to provide objective analysis of the quality of program implementation. Activities of the New
Teacher Support and Development Department and the Alternative Certification Department are
analyzed for their efforts to successfully recruit, prepare, support, and retain beginning teachers.
Data from prior years’ evaluations contribute to the continuation of longitudinal analyses of
beginning teacher satisfaction with DISD and student teacher satisfaction with the Student
Teaching Program administered by NTSD.
Beginning teacher classroom effectiveness is
examined along several dimensions, including comparisons between DISD AC interns and their
traditionally certified counterparts, comparisons among subject areas and grade levels, and the
subsequent attrition rates of beginning teachers, based upon their Classroom Effectiveness
Indices (CEI) score. Finally, the costs of teacher attrition are introduced and compared with the
benefits of the New Teacher Support and Development Program.
2
MAJOR EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND RESULTS
2.1 How Satisfied were Campuses with T3: Teachers Teaching
Teachers Services?
Methodology
Satisfaction with services provided through the T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers Program
was measured through two sources of evaluation: feedback forms provided by instructional
coaches to principals, campus mentors, and teachers served; and surveys sent out to all teachers
identified as having received T3 services in 2005-2006.
Feedback forms were faxed or mailed to the New Teacher Support and Development
Program; instructional coaches provided respondents with dates served and areas of mentoring
concentration. Of the 112 campuses served, staff from 60 campuses returned feedback forms
covering 135 separate teachers served. In several cases feedback was submitted regarding
services to a teacher by two or more individuals from a campus; typically when this occurred, the
teacher and the principal submitted separate feedback forms.
Analyses of the feedback forms include areas of focus covered during services, days of
services, and free responses. Areas of service, dates of service, and corresponding campuses
were entered only once for each teacher regardless of the number of feedback forms submitted
for each individual teacher, except in cases where more than one instructional coach served a
particular teacher. In these cases teachers were entered into the analyses for each instructional
coach who served them. Free responses were coded into keywords, and frequency of keywords
for 2005-2006 is included in this report. All free responses were included in the analyses, even in
cases where multiple feedback forms were submitted for one teacher.
Areas of mentoring
concentration in 2004-2005 are compared with 2005-2006 to evaluate patterns of requests for
mentoring services.
Surveys were returned through intra-district mail to the project evaluator.
The survey
instrument was formerly administrated as part of the New Teacher Comprehensive Survey, which
is sent to all beginning teachers (those with zero years of professional teaching experience prior
to the start of the current school year). In 2005-2006, in order to capture the level of program
3
satisfaction among veteran teachers served, the survey was removed from the New Teacher
Comprehensive Survey, and sent to all teachers identified as having received intensive mentoring
from instructional coaches in 2005-2006 as of April 17, 2006.
New Teacher Support and
Development (NTSD) provided records of which teachers received services based upon logs
submitted by instructional coaches. All demographic information came from the September 9,
2005 personnel snapshot.
Of the 335 teachers mentored through the T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers Program,
150 teachers returned completed surveys to be included in the analyses, yielding a 45%
response rate. Comparing responses with the population of teachers served introduces a slight
bias in responses towards veteran teachers. Similarly, teachers with one year of experience
were underrepresented in survey responses. However, no differences in response based upon
years of teacher experience emerged from the analysis.
Additionally, differences emerged between responses from DISD Alternative Certification
interns (current interns and those already certified through the program) and teachers who are
traditionally certified. Where these differences are statistically significant, data are disaggregated
and presented to highlight the differences.
Results
T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers Feedback Forms.
In 2005-2006, the T3: Teachers Teaching
Teachers Program served 335 teachers assigned to 112 campuses. 1
Figure 1 shows the
breakdown of campuses served, by Superintendent’s Area, and school level.
1
Data reported as of April 17, 2006.
4
1
2
1
3
3
2
3
3
ea
Ar
1
ea
Ar
2
High
4
3
2
15
13
3
19
12
ea
Ar
3
15
Middle
8
ea
Ar
4
ea
Ar
5
Elementar
y
6
e
t iv
ea
a
r
n
A
r
te
Al
Figure 1 Campuses Served by Instructional Coaches, by Area and School Level
Areas of Concentration.
Among the eight areas of concentration instructional coaches cover
during intensive mentoring services, learner-centered instruction was the most widely requested.
Table 1 shows the frequency and percentage of requests for each area of concentration.
Learner-Centered Instruction topped Management of Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials
for the first time since the inception of the program in the fall of 2002.
Table 1
Areas of Concentration Requested for Instructional Coaching,
by Frequency (N) and Percent (%) of Cases, 2005-2006
Area of Concentration
N
%
Learner-Centered Instruction
104
78
Classroom Environment
85
63
Management of Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials
84
62
Management of Student Discipline
69
51
Student Participation in the Learning Process
55
41
Instruction and Communication
53
39
Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress
28
21
Professional Development and Communication
17
13
Consistent with prior years, most teachers requested that multiple areas of concentration
be covered during instructional coach visits. Roughly 90% of requests covered two or more
5
areas of concentration, as shown in Figure 2. One feedback form did not identify which areas of
concentration were requested.
3%
8%
8%
One
6%
Two
23%
13%
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
15%
22%
Eight
Figure 2 Number of Areas of Concentration Requested Per Visit
Although each teacher may officially receive up to five full days of intensive mentoring
assistance per request, most requests extended beyond five days. Instructional coaches logged
services with each teacher by date of service, providing the only metric for length of service.
Interviews with instructional coaches indicated that visits typically lasted three hours each,
although the length of visits ranged from one hour to a full day, depending upon the nature of the
visit. Visits included:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Lesson demonstrations
Observations
Classroom organization
Data profiling
Classroom management system development
PDAS simulations
Learning Center set-up
Assistance with student assessments
Provision of resources and materials
Information about district programs
In response to a service request, an instructional coach visited each teacher for at least
part of a school day on approximately nine separate dates (9.32). The shortest T3 request was
fulfilled over two separate dates. No T3 request extended over 25 calendar days.
Services involving Professional Development and Communication, the least requested
service, took, on average, longer than any other area of concentration. Almost 70% of requests
6
involving Professional Development and Communication also included a request for services in at
least two other areas of concentration. Conversely, Learner-Centered Instruction and Classroom
Environment, the two most requested areas of concentration, typically took the shortest amount
of time, although most requests involving these two areas of concentration involved two to five
areas. Figure 3 shows the mean number of dates of service instructional coaches spent with
teachers, by area of concentration.
Professional Development and Communication
Student Participation in the Learning Process
Instruction and Communication
Management of Student Discipline
Management of Instructional Strategies, Time, and
Materials
Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress
Learner-Centered Instruction
Classroom Environment
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Figure 3 Mean Number of Dates of Service Instructional Coaches Spent with Teachers per
Request, by Area of Concentration
Campus Satisfaction with Instructional Coaching.
As in past years, campus feedback remained
overwhelmingly positive. Less than 1% of all keywords were coded as neutral and included
administrators’ perceptions that assisted teachers still needed guidance with classroom
environment, had not sufficiently implemented the advice provided by instructional coaches, or
were not available when the instructional coaches came to fulfill the requests for services. Only
two comments were coded as negative (0.02%): one administrator felt that the assisted teacher
should have received more guidance, including more follow-up; one assisted teacher felt the
service would have been more beneficial if the instructional coach had previously taught at the
same grade level as the assisted teacher.
7
The remaining 516 categorized comments positively described and endorsed the work of
the instructional coaches.
Table 2 provides the most frequently cited categories.
Overall,
comments were arranged into 79 separate categories of comments, although several categories
of comments were similar.
Table 2
Most Frequently Cited Comments from the Instructional Coach (IC) Feedback Forms,
by Category of Comment, 2005-2006
Comment Category
N
Very helpful
46
Excellent job/Quality of services excellent/Great job/Great service/Wonderful
job/Excellent job with struggling teacher/Consistently does a great job/outstanding job
36
Thankful for support/Thankful/Help greatly appreciated
36
Very supportive/Understanding/Encouraging/Always supportive/Emotionally
supportive/Lifesaver/Sensitive to teacher’s needs/Pillar of Support/Excellent Support
35
Support and encouragement helped teacher become successful and effective
27
Teacher has shown definite improvement after Instructional Coach services
22
Teacher’s confidence and abilities within the classroom have grown thanks to coaching
19
Asset to campus
18
Excellent resource/Very knowledgeable
18
Provided positive feedback/Valuable feedback/Straight-forward feedback/ Provided
candid feedback and insight regarding teacher’s performance/Excellent feedback
18
Excellent coach/Good coach/Wonderful coach/Quality employee/Exceptional
employee/Asset to New Teacher Support and Development/Awesome
16
Outstanding job aiding teacher with student discipline, instruction, and organization/
Provided input on classroom environment and management/Helped organize
classroom/Helped with classroom management/Great instruction-centered input
16
Great help/Very helpful/Always helpful
14
Provided materials/Provided materials to support strategies/Provided instructional forms
13
Excellent advice/Useful advice/Good advice/Helpful advice
12
Professional demeanor at all times/Prompt/Promptly returned
correspondence/Immediately contacted administrators after receiving T3 request
11
Provided strategies/Classroom management strategies/Differential instruction strategies/
Showed strategies to help students succeed/Always teaches successful strategies
10
Additional comments included describing coaches as cooperative, easy to work with,
nurturing, calm, and skilled mentors. Several teachers described looking forward to visits from
8
their instructional coaches, and campus administrators affirmed their intentions to utilize the
program in the coming year.
2004-2006 Areas of Concentration.
Two-year data shows slight changes emerging in 2005-
2006, compared with the prior year, as shown in Table 3. In 2005-2006, Learner-Centered
Instruction replaced Management of Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials as the most
requested area of concentration. Likewise, campuses requested Classroom Environment more
frequently in 2005-2006, compared with previous requests.
Table 3
Areas of Concentration Requested for Instructional Coaching,
by Frequency (N) and Percent (%) of Cases, by School Year
2004-2005
2005-2006
Area of Concentration
N
%
N
%
Learner-Centered Instruction
83
62
104
78
Management of Instructional Strategies, Time,
and Materials
94
69
85
63
Classroom Environment
74
55
84
62
Management of Student Discipline
70
52
69
51
Student Participation in the Learning Process
51
38
55
41
Instruction and Communication
49
36
53
39
Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress
25
19
28
21
Professional Development and Communication
12
9
17
13
Most instructional coaching visits covered multiple areas of assistance, as shown in
Figure 4. In both years, almost 90% of all visits covered at least two areas of concentration.
9
2004-2005
3% 2%
13%
2005-2006
One
14%
Two
3%
6%
5%
12%
Three
7%
19%
Four
13%
21%
Five
Six
Seven
17%
Eight
16%
25%
23%
Figure 4 Number of Areas of Concentration Requested Per Visit, 2004-2006
2004-2006 Campus Satisfaction with Instructional Coaching.
Comment keyword analyses for
two years confirmed strong campus support for the program.
Analyses covered over 1,100
comments submitted by campus administrators, mentors, and assisted teachers. Of the 1,135
comments, only seven (0.6%) negatively critiqued the program or performance of the instructional
coaches. Administrators’ critiques included requests for better communication, more follow-up,
more visits, and visits earlier in the school year. Only one negative comment came from an
assisted teacher, who felt mentoring would have been better if the instructional coach had
previously taught the same grade level as the teacher (see 2005-2006 comments section above).
Only two of the seven negative comments occurred in 2005-2006.
A slightly higher percent (2.7%) of comments were neutral. The most frequent neutral
comments concerned administrators’ beliefs that the assisted teachers still needed to improve in
one or more classroom skills. Some administrators commented that they had not seen enough
progress, though administrators also admitted that these beginning teachers were not
implementing the strategies and techniques taught by the instructional coaches, or were resistant
to assistance altogether.
Comments were sorted into 89 separate categories. Of those categories, 26 categories
generated 10 or more comments. These categories are detailed in Table 4, including frequency
of response.
10
Table 4
Most Frequently Cited Comments from the Instructional Coach (IC)
Feedback Forms, by Category of Comment, 2004-2006
Comment Category
N
Helpfulness
107
Job Excellence/Consistent Excellence
83
Thankful for support
80
Understanding/Encouraging/Always supportive
75
Teacher has shown definite improvement after services/Saw improvement in classroom
71
Administrator anticipates regular use of ICs on campus/Asset to campus
64
Classroom Management/Organization/Centers/Environment
54
Excellent advice/Useful advice/Good ideas
49
Support and encouragement instrumental in teacher’s success and effectiveness
35
Provided candid, valuable feedback and insight regarding teacher’s performance
33
Always teaches successful strategies/ Offered variety of excellent techniques/strategies
32
Teacher’s confidence and abilities within the classroom have grown thanks to IC
32
Excellent resource/Very knowledgeable
29
Provided materials/Provided materials to support strategies/Provided forms for instruction
29
Teacher looked forward to visits from IC/Teacher enjoyed working with IC
25
Professional demeanor at all times/Prompt/Immediate contact after receiving T3 request
25
Works well with teachers and administrators/Very cooperative/Impressive teaching skills
19
Excellent coach/Asset to NTSD/Awesome
16
Teacher felt comfortable implementing valuable techniques IC taught
16
Communicates with administrators and mentors regarding progress and needs
15
Instruction beneficial to teacher
15
Assistance targeted to needs/Anticipated needs/Creates plan for individual teacher/
Precise/Efficient services/ Service was timely and appropriate
13
Friendly/Very sweet/Teacher considers IC friend
13
Calm/Patient/Always pleasant/Non-threatening attitude
12
Teacher still needs suggestions/assistance/improvement in other areas
11
Always available/Dependable/Available at a moment’s notice/Gracious/Very accessible
10
11
Additional comments commended instructional coaches as thorough, informative,
dedicated, and well-organized. Mentors also benefited from intensive services to new teachers.
First-time mentors described instructional coaches as also providing them with demonstrations of
how to support their mentees. Teachers attributed their students being well-prepared for the
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) to instructional coaching, as well as being
prepared themselves for the Professional Development and Appraisal System (PDAS).
T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers Satisfaction Survey.
Most (89%) of the 335 teachers served
by the program received mentoring in the fall of 2005, with 65% served in August and September
of that year (Figure 5).
More discussion of the impact of timing of service on teacher
effectiveness can be found in section 2.2.
298
300
267
250
201
200
Fall
Spring
150
79
100
77
78
40
37
2004-2005
2005-2006
50
0
2002-2003
2003-2004
Figure 5 Number of Teachers Served by Instructional Coaches, by Year and Time of Service
Demographics.
Over 75% of all teachers served by instructional coaches identified themselves
as alternatively certified, with 80% of those teachers either gaining or seeking certification through
the DISD Alternative Teacher Certification Program. Conversely, only 23% of teachers served
were certified through traditional teaching programs.
Although the majority of teachers served were considered at the first stage of their
teaching careers (teachers with 0-3 years of professional teaching experience), a considerable
percentage were veteran teachers. Of the teachers served who responded to the survey, 55%
12
identified themselves as teachers with no prior years of experience. Veteran teachers (teachers
with more than three years of experience) made up 23% of the survey respondents.
Comparatively, 53% of all teachers served in 2005-2006 were beginning teachers. On
average, teachers served by the T3 program had 2.75 years of teaching experience. Figure 6
provides a comparison between survey respondents and all teachers served, by years of
experience.
Survey Respondents
6%
17%
7%
All Teachers
8%
0
55%
1
9%
2
4%
3
8%
53%
4-10
11%
4%
11+
18%
Figure 6 Comparisons between Years of Teacher Experience of Survey Respondents and All
Teachers Receiving Instructional Coach Services, by Percentage
Campus requests were spread out, although most campuses that asked for assistance
for veteran teachers also requested services for their beginning teachers. Table 5 shows the
breakdown of service requests for 2005-2006 by Superintendent Area. Slightly over half of all
campuses districtwide requested T3 services in 2005-2006.
13
Table 5
Number and Percent of Campus Requests for T3 Services by Area
Number of
Area
Requests
Percent of
Total
Requests
Number of
Campuses
Making
Requests
Percent of
Campuses in
Area Making
Requests
1
60
18
17
55
2
40
12
18
43
3
43
13
17
53
4
82
24
24
67
5
34
10
13
46
6
74
22
20
57
2
1
2
15
335
100
111
51
Area
Alternative
District Total
Table 6 provides the frequency of requests, by campus, for veteran (four or more years of
experience) teachers. Veteran teachers had, on average, 13.33 years of teaching experience,
with the most experienced teacher served having 41 years of teaching experience.
Tables 7-9 provide the primary classroom assignments for veteran teachers, broken
down by the three school levels.
Please note that classroom assignments were not made
available for four veteran teachers. All four teachers taught at elementary schools.
14
Table 6
Number of Veteran Teachers Who Received T3 Services in 2005-2006,
by Campus
Campus
Hillcrest High School
Wilson High School
Bryan Adams High School
Samuell High School
Townview – School of Health Professions
Comstock Middle School
Browne Middle School
Florence Middle School
Marsh Middle School
Zumwalt Middle School
Stevens Park Elementary School
Jordan Elementary School
Kleberg Elementary School
McMillan Elementary School
Cuellar Elementary School
Highland Meadows Elementary School
Hogg Elementary School
Mc Shan Jr. Elementary School
Miller Elementary School
Ray Learning Center
Weiss Elementary School
Anderson Elementary School
Bethune Elementary School
Bowie Elementary School
Budd Elementary School
Cabell Elementary School
Foster Elementary School
Frank Elementary School
Hooe Elementary School
Kahn Elementary School
Lisbon Elementary School
Marshall Elementary School
Martinez Learning Center
Pease Elementary School
Pershing Elementary School
Total
15
N
2
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
57
Table 7
Primary Classroom Assignments of High School Veteran
Teachers Receiving T3 Assistance
Primary Classroom Assignment
N
Algebra I
1
Chemistry, Pre-AP
1
English I
1
English I/ESL Integrated
1
Integrated Physics and Chemistry
1
Nurse Assistant, A
1
Other, Grade 9
1
Total
7
Table 8
Primary Classroom Assignments of Middle School Veteran
Teachers Receiving T3 Assistance
Primary Classroom Assignment
N
Language Arts, Grade 8
2
Texas Studies, Grade 7
2
Band, Grade 7
1
Language Arts, Grade 7
1
Science, Grade 8
1
TAG Interdisciplinary Seminar, Grade 7
1
U.S. Studies, Grade 8
1
Total
16
9
Table 9
Primary Classroom Assignments of Elementary School Veteran Teachers
Receiving T3 Assistance
Primary Classroom Assignment
N
Grade 1
5
Language Arts, Grade 2
5
Transition Kindergarten – Pre-Grade 1
4
Language Arts, Grade 6
3
Math, Grade 2
3
Math, Grade 3
3
Math, Grade 6
2
Pre-Kindergarten
2
ESL/English/Language Arts, Grade 6
1
Language Arts, Grade 4
1
Language Arts, Grade 5
1
Math, Grade 4
1
Music, Grade 2
1
Reading, Grade 6
1
Science/Health, Grade 6
1
Social Studies, Grade 3
1
Social Studies, Grade 5
1
Social Studies, Grade 6
1
Total
37
Table 10 shows the frequency of requests for high school campuses for services to
novice (zero to three years of experience) teachers. Table 11 shows the primary classroom
assignments for these high school teachers. Please note that primary classroom assignments for
four high school teachers were not available for the analysis.
17
Table 10
Number of Novice Teachers Who Received T3 Services
in 2005-2006, by High School Campus
Campus
N
Wilson
7
Pinkston
3
Adamson
2
Carter
2
Hillcrest
2
Jefferson
2
Samuell
2
Skyline
2
Bryan Adams
1
Molina
1
North Dallas
1
Redirections Center
1
Roosevelt
1
School Community Guidance Center
1
Sunset
1
White
1
Total
18
30
Table 11
Primary Classroom Assignments of High School Novice Teachers
Receiving T3 Assistance
Primary Classroom Assignment
N
English I
5
Algebra I
4
Geometry
2
Integrated Physics and Chemistry
2
Spanish II
2
Biology
1
Chemistry
1
English for Science/ESL
1
Individual Sports
1
Pre-AP Physics
1
Reading I
1
Reading II
1
Sheltered English II
1
Spanish for Native Speakers I
1
Spanish I
1
World Geographical Studies
1
Total
26
Table 12 shows the frequency of requests for middle school campuses, for services to
novice (zero to three years of experience) teachers. Table 13 shows the primary classroom
assignments for these middle school teachers. Please note that primary classroom assignments
for five middle school teachers were not available for the analysis.
19
Table 12
Number of Novice Teachers Who Received T3 Services
in 2005-2006, by Middle School Campus
Campus
N
Browne
4
Storey
4
Comstock
3
Long
3
Marsh
3
Rusk
3
Greiner
2
Hood
2
Hulcy
2
Zumwalt
2
Gaston
1
Longfellow
1
Spence
1
Total
31
Table 13
Primary Classroom Assignments of Middle School Novice Teachers
Receiving T3 Assistance
Primary Classroom Assignment
N
Math, Grade 7
6
Language Arts, Grade 8
5
Math, Grade 8
5
Language Arts, Grade 7
2
Texas Studies, Grade 7
2
Pre-AP Language Arts, Grade 7
1
Reading Mastery Corrective Reading, Grade 7
1
Reading, Grade 8
1
Spanish I, Grade 7
1
Theater Arts, Grade 8
1
U.S. Studies, Grade 8
1
26
20
Table 14 shows the frequency of requests for elementary school campuses for services
to novice (zero to three years of experience) teachers. Table 15 shows the primary classroom
assignments for these elementary school teachers.
Please note that primary classroom
assignments for twenty elementary school teachers were not available for the analysis.
Table 14
Number of Novice Teachers Who Received T3
Services in 2005-2006, by Elementary School Campus
Campus
Truett
Hogg
Conner
Stemmons
Anderson
Bowie
Kiest
Saldivar
Hawthorne
Ireland
Pershing
Silberstein
Stevens Park
Weiss
Winnetka
Jones
Macon
Mc Shan
Mills
Sanger
Urban Park
Cabell
Calliet
Carr
N
11
9
8
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
Campus
Donald
Douglass
Foster
Harllee
Highland Meadows
Hotchkiss
Jordan
Kahn
Kleberg
Marshall
Preston Hollow
Reilly
Russell
Budd
Burnet
Cochran
Field
Moreno
Polk
Seguin
Terry
Walnut Hill
Zaragosa
Zavala
21
N
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Campus
Alexander
Bayles
Bethune
Bonham
Buckner
Ervin
Hall
Henderson
Hexter
J.Q. Adams
James
Knight
Lipscomb
Marcus
Marsalis
Martinez
Miller
Mount Auburn
Patton
Rogers
Runyon
Thorton
Titche
U. Lee
Webster
Williams
Total
N
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
216
Table 15
Primary Classroom Assignments of Elementary School Novice Teachers
Receiving T3 Assistance
Primary Classroom Assignment
N
Transition Kindergarten – Pre-Grade 1
51
Grade 1
40
Math, Grade 2
26
Pre-Kindergarten
20
Language Arts, Grade 2
9
Math, Grade 4
8
Language Arts, Grade 4
7
Math, Grade 6
7
Math, Grade 3
6
Language Arts, Grade 3
4
Language Arts, Grade 6
4
Language Arts, Grade 5
3
Social Studies, Grade 6
3
Reading, Grade 4
2
Art, Grade 6
1
Computer Club
1
Science/Health, Grade 5
1
Social Studies, Grade 3
1
Social Studies, Grade 4
1
Special Education, Grade 5
1
Total
196
Teachers either certified through, or those presently enrolled in the 2005-2006 DISD
Alternative Certification Program comprised the largest group by certification type. Over half
(57%) of teachers sought certification through the district AC program. Most teachers in this
group (70%) were current interns, as shown in Table 16. DISD Alternative Certification interns in
2005-2006 were enrolled in Phase 31, Phase 32, or Phase 33. No teachers in Phase 33 were
served by instructional coaches in 2005-2006.
22
Table 16
Certification Type of Teachers Served, Including DISD AC Intern Phase
Certification Type
N
Percent
DISD AC Intern Phase 23
1
*
DISD AC Intern Phase 24
9
2
DISD AC Intern Phase 25
1
*
DISD AC Intern Phase 26
10
3
DISD AC Intern Phase 27
4
1
DISD AC Intern Phase 28
23
7
DISD AC Intern Phase 29
3
1
DISD AC Intern Phase 30
6
2
DISD AC Intern Phase 31
127
38
DISD AC Intern Phase 32
6
2
DISD AC Intern (All)
190
57
AC Intern (Outside)
13
4
Traditional
132
39
Total
* Less than 1% of total
335
100
Survey Results.
Most teachers reported directly submitting the requests for T3 services, rather
than administrators or mentors making the requests on their behalf. Overall, 46% of survey
respondents submitted request forms to New Teacher Support and Development. Principals also
often requested services (27%), followed by other (12%). New Teacher Support Teams and
campus mentors rarely submitted T3 service request forms. No statistically significant difference
occurred between teacher groups based upon experience or certification type.
Most teachers (55%) reported that instructional coaches spent at least five days or longer
with them, per service request. Moreover, the highest percentage of respondents (34%) reported
that their instructional coaches spent eight days or longer with them.
Conversely, only 4%
reported that they received only one day of service. The majority of respondents (61%) reported
receiving services on a second, separate service request. As shown in Table 19 below, the
number of service days provided per request significantly contributed to satisfaction with the level
of service.
23
Respondents overwhelmingly confirmed that their coaches followed-up with them at a
later time to check on their progress. The majority of these respondents (63%) further affirmed
that their coach followed-up on more than one occasion. Only 2% of respondents claimed they
did not receive follow-up. All of these respondents were first-year teachers; one was an outside
AC intern, one a DISD AC intern, and one was traditionally certified.
Most respondents received assistance in learner-centered instruction, as shown in Table
17 below. As with the findings in the feedback analyses (see above), most respondents received
services in several areas of support.
Table 17
Areas of Support Covered During T3 Services
Area of Support
N
Percent
112
75
Management of Student Discipline
87
58
Classroom Environment
66
44
Management of Instructional Strategies, Time, and Materials
64
43
Student Participation in the Learning Process
63
42
Instruction and Communication
60
40
Professional Development and Communication
31
21
Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress
24
16
Learner-Centered Instruction
Instructional coaches engaged respondents in an array of activities, although most
respondents reported being observed by the coaches. Instructional coaches begin most service
requests by observing the teachers, allowing them to construct individualized plans of assistance,
targeting the areas of needed improvement. All teachers seeking Alternative Certification through
an area university responded that their instructional coaches had conducted observations. Table
18 describes the activities conducted during respondents’ T3 visits.
24
Table 18
Activities Conducted During T3 Visits
Activity
N
Percent
113
78
Provide resources
76
52
Lesson demonstration
53
37
Inform about district programs
47
32
Set-up learning center
46
32
Rearrange classroom
45
31
Build classroom management systems
42
29
Simulate PDAS
14
10
Profile data
12
8
Provide student assessment
9
6
Other
9
6
Observation
Other activities reported included decorating the classroom, providing aids to teach
English language learners, providing opportunities to visit effective teachers in the same subject
area or grade level at other campuses, helping teachers construct bulletin boards, and providing
ideas and strategies to engage students.
Overall, respondents were satisfied with the quality of services provided to them.
Instructional coaches received the highest levels of satisfaction for their abilities as good
listeners, for the in-class observations they provided, for their trustworthiness in upholding
confidentiality, and for the impact of their work in increasing teacher confidence. The majority of
teachers responded positively to all questions regarding satisfaction with services.
Almost all teachers described their instructional coaches as good listeners who
responded to what the teachers were saying. Although 3% of teachers surveyed did not agree
with the statement, 95% either agreed or strongly agreed.
Consistent with prior years, respondents highly valued the in-class observations
instructional coaches provided. Of the respondents who received in-class observations, 92%
affirmed that they valued the services; only 3% did not value the in-class observations.
25
Similarly, most (91%) trusted that their instructional coaches upheld the confidentiality of
their meetings. Only 4% disagreed that their coaches had kept the results of their meetings
confidential. Statistically significant differences emerged between certification types with regard
to trust in the coaches (t=2.767, p=.007). This statement produced the only statistically significant
difference on responses based upon certification type.
No traditionally certified teachers
disagreed that their coaches upheld the meeting confidentiality.
The policy of the program
guarantees that any evaluations instructional coaches undertake while observing and interacting
with their teacher clients will not be shared with campus administrators, and in no way will be
used in the formal appraisal of these teachers. Instructional coaches do occasionally work with
campus mentors to provide strategies for working with new teachers.
Teachers were also asked whether their instructional coaches made them feel as though
they could succeed as teachers. Most teachers (93%) expressed increased confidence in their
abilities to succeed in the classroom, thanks to their instructional coaches. Conversely, 5% did
not feel their coaches made them feel as though they could succeed.
As an important component of classroom management, instructional coaches
emphasized small group strategies and techniques for teachers they assisted, particularly for
teachers who received assistance in learner-centered instruction and student participation in the
learning process. Of those teachers who received the procedures and strategies for small group
instruction, 84% agreed that their coaches also recommended procedures and strategies for
keeping students engaged while working with smaller groups.
Respondents characterized instructional coaches as emotionally supportive.
The
majority of respondents (83%) either agreed or strongly agreed that their instructional coaches
“provided a great deal of emotional support.”
Respondents were asked whether their instructional coaches showed them effective
ways to manage student behavior in the classroom. Most (82%) felt coaches had provided them
with effective student behavior management techniques.
Most teachers also agreed that coaches provided them with access to good teaching
resources.
Of the survey respondents who received teaching resources, 80% felt those
26
resources were relevant and helpful. However, 7% did not value the resources with which they
were provided. This reflects one of the three highest levels of expressed dissatisfaction with the
program (making teaching student-centered and building organizational skills also had the same
level of dissatisfaction as discussed below).
The majority of teachers (79%) agreed that instructional coaches taught them effective
ways to make teaching student-centered. As stated above, however, this dimension of service
also had one of the highest levels of dissatisfaction (7%). Satisfaction with instructional coaches’
assistance in building teachers’ organizational skills ranked exactly with teaching effective ways
to make teaching student-centered (79% satisfaction, 7% dissatisfaction).
The lowest levels of expressed satisfaction occurred along two dimensions: whether the
instructional coaches helped teachers reflect upon their own teaching, and whether they assisted
teachers in organizing their classrooms in ways that promoted student engagement. In both
cases, 76% of respondents were satisfied with the quality of services. Assisting in self-reflection
had a slightly higher level of dissatisfaction (6%), compared with assisting with classroom
organization (4%).
While no statistically significant differences emerged between veteran and novice
teachers, and only one difference emerged between certification types, one indicator did prove to
be strongly significant in determining satisfaction with the program: the number of days of service.
In all but four determinants of satisfaction – whether instructional coaches were viewed as good
listeners who responded to what their teacher clients were saying, whether instructional coaches
showed effective ways to manage student behavior in the classroom, whether teachers were
made to feel as though they could succeed, and whether instructional coaches upheld the
confidentiality of meetings – the days of service positively and significantly affected satisfaction
with the program, such that as the number of days of service increased, the level of satisfaction
increased as well, as shown in Table 19 below.
27
Table 19
Impact of Number of Days of Service on Satisfaction Indicators
t-test for the Equality of Means
Indicator
Mean
Difference
t
df
p
Valued in-class observations
3.959
89.696
.000*
.717
IC provided a great deal of emotional support
3.110
146
.002*
.624
IC showed effective ways to manage student
behavior in the classroom
2.605
144
.010
.691
IC made teacher feel teacher could succeed
1.942
145
.054
.385
IC recommended procedures for student engagement
while working with small groups
2.979
128.214
.003*
.698
IC listened, and responded to what teacher said
1.739
146
.084
.217
IC helped teacher build organizational skills
3.626
130.626
.000*
.913
IC upheld confidentiality of meetings
0.987
144
.325
.178
IC showed teacher how to self-reflect
4.421
109.135
.000*
.959
IC demonstrated effective student-centered teaching
4.141
110.230
.000*
.933
IC assisted in organizing classroom that promoted
student engagement
2.999
127.274
.003*
.813
3.911
107.878
.000*
.933
IC provided access to good teaching resources
* Statistically significant difference p<.005
Possible explanations regarding the outcomes above seem straightforward for some of
the indicators. For example, the value of in-class observations, the level of emotional support,
and the ability to teach self-reflection are all rarely realized within a short span of time. In the first
case, in-class observations, if not followed by days of designing and implementing individualized
improvement plans, can be perceived as merely an appraisal. Similarly, emotional support is built
over time, and the process of self-reflection can also be lengthy.
Where the other significant indicators are concerned, teachers who received fewer days
of service may have desired more interaction, more modeling, and more strategies to utilize the
resources provided.
Although the scope of the teachers surveyed increased to account for veteran teachers
who received assistance, instructional coaches continued to enjoy high levels of satisfaction with
28
their intensive mentoring services. Several teachers included additional comments regarding
instructional coaches which indicated how much they enjoyed working with the coaches, and how
integral the coaches were to ensuring the teachers’ success.
2.2 How Effective were Teachers who Received Services from Professional Preparation and
Support?
Methodology
Teachers who received at least one service provided or administered by the Professional
Preparation and Support Department (including all beginning teachers, DISD Alternative
Certification teacher interns, and teachers who received additional services through New Teacher
Support and Development) were identified for each type of service provided.
Classroom
Effectiveness Indices (CEI) for teachers were supplied by the Office of Institutional Research
(OIR).
Data were reported by content areas where the teachers had CEI scores assigned.
Observations with less than eight students contributing to teachers’ CEI scores were dropped
from the analyses.
Classroom Effectiveness Indices are measures of the amount of test score gains
teachers brought about for their students through instruction. The CEIs are value-added; that is,
they control for other factors which effect student achievement: grade-level, gender, English
proficiency, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and standardized pre-test scores. Students are
compared only with peers who match them in the above factors. Score gains and losses of
students are computed to find the overall CEI for each teacher. In the district the mean CEI is 50,
with a standard deviation of ten.
Classroom Effectiveness Indices were reported for the following groups: all beginning
teachers (those with no prior professional experience), all AC interns (including former interns
certified by 2004-2005), and teachers who received intensive mentoring through the T3: Teachers
Teaching Teachers Program. Indices scores were analyzed by content areas: Language Arts,
Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, Foreign Languages, and Computer Science. In cases
29
where only one teacher comprised a particular subgroup, the data were not reported, in
accordance with state law.
Comparisons among groups were made through univariate and difference of means
testing. Only results which met the .05 level of significance standard were reported.
Results
Beginning Teachers.
Of the 714 beginning teachers hired for the 2004-2005 school year,
Classroom Effectiveness Indices (CEI)
2
scores were generated for 520 teachers. Forty-eight
scores were dropped from the analyses because of low student count. The mean CEI for all
beginning teachers, regardless of certification type, was 47.26. Most beginning teachers’ scores
fell within a score range of 28.16 to 66.36. Table 20 shows the mean CEI scores for each
applicable subject area. Table 21 shows scores for teachers by school level.
Table 20
Mean 2004-2005 CEI Scores for All Beginning Teachers by Subject
Reading
Mathematics
Science
Foreign
Language
Computer
Science
Social
Studies
N
189
197
48
13
4
21
Mean
47.88
46.86
46.74
47.14
53.66
45.55
Table 21
Mean 2004-2005 CEI Scores for All Beginning
Teachers by School Level
High
School
Middle
School
Elementary
School
N
96
43
333
Mean
46.86
49.74
47.06
2
CEI scores are reported one year behind the current school year. The analysis for the
2005-2006 Final Report is for teachers new to the classroom in 2004-2005. New teachers in
2005-2006 will have their CEI scores reported in the 2006–2007 CEI Interim Report.
30
Data from beginning teachers showed a shift in CEI scores from prior years in the
performance of traditionally certified beginning teachers and DISD AC teachers. In 2004-2005
traditionally certified teachers’ overall CEI scores and reading scores fell below those of
alternatively certified teachers; however, no differences proved to be statistically significant
(Tables 22-24). In prior years of analyses, traditionally certified beginning teachers generated
higher CEIs overall, and in reading.
Only DISD AC teacher interns with no prior years of teaching experience were included in
the data found in these tables to enable a direct comparison could be made between beginning
teachers. (As shown below in the DISD AC section, the AC program also prepared teachers with
prior experience.)
Table 22
Comparison of Mean CEI Scores Between 2002 – 2003 DISD AC Interns and
Traditionally Certified Beginning Teachers
Certification
Type
DISD AC
Interns
Traditionally
Certified
Overall
N
Overall
Reading
Mathematics
Science
Foreign
Language
Computer
Science
Social
Studies
261
47.33*
46.98**
47.40
50.64
44.63
42.56
47.91
781
48.79*
49.30**
47.86
49.57
45.54
48.26
48.20
Note * Denotes statistically significant difference for corrected model; F=5.063 (1040), p=.025
** Denotes statistically significant difference for corrected model; F=7.882 (633), p=.005
Table 23
Comparison of Mean CEI Scores Between 2003 – 2004 DISD AC Interns and
Traditionally Certified Beginning Teachers
Certification
Type
DISD AC
Interns
Traditionally
Certified
Overall
N
Overall
Reading
Mathematics
Science
Foreign
Language
Computer
Science
Social
Studies
323
47.99
48.35
47.40
50.34
47.33
*
**
464
48.73
49.11
49.11
46.20
46.10
**
48.20
Note * No scores were reported for DISD AC teacher interns.
Note ** One score was reported for this subject area, and so is not available for reporting.
31
Table 24
Comparison of Mean CEI Scores Between 2004 – 2005 DISD AC Interns and
Traditionally Certified Beginning Teachers
Certification
Type
DISD AC
Interns
Traditionally
Certified
Overall
N
Overall
Reading
Mathematics
Science
Foreign
Language
Computer
Science
Social
Studies
287
47.64
48.29
46.66
48.07
48.64
53.66
*
185
46.67
47.09
47.21
45.17
44.75
*
45.55
Note * No scores were reported for teachers in these groups.
DISD Alternative Certification Teacher Interns.
The DISD AC teacher interns included in the
tables above were hired for the 2004-2005 school year. These new interns were enrolled in one
of three cohorts, which the AC Department referred to as phases: Phase 28, Phase 29, and
Phase 30. Phases were distinguished by time of hire and start of training. The following phases
correspond with given school years:
ƒ
Phases 22-24: 2002-2003
ƒ
Phases 25-27: 2003-2004
ƒ
Phases 28-30: 2004-2005
ƒ
Phases 31-33: 2005-2006
Beginning in 2003-2004, the department began to recruit interns from Mexico and Puerto
Rico. Table 25 breaks down CEI scores by DISD AC Teacher Intern phase for 2004-2005.
Scores were not available for Phases 31-33. Of note, Phase 25, Phase 27, and Phase 30 had
different training schedules than other phases. Both Phase 25 and Phase 30 conducted training
during the school year, in the fall semester. Phase 27 began training in the summer, but started
later than other summer cohorts. Phase 27 interns were all recruited from Mexico.
32
Table 25
Mean 2004-2005 CEI Scores for DISD Alternative Certification
Interns by Phase
Phase
Reading
Mathematics
Science
Foreign
Languages
Computer
Science
Social
Studies
22
50.07
50.78
47.15
-------
-------
*
23
49.92
49.78
47.85
-------
43.94
-------
24
50.68
50.39
53.65
*
54.56
*
25
47.07
47.15
-------
-------
-------
45.26
26
50.08
50.24
52.86
45.24
-------
54.14
27
47.12
48.82
-------
46.86
-------
-------
28
49.04
46.56
48.36
48.64
53.66
-------
29
44.24
50.08
-------
-------
-------
-------
30
------47.60
45.15
------------------Note * One score was reported for this subject area, and so is not available for reporting.
Differences among phases initiated during the same school year occurred in reading
CEIs. Among Phases 25-27, which all began in the 2003-2004 school year, data showed that
Phase 27 interns’ reading CEIs were significantly lower than Phase 26 interns’ reading CEIs (t =
2.515, p = .013). No other significant differences occurred among phases.
Comparisons between AC interns based upon when they received training produced
statistically significant differences between the summer trainees (μ = 47.43) and the fall trainees
(μ = 51.15) assigned to high school science classrooms (t = -1.999, p = .054). All interns in these
analyses who were assigned to foreign language and computer science classrooms were trained
in the summer.
T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers.
For the past three years, data have shown that timing of T3
services had significant effects on teacher effectiveness. Teachers assisted in the fall semester
of 2003 scored higher than teachers who received services in spring 2004 (μ = 48.65 and 47.35,
respectively).
Moreover, teachers assisted in the fall semester had higher CEI scores than
beginning teachers overall (μ = 48.51), although this difference was not statistically significant. In
2003-2004, over 70% of assisted teachers first received intensive assistance in the fall semester.
33
Of the 307 teachers served by the program in 2004-2005, 131 generated usable CEI
scores. Of the 131 teachers, 60% were DISD AC interns. The majority of these interns were part
of the Phase 28 cohort. Additionally, the program served 11 out-of-district AC interns, but none of
these teachers generated a CEI score in 2004-2005.
The program continued to increase the percentage of services delivered in the fall
semester for teachers who generate CEI scores (see Figure 5 for total number of teachers served
in the program). Only 21% of teachers with 2004-2005 CEI scores received T3 services in the
spring semester, down from 30% in 2003-2004.
The differences between teachers served in the fall and those served in the spring
continued in 2004-2005, as shown in Table 26. None of the differences proved significant at .05.
No teachers with CEI scores in computer science were served by the program.
Table 26
Mean 2004-2005 CEI Scores for Teachers
Served by the T3 Program
Semester
Reading
Mathematics
Science
Fall
46.74
45.44
45.53
Spring
46.00
40.72
41.48
An examination of CEIs by school level indicated significant relationships may exist at the
middle school level between DISD AC teacher interns and traditionally certified teachers in
mathematics.
Univariate analysis of middle school teacher effectiveness found significant
differences between groups (F = 13.008 (2), p = .033). Difference of means testing among the
groups found the differences occurring between traditionally certified teachers and Phase 28 AC
interns in reading and in mathematics, as shown in Table 27.
34
Table 27
Mean CEI Scores for Middle School Teachers
Served by the T3 Program
Certification
Reading
Mathematics
Phase 28 AC Interns
46.45
34.31
Traditional
50.75
51.10
Table 28 provides CEIs for teachers assisted by instructional coaches by school level.
Middle and elementary school teachers did not generate CEIs in foreign languages and social
studies. None of the differences based upon school level proved significant at the .05 level,
based upon content area.
Table 28
Mean CEI Scores for Teachers Served by the T3 Program by School Level
Certification
Type
Overall
N
Reading
Mathematics
Science
Foreign
Language
Social
Studies
High School
22
49.69
46.50
45.09
46.16
43.57
Middle School
Elementary
School
14
49.52
44.40
39.07
-------
-------
95
46.08
44.55
51.69
-------
-------
2.3 What were the Program Outcomes for Other New Teacher Support and Development
Programs?
Methodology
This section covers outcomes for other teacher programs administered by New Teacher
Support and Development. These programs include: Ready, Set, Prep seminars; the Beginning
Teacher Institute (BTI); the New Teacher Center (NTC); Grow Your Own (GYO), Advanced
35
Study, Hire Your Own (HYO), and Future Educator programs. The student teaching program
outcomes are presented in section 2.7 below.
Program participant data were provided by New Teacher Support and Development,
except for personnel information, which was obtained through a Personnel Database snapshot
dated August 23, 2006. Satisfaction with the BTI was measured through a survey instrument
developed by the program director. The BTI survey was distributed to all participants who
successfully completed the institute. Surveys for the New Teacher Center were completed onsite
by all teachers who visited the center.
Results
Ready, Set, Prep.
Two of the instructional coaches created Ready, Set, Prep, a program to
assist teachers who have one to three years of teaching experience prepare for the challenges
which occur the first few weeks of school. The coaches created the workshops based upon the
highest need areas of teacher development as defined by T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers
Program requests, and by interest expressed from teachers themselves during the T3 visits.
Teachers received invitations to attend the five-day series of workshops. Those teachers who
received invitations were either nominated by instructional coaches who had previously assisted
them through the T3 Program, or by principals who specifically requested that certain teachers be
invited to attend. Attendance was voluntary and attendees were permitted to select any or all of
the workshops. Principals at campuses with teachers invited to attend were notified that teachers
had been invited, but not specifically which teachers were included among the invitees.
A
substantial percentage of the invited teachers were late hires who had missed New Teacher
Orientation.
New Teacher Support and Development invited 149 teachers to attend the workshops.
Most of the teachers invited (58%) were DISD Alternative Certification (AC) interns (current
interns and teachers already certified through the program). Of the 149 teachers invited, 52
teachers attended one or more workshops. DISD AC interns made up 58% of attendees. Table
29 shows the campuses where attendees were assigned to teach in 2005-2006.
36
Table 29
Number of Ready, Set, Prep Attendees by Campus
Campus
Number of
Teachers
Attending
Number of
Teachers
Attending
Campus
Anne Frank Elementary
1
Moseley Elementary
2
Bethune Elementary
1
Preston Hollow Elementary
1
Buckner Elementary
1
Reilly Elementary
1
Cabell Elementary
1
Saldivar Elementary
1
Conner Elementary
4
Stevens Park Elementary
3
Cowart Elementary
1
Titche Elementary
1
Cuellar Elementary
1
Truett Elementary
1
Douglass Elementary
2
U. Lee Elementary
1
Field Elementary
1
Urban Park Elementary
1
Hawthorne Elementary
1
Weiss Elementary
1
Highland Meadows Elementary
1
Winnetka Elementary
1
Hogg Elementary
1
Browne Middle
1
Hooe Elementary
1
Hulcy Middle
1
Jones Elementary
1
Rusk Middle
2
King Learning Center
1
Seagoville Middle
1
Macon Elementary
2
Carter High
1
Marcus Elementary
1
Hillcrest High
3
Marsalis Elementary
2
North Dallas High
1
King Learning Center
1
Samuell High
2
Medrano Elementary
1
Total
52
An additional 43 teachers from the campuses listed above in Table 29 declined to attend.
The remaining 54 invitees were assigned to 23 campuses. Table 30 shows the campuses which
had more than three teachers invited, but none attended. Almost 20% of all teachers invited to
attend the workshops were assigned to these campuses.
37
Table 30
Campuses with Highest Number of Teachers Invited
but Not Attending Ready, Set, Prep Workshops
Number of Teachers
Invited
Campus
Skyline High School*
8
Pinkston High School
6
Ireland Elementary
5
Sanger Elementary
5
Long High School
4
Total
28
Note * Includes one teacher assigned to Skyline CDC
Most of the teachers attending had worked with an instructional coach in the 2004-2005
school year.
Most of these teachers (67%) had one year of teaching experience prior to
attending the workshop. Although the workshop was developed for experienced teachers, 2% of
attendees were walk-ins to the workshops with no prior teaching experience. Another 13% had
two years of teaching experience; 12% had three to four years of experience. The remaining 6%
had a range of 9 to 18 years of teaching experience. The range of teaching experience for all
teachers invited spanned from 1 to 24 years.
As shown in Table 29, most attendees were assigned to elementary campuses. The
breakdown of primary teaching assignments, shown in Table 31, reflects the emphasis upon
elementary campuses. Please note that the primary teaching assignments for four attendees
were not available for this report.
38
Table 31
Primary Teaching Assignments of Ready, Set, Prep Attendees
Primary Teaching Assignment
N
Grade 1
11
Transitioning Kindergarten – Pre-First Grade
9
Mathematics, Grade 2
6
Algebra I
2
Integrated Physics/Chemistry
2
Language Arts, Grade 2
2
Science/Health, Grade 5
2
Art, Grade 2
1
English I
1
English/Language Arts (ESL), Grade 6
1
Language Arts, Grade 3
1
Language Arts, Grade 5
1
Math, Grade 7
1
Mathematics, Grade 3
1
Mathematics, Grade 4
1
Pre-Kindergarten
1
Reading Mastery, Grade 8
1
Science/Health, Grade 6
1
Spanish for Native Speakers I
1
Spanish I
1
World Geography Studies
1
Total
48
The program consisted of full-day workshops held over five consecutive days in August
2005. All of the workshops, with the exception of the last workshop, were formatted to provide
instruction and ideas in the morning session, followed by “make ‘n take” sessions in the afternoon
that allowed participants to apply the morning lessons in constructing useful materials. All of the
workshops were conducted in the New Teacher Center.
Attendants were available in the New
Teacher Center in the afternoons to assist with teachers’ projects.
descriptions follow:
39
Workshop titles and
•
•
•
•
All Systems Go! – Preparation for the First Week of School
o
Classroom management skills to utilize instructional time more effectively
o
Tips for dealing with behaviorally challenged students
o
Easy-to-follow guidelines to aid in collection and documentation of student work
samples, student achievement, and student behavior
o
Sample forms provided, including grade book program and forms on CD
o
Packets provided to participants by grade level, including prepared classroom
materials (for bilingual and non-bilingual classrooms)
Lesson Cycle/Guided Reading and Graphic Organizers
o
Comprehending and implementing the lesson cycle to better utilize instructional
time and promote student understanding
o
Methods and strategies for guided reading and integrated graphic organizers
Early Childhood and Intermediate Centers
o
Observation and construction of interactive and meaningful centers
o
Small group instruction
o
Participants rotated through centers as students to demonstrate how to divide
classes into centers
Cooperative Learning and Whole Group Activities/Bulletin Boards
o
Utilize alternative teaching methods to engage students
o
Provide ideas for games and activities used to enhance learning
o
Develop and produce creative bulletin boards, including appropriateness
The final workshop was designated as a come-and-go day for attendees. Teachers who
had attended at least one workshop were permitted to come into the New Teacher Center and
utilize its resources for the day. Formal attendance was not taken.
Workshop attendees were also encouraged to submit T3 requests for the coming school
year. Instructional coaches received 30 requests from workshop participants to come and assist
participants for the first week of school.
40
Of the 52 participants, nine (17%) were no longer teaching in the district as of August 23,
2006. Of those nine, one teacher left involuntarily, leaving a retainable attrition rate of 15%
among workshop participants. Retainable attrition refers to separation from the district which the
district ostensibly influences. It discounts all involuntary separation, as well as certain voluntary
separation reasons.
For the complete definition of retainable attrition, please refer to
REIS06-177-02.
Beginning Teacher Institute.
Eleven teachers participated in BTI in 2005-2006, compared with
twelve participants in 2004-2005. Table 32 describes each of the participants, by campus,
classroom assignment, and title of the BTI project.
Table 32
Beginning Teacher Institute Participants in 2005-2006, by Campus,
Classroom Assignment and Project Title
Campus
Assignment
Adamson
th
10 Grade Math
st
Project Title
“Real World Survival”
Buckner
1 Grade
“Animals in the Amazon Jungle”
Buckner
Kindergarten
“Butterflies Life Cycle and Their Migration Patterns”
Caillet
nd
“States: Facts and Symbols”
th
2 Grade
Carter
9 Grade English
“Creative Writing Magazine”
Frank
Kindergarten
“Our Food Celebrates Our Culture”
Ireland
6th Grade Language
Arts/Social Studies
“Exploring Two Nations”
Peabody
1st Grade
“Is There Life Out There?”
nd
Terry
2
Vickery Meadows
1st Grade Bilingual
Vickery Meadows
nd
Grade
2 Grade
“The Wampanoag: People of the First Light”
“Learning Partnerships”
“Animal Adaptations”
Participants evaluated their satisfaction with the institute based upon how they felt about
the work of the facilitators, how participation in the institute helped improve teaching skills and
strategies, and whether participation led to increased confidence in various areas. Open-ended
questions queried about the grant process, portfolio building, how the institute helped the most,
41
how the institute could be improved, what follow-up services were desired, and how the institute
impacted both the participants and their students.
2005-2006 Survey Results.
As in 2004-2005, participants positively evaluated the institute in all
areas covered by the survey. In all areas but one, all 11 participants agreed that the facilitators:
ƒ fostered community within the institute,
ƒ modeled useful teaching practices,
ƒ coached participants on their teaching practices,
ƒ supported participants throughout the year, actively listened to participants,
ƒ met participants’ needs as learners,
ƒ provided practical teaching ideas, and
ƒ helped participants integrate technology into instruction.
The remaining area of concern, whether facilitators visited participants’ classrooms, drew
one neutral response (“somewhat”), with the remaining 10 participants (91%) agreeing with the
statement.
All participants either agreed, or strongly agreed that participation in the Beginning
Teacher Institute helped participants:
ƒ reflect on their teaching practices,
ƒ rethink their teaching challenges,
ƒ set their professional goals,
ƒ integrate technology into instruction,
ƒ feel less isolated, and
ƒ build professional relationships and networks.
Participants strongly agreed that the institute helped participants set their professional
goals (91% strongly agreed). Conversely, only 64% strongly agreed that the institute helped
them rethink teaching challenges, and helped to reduce perception of isolation.
42
Similarly, all participants either agreed, or strongly agreed that as a result of the BTI, they
felt more confident in the areas of:
ƒ leadership,
ƒ TEKS,
ƒ lesson planning,
ƒ classroom organization,
ƒ behavior management,
ƒ cooperative learning,
ƒ multiple intelligences,
ƒ assessment,
ƒ partnering with parents,
ƒ developing proposals,
ƒ differentiation,
ƒ integrating technology into instruction,
ƒ networking,
ƒ implementing a grant project, and
ƒ creating a professional portfolio.
Participants most strongly agreed that their confidence grew in developing proposals
(91%), although classroom organization, cooperative learning, integrating technology into
instruction, implementing a grant project, and creating a professional portfolio also drew strong
responses (82% strongly agreed).
Less than 50% of participants strongly agreed that their confidence increased with regard
to TEKS and assessment (46% strongly agreed). Lesson planning (55%) and differentiation
(50%) drew slightly stronger responses.
Table 33 shows a breakdown of responses, with regard to how participation in the
institute improved teaching skills of participants. Table 34 shows a breakdown of responses of
increased confidence in areas as a result of participation in the BTI.
43
Table 33
Beginning Teacher Institute Participants’ Perception of How Participation Helped Improve
Teaching Skills, Area of Improvement
Statement
SA
A
D
SD
N/A
Reflect on teaching skills
73%
27%
--
--
--
Rethink teaching challenges
64%
36%
--
--
--
Set professional goals
91%
9%
--
--
--
Integrate technology into instruction
82%
18%
--
--
--
Lessen isolation
64%
36%
--
--
--
Build professional relationships and networks
73%
27%
--
--
--
Table 34
Beginning Teacher Institute Participants’ Perception of Confidence Gained Due to Participation,
by Area of Concentration
Statement
SA
A
D
SD
N/A
Leadership
64%
36%
--
--
--
TEKS
46%
54%
--
--
--
Lesson planning
54%
46%
--
--
--
Classroom organization
82%
18%
--
--
--
Behavior management
73%
27%
--
--
--
Cooperative learning
82%
18%
--
--
--
Multiple intelligences
64%
36%
--
--
--
Assessment
46%
54%
--
--
--
Partnering with parents
73%
27%
--
--
--
Developing proposals
91%
9%
--
--
--
Differentiation
50%
50%
--
--
--
Integrating technology into instruction
82%
18%
--
--
--
Networking
64%
36%
--
--
--
Implementing a grant project
82%
18%
--
--
--
Creating a professional portfolio
82%
18%
--
--
--
Responses from the survey’s open-ended questions tended to be positive. Tables 35-42
provide keyword summaries for each of the questions, including frequencies.
44
Table 35
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Perceptions of Facilitators
Comment Keywords
N
Facilitators offer suggestions/guidance
4
Facilitators always available/reliable
3
Facilitators helpful
3
Provided positive feedback
3
Facilitators encouraging/increased participants’ confidence
2
Facilitators were a wonderful support network
2
Facilitators work as a team
2
Appreciate flexibility facilitators provided
1
Brought materials when visiting classroom
1
Concepts presented differently for mix of ideas
1
Facilitators amazing
1
Facilitators focused
1
Facilitators made technology aspect of BTI easier
1
Facilitators open, friendly
1
Loved environment created by facilitators
1
Reliability and availability cemented involvement in BTI
1
Team helped make grant-writing process smooth
1
Used facilitator’s ideas in organizing classroom
1
45
Table 36
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Experiences in Proposing and Completing Their
Grant Proposals and Projects
Comment Keywords
Once topic decided, easy to develop idea, proposal, rubric
Confidence grew as process unfolded
Intend to apply for more grants
More learning takes place through memorable projects
Team assistance eliminated confusion
Aligning with TEKS seemed hard until project idea defined
Facilitator showed participant how to get started
Facilitators encouraging and helpful
Facilitators provided websites for ideas
Fun to implement project with students
Learned how to budget and plan a project
Process showed how much support is available on campus
Process was not as difficult as initially thought
Project gave students opportunity to show creativity
Some difficulty finding materials for project
Structure of writing enables communicating concepts to students, colleagues, parents
Technology requirement difficult to imagine for Kindergarteners
Would change December due date, since busy time
Written information made grant proposal process easier
46
N
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Table 37
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Processes in Creating and Presenting Their
Portfolios
Comment Keywords
N
Added to/improved existing portfolio
3
Learned from seeing others’ portfolios and listening
2
Most important to have presentable portfolio/professional portfolio
2
Needed/received guidance in how to create portfolio such as what to exclude
2
Enjoyed creating because it reminded of events during school year
1
Experience provided knowledge of what employers look for
1
Initially difficult to begin process
1
Most important reason is suitability for documentation of classroom activities
1
Most important was feeling confident in abilities when portfolio complete
1
Most important was remembering to save all documents and awards
1
Portfolio great tool to show work at job fair
1
Process tiresome, but important to complete
1
Table 38
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Views of the Most Useful/Most Helpful/Most Valued
Components of the Beginning Teacher Institute
Comment Keywords
N
Support and advice of facilitators valued
5
Learned from peer teachers
4
Expertise of presenters highly valued, i.e., lessons, classroom management
2
Liked mini lessons
2
Networking important
2
Belief in students, who were so eager and patient
1
Belief in self highly valued
1
Bulletin boards class was very helpful
1
Class was great “sounding board” for ideas/encouraged new ideas
1
Encouraged to seek more training in implementing technology
1
Enjoy listening to students talk about experience and their teamwork
1
Enjoyed access to New Teacher Center
1
Enjoyed the “ice breaker” activities at beginning of institute
1
Grant writing process most valued/plan to use skills and knowledge
1
Project most useful, because of impact upon students’ learning
1
47
Table 39
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Views of the Least Useful/Least Helpful/Least
Valued Components of the Beginning Teacher Institute
Comment Keywords
N
Everything was useful/Do not change a thing
6
Classes should teach techniques, methods, hands-on lesson plans of how to integrate
technology
1
Do not just give participants a bunch of papers to read
1
Food should be provided
1
Include a presentation on how and who to contact in HR
1
Meeting every other week for two hours was difficult- meet once/month instead
1
Mini-lessons- some people just lectured, which was not the point
1
More bilingual education
1
More examples on portfolios, i.e., personal mission statement to follow
1
More grant funding
1
More secondary involvement
1
Policy and procedure overview would be helpful
1
Would have appreciated feedback about project (critical, suggestions)
1
Table 40
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Requests for Follow-Up Activities in 2006-2007
Comment Keywords
N
Reunion to share progress/group meeting(s) of BTI graduates
7
Classroom visits
4
Follow-up technology course/how to implement technology/computer lab
4
Continue to have email correspondence
2
Advanced course on teaching/challenging high-performing students
1
Invitation to next year’s presentations on computer/technology
1
Maintain contact with BTI facilitators for advice/resources
1
Seminars on grant writing
1
Seminars on how to participate in school committees
1
48
Table 41
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Perception of How the Beginning Teacher Institute
Impacted Students and Their Learning
Comments Keywords
N
Institute increased my confidence as a teacher/ increased teaching competence
3
Now use technology regularly in classroom
2
Project helped students take ownership in the learning process/Student engagement
increased
2
Students know how to do more for themselves and work collaboratively
2
BTI demonstrated successful classroom management techniques used in participant’s
classroom
1
BTI showed different ways to incorporate my lessons
1
Classes dealing with parents and setting up successful parent conferences
1
Completing the project
1
Increased confidence in Power Point presentations/Intend to use more Power Point
presentations for parents in the future
1
Know how a classroom is supposed to work/how to help students success
1
Made participant more likely to assume leadership role
1
Received several great ideas for teaching math
1
Setting up successful classroom centers
1
Students enjoyed the Internet research
1
Students requested more opportunities to conduct similar projects
1
Students saw connection between learning in school and real world
1
Students saw how math helped them decipher which car loan, home mortgage best
1
Technology aids students in understanding concepts/ideas currently studying
1
Very positive feedback from parents and students
1
49
Table 42
Keyword Responses Regarding Participants’ Perceptions Whether Participation in the Beginning
Teacher Institute Influenced Their Decisions to Remain Teaching in DISD
Comment Keywords
N
Participation increased confidence in handling teaching pressures/challenges
4
DISD did not influence, but encouraged participant
2
BTI has increased participant’s assertiveness in classroom
1
Enjoyed interacting with other beginning teachers about similar issues and how they
dealt with them
1
Facilitators are a “treasure” to new teachers
1
Facilitators demonstrated that the administrative arm of DISD is there for the teachers
1
Information and help facilitators provide is abundant
1
Participant intends to use technology in class/develop technology-based projects
1
Participant is “burned out”, but intends to use BTI to start new year
1
Participation gives participant “wings” to try another project next year
1
Participation in BTI helped expand and nurture vital areas
1
Participation in BTI increased effectiveness as an educator
1
Participation increased confidence in initiating teaching techniques and alternative
methods of classroom management
1
Positive feedback and support gives participants reason to keep teaching
1
Teaching is a ministry
1
The class helped participant learn how to self-evaluate and to see progress
1
At the time of the survey, 100% of respondents reported their intentions to remain
teaching in the district in the coming school year.
Comparisons between 2004-2005 data and 2005-2006 data yielded almost no
differences among the variables. Difference of means testing between the two years found no
statistically significant differences among any variables, suggesting that satisfaction for both
years’ participants ran approximately the same.
New Teacher Center.
Survey response indicates approximately 200 teacher visits were logged
in at the center from August 2005 to May 2006. Of the 198 visits, 67% were from teachers who
had previously utilized the center’s resources.
50
All teacher usage data came from completed New Teacher Center Usage Surveys.
Teachers who utilized any of the center’s resources were required to fill out the short survey
onsite. The majority (57%) of the center’s attendance occurred while the New Teacher Center
was located at the Nolan Estes Plaza. The New Teacher Center was moved, along with the New
Teacher Support and Development Program, to the School Support Service Center in October
2005. Center usage declined dramatically from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006; survey returns from
2005-2006 indicate the volume reduced by 90%. Ostensibly, the subsequent reduction in teacher
usage from 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 was due, in large part, to the change in locales and the time
period needed for adjustment and resource set-up. Workshop attendance was also not reflected
in the number of visitors, which assumes that workshop attendees were not instructed to
complete surveys.
New Teacher Center surveys completed at Nolan Estes Plaza were distinguished from
those completed at the School Support Service Center by campus identification, which the New
Teacher Center attendant required teachers to include on their surveys.
Teacher Center at Nolan Estes came from 58 campuses.
represented multiple times, as shown in Table 43.
51
Visitors to the New
Several of the campuses were
Table 43
Top Frequent Campus Usage of
the New Teacher Center
Campus
N
Florence
9
Weiss
7
Carter
5
Holmes
5
Marsalis
5
Terry
4
Greiner
3
Hawthorne
3
Jones
3
Mills
3
Molina
3
Storey
3
U. Lee
3
Urban Park
3
Winnetka
3
The New Teacher Center was available for the following campus personnel: first year
teachers, second year teachers, all active Alternative Certification interns, campus mentors,
campus administrators, and student teachers.
First year teachers visited the center most often
(77% of visitors), followed by second year teachers (23%). The majority (58%) of teachers were
assigned to elementary campuses, followed by middle schools (26%) and high schools (16%).
Although visitors utilized all of the stations and equipment provided in the center, certain stations
saw more activity. Figure 7 describes center usage by visitors in 2005–2006.
52
140
122
120
62
100
58
50
80
49
36
60
30
23
40
18
5
4
2
20
La
m
in
at
o
C r
D
o
ie
cu pie
r
Po t M
a
st
er ch.
M
ak
er
M
ed
ia PC
Pa Ce
pe nte
r
r
A Cut
r
O ts& ter
ffi
ce Cra
Su fts
pp
lie
s
B
in
M
di
A
n
C
Tr g M
an
ac
sp
h
ar .
en
cy
0
Figure 7 Frequency of Usage for New Teacher Center Stations
Roughly 10% of visitors encountered difficulties using the center. Table 44 shows the
stations where difficulties were encountered, and the frequency of problems.
Most of the
difficulties dealt with either the machines not working properly or too long of a wait to use the
station. Other difficulties included not being able to open a file on the PC, and not understanding
where supplies were located.
53
Table 44
Stations where Usage Difficulties were Reported
N
Percent of Total
Station Usage
Laminator
9
7
Copier
8
13
PC
6
12
Diecut Machine
5
9
Poster Maker
4
8
Media Center
3
8
Paper Cutter
3
10
Office Supplies
2
11
Arts and Crafts
1
4
41
9
Station
Total
More than half of all new survey respondents (56%) indicated that they desired lesson
plan ideas to be included among the resources available in the New Teacher Center. As with the
previous year, visitors also indicated that they desired longer hours (50%) and weekend access
(38%) to the center. Several new survey respondents (29%) also expressed their preferences for
more computers at the center.
Less than 10% desired additional workshops and on-site
mentoring. Other responses included increasing the number of copies permitted, the opportunity
to borrow teacher resource books, and requests for specific office supplies, such as rubber
cement. Several respondents took the opportunity to praise the center on this question, stating
that it was “perfect as it is.”
AC specialists were most often cited as the source for learning about the center (48%).
Colleagues, however, were also cited by 19% of respondents, indicating that word-of-mouth was
beginning to gain in strength. Instructional coaches were the only other sizable source (8%).
Only 1% of respondents cited the Professional Preparation and Support Newsletter, and only 2%
cited campus fliers.
54
Grow Your Own.
Program participation has declined slightly over the past three years, as
shown in Figure 8. Although all critical need areas were available for participants, the district’s
emphasis upon its need for highly qualified bilingual teachers drove most participants towards
pursuing certification in bilingual education in 2005-2006.
9
8
9
9
8
English/Reading/Language
Arts
General (EC-4)
7
6
Bilingual Education (EC-4)
5
4
2
English as a Second
Language*
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
Special Education
1
1
1
Science (4-8)
0
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
Figure 8 Areas of Study for Grow Your Own Participants, 2003-2006
Note* Both participants who sought certification in ESL also sought certification in bilingual
education.
Of the 11 program participants, three (27%) completed their certification and degree
requirements by the end of the summer. All three program graduates were placed in classrooms
complementing their degrees and certifications.
Two of the three graduates obtained
certifications in bilingual education (EC-4); the remaining graduate obtained certification and a
Master’s degree in special education.
Advanced Study.
The Advanced Study Program continued to decline in the number of program
participants, as shown in Figure 9.
Funding for the program has remained constant since
2003-2004, with $25,000 allotted annually towards tuition reimbursement, and $4,000 allotted
annually towards textbook reimbursement. Participants are entitled to reimbursement for up to
six hours of tuition each year, and up to $100 for textbooks per school year, for a maximum of
four years. All 2005-2006 program participants were continuing students from prior years. No
new participants were recruited in 2005-2006, due to insufficient funds available for full
55
reimbursement. New participants were recruited in 2004-2005 to pursue Master’s degrees in
bilingual education.
25
25
Library Science
20
Early Childhood
Education
17
15
Special Education
9
10
6
5
3 2
3
1 1
2
5
1
1
Bilingual Education
0
2003-2004
2004-2005
English as a Second
Language
2005-2006
Figure 9 Areas of Study for Advanced Study Program Participants, 2003-2006
Participants attended courses at one of four area universities: Southern Methodist
University (SMU), Texas Women’s University (TWU), Texas A&M University – Commerce
(TAMU), and University of North Texas (UNT).
Of the 15 participants in 2005-2006, seven (47%) completed their advanced degrees
prior to the start of the 2006-2007 school year. All seven teachers were placed in classroom
assignments which matched the degrees they sought. Table 45 shows the graduation status for
all 2005-2006 program participants.
Table 45
Areas of Study and Graduation Status for Advanced
Study Participants, 2005-2006
Number of
Participants
Number of
Graduates
Library Science
9
3
Bilingual Education
5
3
Special Education
1
1
15
7
Master’s Degree Area
Total
Recruitment literature and the district website both advertise the availability of the
Advanced Study program for teachers. The program is also used as a hiring incentive during
56
teacher recruitment. The program coordinator indicated that 30 to 50 applications were submitted
annually by interested teachers. However, with the budget remaining constant and slots being
filled by continuing teachers, both Human Resource Services and New Teacher Support and
Development should either reconsider active advertising of the program, or consider seeking
additional, alternative funding for the program.
Hire Your Own.
The number of contracts offered to the top 10% of the district’s graduating
classes continued to increase. Last year the program offered 801 graduating seniors conditional
contracts for future employment as teachers.
In 2005-2006, New Teacher Support and
Development extended contract offers to 815 graduating seniors.
In the 2006-2007 school year, the first Hire Your Own contract holders will be eligible for
placement. The first contracts were offered in May 2003. The district will extend a teaching
contract to any of these graduates who complete all of the requirements needed to be recognized
as highly qualified in their teaching field.
Future Educator Organizations.
The number of student future educator organizations expanded
in 2005-2006 to 109 campuses districtwide, up from 88 campuses in 2004-2005.
Student
participation grew by almost 20%, with 1,307 students active in future educator groups.
Elementary campuses enjoyed the most participation, as shown in Table 46.
Table 46
District Participation in Future Educator Organizations by School Level
School Level
Number of Organizations
Number of Students
Elementary
56
762
Middle
25
163
High
28
382
109
1307
Total
New Teacher Support and Development hosted the Second Annual DISD Future
Educators’ Organization Conference at Eastfield Community College. For this school year, the
57
department hosted a separate conference for elementary students, and one for middle school
students. At the middle elementary district conference, held on April 7, 2006, 149 students from
seven campuses enjoyed a motivational speaker, attended workshops designed to introduce
them to fun and effective teaching techniques, toured the campus, and participated in various
competitions.
The elementary school district conference held on April 21, 2006 hosted 336
students from 20 campuses, and provided activities and events similar to the middle school
conference.
In addition to the district conferences, students had the opportunity to attend regional and
state future educator conferences. The regional conference was held at the University of Texas
at Dallas on October 4, 2005. Four high schools- Adamson, Middle College, Seagoville, and
Sunset sent 75 students to represent the district in the regional conference. As with the district
conference, students listened to a keynote speaker and attended workshops. Participants also
took part in speech competitions. Representatives from area universities were on hand to answer
questions and provide information about their programs.
Thirty-eight high school students from six campuses- Middle College, Skyline, Townview
Business, Townview Government and Law, and Townview Talented and Gifted, and Washington
attended the State Texas Association for Future Educators (TAFE) in San Antonio, February
23-25, 2006.
Participants attended workshops, met with college representatives, and competed
in teaching-related competitions.
2.4 What were the Outcomes for Other DISD Alternative Certification Programs?
Methodology
This section covers outcomes for other teacher programs administered by the DISD
Alternative Certification Program. These programs include the Alternative School Counseling
Certification Program and the Alternative Certification Teacher Academy (ACTA).
58
Program participant data were provided by the AC Department, except for personnel
information, which was obtained through a Personnel snapshot dated August 23, 2006.
As recipients of mentors assigned through the Counselor Connection Program, AC
counselor interns assigned to elementary campuses were sent a short survey by the evaluation
specialist assigned to evaluate the program. Besides demographic questions, interns were asked
to rank by importance various reasons for staying with the district, what services or resources the
Counseling Services Department could provide to improve counselor retention, and their opinions
regarding the quality of the mentoring program. Alternative Certification counseling interns from
Cohort 1 were included as survey recipients for the first time in 2005-2006. Interns from Cohorts
2 and 3 were not selected to receive the survey since they were not counselors of record. For
more information about the Counselor Connection Program, refer to EA06-180-2.
Ten of the 14 interns in Cohort 1 completed the survey.
Alternative Certification
counselor interns comprised 31% of survey recipients. Of the 19 non-AC counselors who were
sent surveys, 17 responded. Cohorts 2 and 3 did not receive surveys, since none were placed as
counselors of record on campuses. A copy of the survey is located in the Appendix of this report.
In addition, AC counselor interns from Cohort 1 participated in a focus group on January
30, 2006. The transcription of the focus group is located in the Appendix of this report, although
an overview is presented in the results section below.
Results
Alternative School Counseling Certification Program.
Cohort 1 interns were placed as
counselors of record in 2005-2006. Of the 14 interns, 10 were placed at elementary campuses,
as shown in Table 47.
Each AC counselor intern was assigned to a different campus.
Elementary campuses tended towards higher counselor to student ratios, compared with middle
and high schools, even with comparable enrollments. No AC counselor interns were placed in
campus assignments with higher student ratios than non-AC counselors at the same school level.
59
Where campuses had more than one counselor, the AC intern was the only new counselor on
staff.
Table 47
Alternative Certification School Counselor Intern Placement, Total Number of
Counselors on Campus, and Student Ratio
Number of Counselors
on Campus
Counselor to Student
Ratio
North Dallas High School
6
1:288
Sunset High School
6
1:354
Cary Middle School
3
1:366
Quintanilla Middle School
3
1:359
John Q. Adams Elementary
2
1:475
Field Elementary
1
1:540
Hernandez Elementary
1
1:618
Jones Elementary
2
1:543
Jordan Elementary
2
1:493
Kahn Elementary
2
1:395
Mount Auburn Elementary
2
1:363
Rogers Elementary
2
1:505
Saldivar Elementary
2
1:577
Silberstein Elementary
2
1:449
Campus
Total
36
1:452
Note. Counselor data come from the personnel snapshot dated April 13, 2006. Only
active counselors were included in the analyses. Student data come from the Delta
Demo snapshot dated October 28, 2005.
Only two (15%) AC interns were placed on campuses without additional, experienced
counselors on staff.
Comparatively, 37% of non-AC counselors were the only counselors
assigned to their campuses. No elementary campuses had more than two counselors on staff.
Survey respondents provided lists of active certifications, including all teaching and
professional certifications. Among non-AC counselors, only 29% cited certification in bilingual
education or English as a Second Language (ESL). Seventy percent of Alternative Certification
counselors reported certification in either bilingual education or ESL.
60
All of the counselor interns in Cohort 1 passed their certification examinations in school
counseling. By September of 2006, all but three counselors had received their Master’s degree.
Counselors were asked which factors influenced their decisions to remain employed with
the district and how these factors ranked by order of importance.
The survey instructed
respondents to select ten factors and assign a score of “10” to the most important factor
contributing to retention, and a “1” to the least important factor. Alternative Certification counselor
interns’ rankings are found in Table 48.
Please note that only factors with five or more
respondents are included in the table below. Respondents selected from 21 different factors and
could also write in any additional factors which influenced them to remain with the district.
Table 48
Most Frequently Cited Factors Which Influenced Alternative Certification Counselor Interns to
Remain Employed with the District
Factor
Mean Ranking
Number of Respondents
Distance of Commute
6.9
8
Duties and responsibilities
6.5
6
Chance to work with inner-city children
6.4
7
Relationship with mentor
6.2
5
Other campus relationships
6.1
7
Salary and Benefits
5.8
8
Relationships with teachers
5.4
8
Integrating into school community
4.6
5
Family or personal issues
4.5
6
Quality of physical facilities
3.6
5
Student discipline issues
3.0
5
Relationship with principal
2.3
6
Other influential factors included: relationship with area counselor, quality of available
resources, the opportunity to work with people of other cultures, and school safety issues. Three
interns wrote in their most important reasons for staying: enjoyment of the overall job of
counseling and working with kids, the campus atmosphere, and job integrity- having the ability to
do the job the intern was trained to do despite the agenda of the principal.
61
The lack of importance AC counselor interns placed upon their relationships with their
principals was surprising, given two factors: first, substantial research emphasizes the important
role of the principal in setting the campus climate and teacher morale. Four years of surveying
AC teacher interns have supported this assumption as well.
Second, non-AC counselor
respondents ranked relationship with their principal higher than any other factor (μ = 7.3, n = 30)
over three years of surveying.
Respondents further justified their most influential reason for remaining employed with
the district. Working with children, and seeing the positive impact derived from such interactions
was a strong, motivating reason for several of the interns. Support from the principal, and the
principal’s trust in the counselor also had a strong impact.
Conversely, being assigned to
additional, non-related duties negatively impacted relationships with principals.
Interns also
frequently cited campus environment and relations with campus staff; clean, safe, and friendly
environments contributed to job satisfaction.
When asked to name three things that would improve the retention of counselors, AC
interns frequently cited increasing insufficient budgets and salaries, as well as improving
principals’ perceptions of the counselors, as shown in Table 49.
Interestingly, only one AC
counselor intern advocated continuing mentoring for counselors, even though it was the most
frequently suggested idea among all respondents.
62
Table 49
Suggested Ways to Improve Counselor Retention
Idea
N
(All)
N
(AC)
Continue mentoring counselors
13
1
Increase budget/Provide additional stipend for supplies
6
4
Make principal evaluation more objective/Better evaluation
instrument/Eliminate principal section on evaluation
6
3
Salary increase
6
3
Cohort meetings once/quarter/monthly/ Increase meeting frequency
5
1
Improve job security
3
2
Need more support from campus/Build relationships/Caring environment
3
1
No SST for counselors/reduce SST duties
3
3
Provide clerk/admin assistance
3
0
Continue to provide resources
2
0
Deployment
2
0
Evaluate principals on using counselor efficiently/Ensure principals are in
compliance/ Train principals on counselor’s role
3
3
Giving counselors stronger influence in policy changes in
district/Communicate with superintendent regarding importance of counselor
2
0
Increase district funding for staff development/Get counselor input as to
training needs/More training in school’s specific needs
4
2
Continue program activities
1
1
Lower counselor: student ratio
1
1
More positive feedback
1
0
No deployment
1
0
No language requirements
1
0
Provide consistent templates for common procedures inherent in job
1
0
Provide Spanish classes
1
0
Mentors provided through the Counselor Connection Program influenced most of the AC
counselor interns in their career. Mentors were most influential in providing an understanding of
the tasks of the counselor and the environment in which counselors work. Mentors also helped
interns decide to continue in their positions. Mentors also helped through encouragement, by
providing resources, and by helping the intern to “find a balance that will help [the intern] endure a
63
long career as a counselor in a healthy way.” Several interns commended mentors for their
assistance in “crisis situations” and similar difficulties with students.
All AC counselor interns valued the quality of the mentoring provided for them, with 80%
rating their mentoring as “Very good (I could not have completed the year without it)” and 20%
rating their mentoring experiences as “Good (Better than what I expected)”.
Interns also highly regarded the quality of the AC program itself. Interns recommended
most of the first-year (2004-2005) components, including the orientation.
The orientation
thoroughly informed the interns about the paperwork, timelines, and expectations of the program.
Job shadowing was viewed as constructive and effective; the experienced counselors treated
interns professionally, and acted welcoming and inclusive towards the interns.
First-year coursework was designed to prepare interns for their certification exams.
Certification preparation was described as “tougher than the test” but helpful. Interns were more
critical of the online training and the Pre-Practicum coursework. The online coursework was a
“complete waste of time” and “time consuming.” The Pre-Practicum coursework was confusing
and contradictory.
Regardless, the training had an additional, positive effect: it facilitated
cohesiveness among the cohort, which lent to support and group learning.
Several interns
attributed the cohort concept as instrumental to their successes as counselors.
Interns took coursework on counseling children and adolescents, as well as district-based
staff development in the summer prior to their campus placements. Although the coursework was
oriented towards the elementary setting, the course activities were described as helpful by
counselor interns assigned to secondary campuses. The Practicum course was well received;
one intern stated the course “put out the fire of self-doubt.” While interns positively described the
training they received, most desired more practical, “hands-on” experience in the summer
months, especially working with student groups and crises situations. Interns also expressed
interests in working with reading and evaluating transcripts, master calendars, the student data
system (STUSYS), and the Student Profiling Center.
While campus placement was generally well-received, interns saw room for
improvement. Secondary counselors desired more group counseling information. Interns further
64
stressed the need for more exposure to grief counseling in their summer training. However, most
of the issues interns faced were not specific to the AC program, but instead to counseling in
general. Most of the interns expressed concerns that clerical duties, such as inputting changes to
students’ schedules took up a disproportionately large amount of their time.
Other interns
reported their principals used them as substitute teachers, rather than as counselors.
Interns placed with other counselors definitely benefited from their experienced
colleagues; lone counselors relied solely upon mentors provided through the Counselor
Connection Program.
Moreover, even on campuses with multiple counselors, interns were
typically the only bilingual counselor on staff, which created additional strain upon their work
loads. Although some interns urged the AC program to emphasize skills other than bilingual
when recruiting future interns, all agreed that their bilingual abilities were a great source of
comfort for parents with whom they interacted.
By the start of the 2006-2007 school year, the program had retained all but one of the
counselors in Cohorts 1 and 2. One counselor intern from Cohort 1 separated from the district
due to promotion outside of the school district. Although this was a voluntary separation, district
definitions of retainable attrition categorize this counselor’s attrition as non-retainable.
Alternative Certification Teacher Academy.
In order to create and maintain a pool of candidates
in hard-to-staff and critical areas, the Alternative Certification (AC) Department created the AC
Teacher Academy in 2005-2006. The Academy pre-trained individuals who intended to enter the
AC teacher internship, but for whom slots were not available at the time of program selection.
Academy participants attended all training required for Alternative Certification interns, and
underwent all screening, testing, and interview processes that AC teacher interns went through.
Academy participants paid $500.00 for their training as AC teacher interns. Unlike individuals
selected for internship, however, ACTA participants were not guaranteed teaching positions;
ACTA participants were, therefore, not required to incur the costs of certification until selected
into the intern program.
65
Most Academy participants received training in the summer. The summer training for
Cohort 1 began in June 2005, and spanned eight weeks, ending July 30, 2005. Training was
held from 6:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. weeknights, and 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. Training
for Cohort 2 was more intensive, extending over only three weeks in August 2005. Training for
Cohort 3 was conducted during the school year, from September to October 2005. Cohort 3
training was conducted on Saturdays only, from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Cohort 4 repeated the
same training cycle as Cohort 1, beginning in June 2006, in order to prepare for 2006-2007
placements.
Cohort 2 was initiated after all eligible participants in Cohort 1 were placed in classrooms
as teachers of record, and additional vacancies arose in the district. In most cases, candidates
met the condition of highly qualified by passing the General (EC-4) certification exam.
The
second ACTA was held at the request of the Human Resource Services Department.
Eleven of the Academy participants in Cohort 3 were evacuees from New Orleans who
moved to Dallas after Hurricane Katrina.
Several of the teachers from New Orleans were
enrolled in Alternative Certification programs in Louisiana. Displaced New Orleans teachers were
not required to pay for their training.
All of these teachers met the requirements for highly
qualified. Eight evacuees passed their content and pedagogy exams by July 2006.
Training was conducted by AC specialists, with support from Instructional Services staff
on content areas. Departments from Instructional Services invited to participate in the training
included: English/Language Arts/Reading, English as a Second Language (ESL), Fine Arts,
Mathematics, Science, Special Education, and Technology. In addition to content training, ACTA
provided training designed to improve the quality of classroom instruction and organization,
including: CHAMPS, Classroom Management, DISD Scope and Sequence, Differentiated
Instruction for ESL and Special Education, Lesson Cycle, Lesson Plans, Micro Teaching,
Multiculturalism, OASIS, and Working with Diverse Populations. Mini-lessons covered topics
such as policies and procedures, documentation, and student assessment. Online courses were
developed by AC specialists to complement the workshops provided to Academy participants.
66
Academy participants’ passing rates on their certification exams are presented in Table
50. All but eight participants in the four cohorts met the requirements to be considered highly
qualified by July 2006.
Table 50
Certification Exam Pass Rates for Alternative Certification Teacher Academy
Participants, by Academy Cohorts
Certification Area
N
Content
Pass Rate
PPR
Pass Rate
100%
100%
100%2
100%
75%
100%1
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%2
100%
100%1
100%1
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%1
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
100%1
100%
100%
100%
Cohort 1
Art/ESL/General
Art/General
Business
English/Language Arts/Reading
English/Language Arts/Reading 4-8
English/Language Arts/Reading 8-12
ESL 4-8
ESL EC-4
ESL/General
Family/Consumer Science
General
General/Business/ESL
General EC-4
History
Math 8-12
Music
Physical Education
Science 4-8, 8-12/Biology 7-12
Science 4-8/Biology 8-12
Science/Math
Science 4-8, 8-12
Social Studies
Special Education
Special Education/General
Theater
Total
Cohort 2
Bilingual
Bilingual EC-4
Biology 8-12
Biology
English/Language Arts/Reading
English/Language Arts/Reading 4-8
English/Language Arts/Reading 8-12
ESL 4-8
ESL EC-4
ESL/Special Education/General
Family/Consumer Science
French
General 4-8
1
1
1
2
4
4
3
13
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
1
3
15
2
71
1
8
1
2
3
1
7
2
2
3
1
1
1
67
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
50%
100%
100%1
100%1
100%
100%1
100%
100%1
100%1
100%
100%
50%1
100%
0%
100%1
100%
86%
100%
100%
100%
100%1
100%
1
1
0%
100%
1
100%1
100%
100%1
100%
100%
1
100%
1
100%
Table 50 continues
Certification Area
General EC-4
Math 4-8
Math 8-12
Math/Science 4-8
Physical Education
Physical Education/General
Radio/Television
Science 4-8
Science 8-12
Social Studies
Spanish
Special Education
Technology
Total
Cohort 3
Biology
Choir
English/Language Arts/Reading
English/Language Arts/Reading 4-8
English/Language Arts/Reading 8-12
English/Language Arts/Reading/History
History
Math
Math 4-8
Music
Science
Science 4-8
Science 8-12
Social Studies
Spanish
Social Studies/Bilingual/Spanish
Theater
Total
Cohort 4
N
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
16
1
68
1
1
5
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
4
1
1
34
Table 50 continued
Content
PPR
Pass Rate
Pass Rate
100%
100%
1
1
67%
100%
100%1
100%
100%
100%
100%1
100%
100%
100%
100%1
100%
100%
100%
100%1
100%
100%
100%
100%1
100%
100%
0%
100%1
100%
100%1
100%
0%
100%1
100%
100%1
1
0%1
1
1
0%
1
100%
100%
100%
0%
50%1
0%
100%1
100%
100%
1
1
1
100%
100%
100%
0%
100%1
1
50%1
100%
100%
3
3
2
3
3
1
Total
3
Total all cohorts
176
1
Incomplete data was available for all participants. Percentages based upon available
data only.
2
One participant chose not to take certification exams.
3
Cohort 4 ran from June to July 2006. No exam scores were available by report submission.
General EC-4
Technology
Participants who received summer training alongside AC teacher interns were eligible to
interview with principals for positions that came available after the start of the school year. In all
cases, ACTA participants were required to meet the conditions of highly qualified teachers before
the district placed them in classrooms as teachers of record. By the start of the 2006-2007
68
school year, 160 of the 176 active participants were placed in campus assignments at 93
campuses.
Tables 51-54 show the campus assignments and content areas for Cohort
participants.
Table 51
Campus and Content Area Assignments for the Alternative Certification
Teacher Academy – Cohort 1
Campus
Content Area
N
B. Adams High School
Special Education
1
Adamson High School
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Carter High School
Music
1
Jefferson High School
Biology
1
Kimball High School
History
1
Music
1
Lincoln High School
Physical Education
1
Molina High School
English/Language Arts/Reading
2
Special Education
1
North Dallas High School
Social Studies
1
Pinkston High School
Special Education
1
Redirections Center
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
School of Science and Engineering
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Seagoville High School
Family/Consumer Science
1
Skyline High School
Integrated Physics and Chemistry
1
South Oak Cliff High School
Theater
1
Sunset High School
Special Education
1
Townview Magnet
Pre-AP Algebra II/Pre-Calculus
1
Science
1
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Atwell Middle School
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
B.E. Dade Middle School
Texas Studies
1
Comstock Middle School
Special Education
1
Cary Middle School
Special Education
1
Florence Middle School
English/Language Arts/Reading
2
Band/Music
1
Business Ventures
1
Science
1
Greiner Middle School
Theater
1
Hood Middle School
Language Arts
1
Wilson High School
Table 51 continues
69
Table 51 continued
Campus
Content Area
N
Long Middle School
Language Arts/Pre-AP Language Arts
1
Rusk Middle School
Science
1
Storey Middle School
Texas Studies
1
Zumwalt Middle School
Music
1
Alexander Elementary
General Elementary
1
Anderson Elementary
ESL (4-8)
1
Bayles Elementary
ESL (EC-4)
1
Bethune Elementary
ESL (EC-4)
1
Blair Elementary
Special Education
1
Brashear Elementary
ESL (EC-4)
1
Burleson Elementary
ESL (4-8)
1
General Elementary (EC-4)
1
Cabell Elementary
Special Education
1
Ervin Elementary
Special Education
1
Foster Elementary
ESL (EC-4)
1
Hawthorne Elementary
Special Education
2
Highland Meadows Elementary
ESL (EC-4)
1
Kleberg Elementary
General Elementary (EC-4)
1
Lagow Elementary
Art
1
Marshall Elementary
ESL (EC-4)
1
Medrano Elementary
ESL (EC-4)
1
Patton Elementary
ESL (EC-4)
1
Reagan Elementary
ESL (EC-4)
1
Roberts Elementary
ESL (EC-4)
1
Tatum Elementary
Art/Fine Arts
1
Thorton Elementary
ESL
1
General Elementary
1
Special Education
1
ESL (EC-4)
2
Zaragosa Elementary
Total
70
63
Table 52
Campus and Content Area Assignments for the Alternative Certification
Teacher Academy – Cohort 2
Campus
Content Area
N
Adamson High School
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Mathematics
1
Carter High School
Spanish
1
Kimball High School
French
1
Lincoln High School
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Mathematics
1
Radio/TV
1
Middle College
Mathematics
1
North Dallas High School
Biology
1
Special Education
1
Roosevelt High School
English/Language Arts/Reading
2
Skyline High School
Family/Consumer Science
1
Smith High School
Biology
1
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Biology
1
Integrated Physics and Chemistry
1
Biology
1
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Wilson High School
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Cary Middle School
Special Education
1
Comstock Middle School
Social Studies
1
Dallas Environmental Science Academy
Science
1
Edison Learning Center
Special Education
1
Gaston Middle School
Special Education
1
Hulcy Middle School
Technology Education
1
Long Middle School
Special Education
1
Marsh Middle School
Special Education
1
Quintanilla Middle School
Special Education
1
Seagoville Middle School
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Spence Middle School
Mathematics
1
Storey Middle School
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Mathematics
1
Tasby Middle School
Special Education
1
Zumwalt Middle School
Mathematics
1
South Oak Cliff High School
Thomas Jefferson High School
Table 52 continues
71
Table 52 continued
Campus
Content Area
N
Arlington Park Elementary
Physical Education
1
Botello Elementary
Physical Education
1
Burleson Elementary
Special Education
1
Cigarroa Elementary
ESL/Special Education
1
Conner Elementary
General Elementary (EC-4)
1
Donald Elementary
Bilingual (EC-4)
1
Ervin Elementary
Science
1
Hooe Elementary
ESL (4-8)
1
Hotchkiss Elementary
Bilingual (EC-4)
1
Kiest Elementary
General Elementary (EC-4)
1
Kleberg Elementary
Bilingual (EC-4)
1
Miller Elementary
Special Education
1
Mills Elementary
Special Education
1
Ray Elementary
Special Education
1
Reagan Elementary
Bilingual Pre-Kindergarten
1
Runyon Elementary
Bilingual (EC-4)
1
Salazar Elementary
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Saldivar Elementary
General Elementary (EC-4)
1
San Jacinto Elementary
Special Education
1
Soto Elementary
ESL (EC-4)
1
Starks Elementary
Special Education
1
Stevens Park Elementary
Bilingual (EC-4)
2
Terry Elementary
Bilingual (EC-4)
1
Thompson Elementary
Special Education
1
Thorton Elementary
Bilingual (EC-4)
1
ESL (4-8)
1
Vickery Meadows Elementary
Bilingual (EC-4)
1
Winnetka Elementary
General Elementary
1
Young Elementary
Special Education
1
Total
72
65
Table 53
Campus and Content Area Assignments for the Alternative Certification
Teacher Academy – Cohort 3
Campus
Content Area
N
Carter High School
Biology
1
Choir
1
Jefferson High School
Chemistry/Pre-AP Chemistry
1
Lincoln High School
Chemistry/Pre-AP Chemistry
1
Music
1
Pinkston High School
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Seagoville High School
Science
1
Skyline High School
Integrated Physics and Chemistry
1
Spanish
1
Chemistry
1
History
1
English/Language Arts/Reading
2
Social Studies
1
Mathematics
1
Spanish
1
Wilson High School
Spanish
1
Atwell Middle School
Mathematics
1
Browne Middle School
Science
1
Florence Middle School
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Gaston Middle School
English/Language Arts/Reading
3
Hulcy Middle School
Science
1
Quintanilla Middle School
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Seagoville Middle School
English/Language Arts/Reading
1
Spence Middle School
Spanish
1
Storey Middle School
History
1
Frank Elementary
Theater
1
Truett Elementary
Mathematics
1
Smith High School
Spruce High School
White High School
Total
73
30
Table 54
Campus and Content Area Assignments for the Alternative Certification
Teacher Academy – Cohort 4
Campus
Content Area
N
School of Science and Engineering
Technology Education
1
Carver Elementary
General Elementary (EC-4)
1
Soto Elementary
General Elementary (EC-4)
1
Total
3
2.5 How Satisfied were Beginning Teachers with Campus Mentoring Services?
Methodology
For the fourth consecutive year, a new cohort of beginning teachers received the New
Teacher Comprehensive Survey in order to gauge their perceptions of their campus culture and
environment, and the services that Professional Preparation and Support provided to them. The
entire population of beginning teachers hired between May 2005 and April 2006 received a
survey. The Human Resource Services’ personnel database confirmed teachers’ hire dates.
The survey was sent through intra-district mailings to 590 teachers, all of whom were
identified as teachers with no prior teaching experience. Recipients were encouraged, but not
required, to return the completed survey. Subsequently, self-selection may have factored into the
outcomes. Of the 590 surveys sent out, 190 were used in the final analysis, yielding a 32%
response rate. The majority of respondents (83%) identified themselves as AC interns, 14%
identified themselves as traditionally certified, and 4% as post- Baccalaureate. For the third year,
the largest group of survey respondents identified themselves as Hispanic (39%), followed by
African–American (29%) and white (27%).
Response by ethnicity roughly paralleled the
ethnicity of the actual beginning teacher population.
74
The survey instrument underwent minor changes from the 2004–2005 survey, in order to
adjust for program differences, and to better reflect the nature of new teacher experiences. A
copy of the updated survey instrument is included as Appendix H of this report.
Personnel data were taken from an April 13, 2006 snapshot of Human Resource Services
employment records. Mentor lists were provided by New Teacher Support and Development
records of trained mentors assigned to campuses.
Results
Campus-based mentors continued to implement New Teacher Support and Development
mandates for mentoring beginning teachers.
New Teacher Support Teams selected eligible
mentors and submitted the list of mentors to New Teacher Support and Development. As with
last year, several campus mentors who had provided support in 2004-2005 did not continue in
2005-2006.
Unlike last year, the number of beginning teachers eligible for mentoring increased
for middle and high schools, and declined slightly for elementary schools. Principals quickly
provided mentors for new teachers; 92% of respondents reported having mentors assigned within
15 days of reporting to their campuses.
Tables 55-57 provide a breakdown of mentors to mentees by campus. Table 55 details
high schools; Table 56 details middle schools, and Table 57 details elementary schools. All
schools were reported, even if they did not have trained mentors, beginning teachers, or Dallas
Independent School District (DISD) additional year Alternative Certification interns on staff.
Two campuses, Harry Stone Montessori and W.T. White High School, reported that
although mentoring was provided to beginning teachers on their campuses, the mentors chose
not to submit the paperwork required to receive compensation from New Teacher Support and
Development. The four beginning teachers mentored in this manner are included in the tables
below.
75
Table 55
Number of Mentors*, Beginning Teachers**, and Additional Year DISD Alternative
Certification Interns Assigned at Each Campus – High Schools
Campus
Bryan Adams
Adamson
Angelou
Carter
Hillcrest
Jefferson
Kimball
Lincoln
Madison
Manns
Middle Coll.
Molina
Mult. Careers
North Dallas
Pinkston
Reconnection
Rangel
Redirections
Mentors
6
9
1
4
2
6
3
2
3
0
0
10
0
7
4
1
3
2
Beg.
Teachers
7
9
0
8
1
10
3
7
4
0
0
14
0
4
4
1
5
1
AC
Interns
2
3
0
2
0
0
1
2
2
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
0
0
Campus
Roosevelt
Samuell
SCGC
Seagoville
Skyline
Smith
S. Oak Cliff
Spruce
Sunset
Townview
Business
Health
Law
Science
TAG
Washington
White
Wilson
Mentors
0
6
1
2
18
6
6
3
1
2
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
9
Beg.
Teachers
5
3
1
3
13
10
5
3
4
1
0
0
0
2
1
2
7
9
AC
Interns
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
3
Total
122
147
30
Ratio of Mentors: Mentees: 1:1.45
Note. *Mentor list on file with New Teacher Support and Development for 2005-2006, with
updated listings from campuses which responded to email and phone correspondence.
Note. **Beginning teachers were defined as having no more than one total year of experience.
Data was taken from Human Resource Services employment records for new hires as of
03/01/06, and the DISD active AC intern list for 2005-2006, as of 01/06/06. The AC intern list
includes additional year interns who were still eligible for mentoring.
76
Table 56
Number of Mentors*, Beginning Teachers**, and Additional Year DISD Alternative
Certification Interns Assigned at Each Campus – Middle Schools
AC
Beg.
AC
Beg.
Campus
Mentors Teachers Interns Campus
Mentors Teachers Interns
P.C. Anderson
1
0
3
Hulcy
1
6
1
Atwell
2
4
1
LACEY
1
1
0
Browne
4
5
0
Long
5
6
1
Cary
2
3
2
Longfellow
1
2
0
Comstock
4
4
0
Marsh
5
3
1
Environmental
1
1
0
Quintanilla
2
2
0
Dealey***
0
0
0
Rusk
2
5
0
Edison
2
3
2
Seagoville
5
5
1
Florence
5
8
1
Spence
4
3
2
Franklin
1
1
0
Stockard
1
3
1
Gaston
4
5
1
Stone***
0
1
0
Greiner
7
12
0
Storey
5
8
2
Hill
0
1
0
Travis****
0
0
0
Holmes
3
4
2
Zumwalt
3
3
0
Hood
5
5
1
76
104
22
Ratio of Mentors: Mentees: 1:1.66
Total
Note. ***Dealey and Stone Montessori operate as grades PK-8.
Note. ****Travis operates as grades 4-8.
77
Table 57
Number of Mentors*, Beginning Teachers**, and Additional Year DISD Alternative
Certification Interns Assigned at Each Campus – Elementary Schools
Campus
J.Q. Adams
N. Adams
Alexander
Allen
W. Anderson
Arcadia Park
Arlington Park
Bayles
Bethune
Blair
Blanton
Bonham
Bowie
Bryan
Buckner
Budd
Burleson
Burnet
Bushman
Cabell
Caillet
Carpenter
Carr
Carver
Casa View
Central
Chavez
City Park
Cochran
Conner
Cowart
Cuellar
Dade
Darrell
Dealey***
DeGolyer
Donald
Dorsey
Douglass
Dunbar
Lipscomb
Lisbon
Macon
Maple Lawn
Marcus
Marsalis
Mentors
4
1
0
1
3
1
1
3
3
5
0
4
4
1
6
4
3
5
4
3
1
0
3
2
0
0
1
3
3
2
4
1
0
0
0
1
4
0
1
0
0
2
4
4
3
4
Beg.
Teachers
5
3
0
0
6
1
1
2
3
5
0
1
4
1
0
6
4
3
3
3
2
0
3
2
0
0
1
2
4
3
3
2
1
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
2
5
1
5
4
AC
Interns
2
1
1
2
0
1
0
2
2
4
0
2
0
0
2
1
1
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
3
5
1
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
1
Campus
Earhart
Elem AEP
Ervin
Fannin
Field
Foster
Frank
Frazier
Gill
Gooch
Hall
Harllee
Hawthorne
Henderson
Hernandez
Hexter
Highland Mdws
Hogg
Hooe
Hotchkiss
Houston
Ireland
M. Jackson
S. Jackson
James
Johnston
Jones
Jordan
Kahn
Kennedy
Kiest
King
Kleberg
Knight
Kramer
Lagow
Lakewood
Lanier
R. E. Lee
U. Lee
Runyon
Russell
Saldivar
San Jacinto
Sanger
Seagoville
78
Mentors
0
0
3
2
3
4
3
0
3
4
2
1
4
1
3
1
4
5
1
3
1
5
2
0
1
4
7
0
3
0
4
0
4
2
3
3
2
2
0
2
7
1
4
5
2
2
AC
Beg.
Interns
Teachers
0
1
0
0
3
0
2
2
3
2
5
1
1
1
0
0
3
2
4
1
2
2
2
1
4
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
4
0
5
2
2
0
3
1
1
0
3
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
4
2
8
3
1
1
3
2
0
0
4
2
0
1
2
2
3
0
0
1
4
0
2
0
3
0
0
0
2
0
6
0
1
0
5
5
4
2
2
2
3
2
Table 57 continues
Table 57 continued
AC
Beg.
AC
Beg.
Interns
Campus
Mentors Teachers Interns Campus
Mentors Teachers
Marshall
4
3
0
Seguin
2
2
0
Martinez
0
0
0
Sequoyah
0
0
0
Mata
1
1
0
Silberstein
3
4
1
McMillan
2
1
0
Starks
4
5
1
McNair
0
0
0
Stemmons
7
9
1
Medrano
4
1
0
Stevens Park
6
7
1
Milam
1
1
0
Stone
0
1
0
Miller
7
3
0
Terry
4
3
1
Mills
4
6
2
Thompson
2
2
1
Moreno
2
3
2
Thorton
2
2
0
Moseley
1
2
2
Titche
10
12
1
Mount Auburn
5
2
0
Tolbert
0
0
1
Oliver
0
0
1
Travis****
0
0
0
Patton
1
1
0
Truett
5
9
1
Peabody
4
3
0
Turner
0
0
0
Pease
0
0
0
Twain
0
1
0
Peeler
1
1
0
Tyler
0
0
0
Pershing
4
3
6
Urban Park
6
6
3
Pleasant Grove
6
4
4
V. Meadows
2
2
1
Polk
3
3
0
Walker
4
4
4
Preston Hollow
2
1
2
Walnut Hill
0
0
0
Ray
1
1
1
Webster
3
3
1
Reagan
3
3
0
Weiss
3
3
2
Reilly
1
1
2
Wheatley
0
0
0
Reinhardt
2
0
0
Williams
2
2
1
Rhoads
0
0
0
Winnetka
6
6
1
Rice
2
1
0
Withers
2
0
1
Roberts
2
3
0
Young
5
4
0
Rogers
2
2
1
Zaragosa
6
5
1
Rosemont
3
3
0
Zavala
3
3
1
Rowe
1
1
3
368
355
146
Ratio of Mentors: Mentees: 1:1.36
Totals
Note. ***Dealey and Stone Montessori operate as grades PK-8.
Note. ****Travis operates as grades 4-8.
Table 58 provides a summary of the statistics gathered in the prior three tables, including
the frequency and ratios of mentors to mentees.
Table 58
Summary of Districtwide Mentor to Mentee Ratios
School Level
Elementary
Middle
High
Districtwide Total
Mentors
Beginning
Teachers
Additional Year
AC Interns
Ratio
368
76
122
566
355
104
147
606
146
22
30
198
1:1.36
1:1.66
1:1.45
1:1.42
79
Compared with prior years, the ratio of mentors to beginning teachers regressed to fewer
mentors per mentees than in 2003-2004, as shown in Figures 10-13. Middle schools Elementary
campuses showed a significant reverse in trend, reporting the highest ratio of teachers eligible for
mentoring to available, trained mentors than in any other year since the inception of New Teacher
Support and Development in 2002-2003. Prior to 2005-2006, the number of trained mentors
available at campuses across the district had increased relative to the number of beginning
teachers eligible for mentoring each year. However, several campuses still had more trained
mentors available than beginning teachers, although this occurred less frequently compared with
last year. Moreover, several campuses with beginning teachers on staff had not submitted a
record of having any trained mentors as of May 2006, despite numerous requests for verification
of mentors.
1200
1032
1000
High School
739
805
800
600
179
200
368
339
400
164
80 61
Middle
School
566
542
162
129
Elementary
School
122
101
76
District
0
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
Figure 10 Number of Mentors in Each School Level, by School Year
1400
1234
High
School
1200
884
1000
819
800
549
600
400
804
674
225 202
183
200
219
131
160
110
Middle
School
501
177
126
Elementary
School
District
0
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
Figure 11 Number of Mentees (Beginning Teachers and Additional Year Alternative Certification
Interns) in Each School Level, by School Year
80
High
Middle
Elementary
Districtwide
2005-2006
2004-2005
2003-2004
2002-2003
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Figure 12 Ratio of Mentees to Each Trained Mentor, by School Year
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
High
0
-1.47
-0.35
0.46
Middle
0
-1.88
0.07
0.57
Elementary
0
0.09
-0.19
0.35
District
0
-0.79
-0.18
0.4
Figure 13 Net Changes in Mentor to Mentee Ratio, by School Level and School Year
Table 59 shows the frequency breakdown of beginning teachers assigned to each trained
mentor since the mentoring program has been under the direction of New Teacher Support and
Development, from 2002-2003 through 2005-2006, for each Superintendent Area.
81
Table 59
Number of Beginning Teachers per Mentor, by School Area
and School Year, 2002-2006
Area
N
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
1
2.37
1.25
1.11
1.33
2
1.92
1.05
0.83
1.40
3
2.33
1.34
1.06
1.29
4
2.44
0.99
0.84
1.51
5
1.57
0.84
0.67
1.60
6
2.44
1.27
1.05
1.51
7
2.68
1.28
1.09
*
8
2.30
1.26
1.03
*
Alternative
*
*
*
0.60
Note * indicates that this School Area did not exist for a given school year.
In 2005-2006, schools were reorganized by School Area, two Areas were
eliminated, and the Alternative Area was formed.
Beginning teachers reported lower levels of satisfaction with the quality of mentoring
provided to them at the campus level than in prior years. The percentage of beginning teachers
who described their mentors as readily accessible declined to 82%, falling below the three-year
average of 86%.
Most respondents described interaction with mentors occurring whenever
beginning teachers had concerns they wanted their mentors to address; only 8% of beginning
teachers had regularly scheduled meetings with established agendas determined. Another 15%
met periodically with their mentors to discuss progress. Almost 30% of beginning teachers did
not even enjoy meetings with their mentors, instead chatting briefly between classes (19%) or no
interaction at all (7%). One respondent claimed the only interaction occurred when the mentor
needed paperwork signed.
Matching mentors to beginning teachers was most likely constrained by the lack of
available mentors; matching by grade level or subject area continued to occur about 50% of the
time. Matching by subject area occurred slightly less frequently than in prior years; matching at
grade level remained steady, at 55% of teachers surveyed. Matching impacted the availability of
the mentor; since campuses typically synchronize planning periods with other teachers in the
same subject area or grade level to maximize collaboration, teachers assigned to mentors in
82
different subject areas or grade levels most likely eliminated planning periods as possible meeting
times, as described by one respondent:
Unfortunately, my mentor had several after school activities and
a planning period different than mine, so we could only meet
briefly after school once a week. She did visit me to observe and
provide feedback. I felt that she was supportive and cared about
my success. I suggest that the mentors be from the same grade
level to better assist the new teachers.
Similarly, several respondents indicated that their mentors did not have sufficient time for
their mentees, due to additional duties and assignments. Mentors often had the longest tenure,
and were well-regarded by their campus administrators. Subsequently, mentors usually served
on one or more committees, served as department heads, and sponsored extra-curricular
activities. Respondents often characterized these mentors as “only a mentor to make some extra
money.” An AC intern offered this insight:
I think there should be rules in place where mentors cannot be in
more than two committees at their schools. School principals
should be discouraged from picking their “favorites” who are in
every committee anyway. They should pick people who are
going to be good mentors and take the time to interact with their
mentees. Furthermore, I think there should be an evaluation in
place after we are certified, to evaluate the mentor, and if they
receive a bad evaluation, [interns] should be reimbursed for
[mentors] doing a sorry job. They got $500 free- for doing
nothing but signing off on paperwork.
Length and frequency of meetings remained steady compared with prior years; most
meetings occurred no more than twice per week, and then for no longer than thirty minutes per
meeting. The percentage of teachers who reported meeting with their mentors on average more
than three times each week declined by 10%, with only 27% of teachers.
New Teacher Support and Development required mentors serving non-AC intern
beginning teachers to complete an action plan which covered areas of concern that teachers and
mentors would cover throughout the school year. Among these teachers, almost 40% reported
that their mentors did not cover the action plan at all; another 50% spent one or two days (27%
and 23%, respectively). Only one teacher reported spending at least one week covering action
plan objectives.
83
Moreover, services which campuses are typically expected to provide for beginning
teachers were not covered as frequently as in prior years, as shown in Table 60. Table 60
provides the top three service providers to beginning teachers.
With the exception of two
services (demonstrating classroom management and providing access to teaching resources)
beginning teachers reported that no one provided services to them at a higher percentage than in
2004-2005. Beginning teachers reported the highest percentage drop in campuses assisting with
integration into the school community.
Table 60
Providers of Assistance for Beginning Teachers, by Type of Service Provided
(Top Three Responses)
Mentor
AC
Specialist
Principal
Colleague
No One
Campus communication
systems/procedures
46%
---
17%
35%
21%
Campus resources
46%
---
15%
38%
21%
Classroom management tips
54%
46%
---
50%
3%
Observation/ Critique
60%
42%
40%
---
8%
Instructional delivery tips
53%
43%
---
29%
13%
Emotional support
46%
24%
---
51%
11%
Integration into school community
43%
---
21%
35%
29%
Modeling classroom instruction
47%
39%
---
24%
21%
Paperwork compliance
32%
35%
---
28%
18%
Communication with parents
39%
31%
---
39%
15%
Teaching resources
40%
40%
---
39%
11%
Staff development
24%
35%
---
22%
17%
Translating TEKS into lesson plans
24%
28%
---
25%
35%
Provided Assistance with:
The only significant differences emerged between all teachers and secondary level
teachers. Three interesting differences emerged from the responses. First, secondary teachers
relied upon mentors significantly less often than beginning teachers overall. Second, secondary
teachers relied more upon department chairs, deans of instruction, and other teachers for
support, compared with beginning teachers overall. Third, secondary teachers reported that no
84
one provided support in all of the various areas at higher percentages, compared with beginning
teachers overall.
Teachers described some mentors modeling unprofessional behavior with staff, students
and parents, “yelling all and everyday and calling children [derogatory] names.”
Other
respondents requested that mentors be judged for their abilities to nurture beginning teachers.
The majority of beginning teachers (64%) reported having a “buddy” teacher or colleague to
assist and support them, the same percentage as in 2004-2005. Supportive colleagues often
assumed tasks mentors were supposed to cover:
I had a difficult year because I was partnered up with a teacher
who refused to help me. I had to get help from two other
experienced teachers in the building. They were so helpful to
me, and I have expressed my gratitude towards them for their
help. Its teachers like these that make teaching much easier.
Respondents who characterized their mentoring experiences as positive described their
mentors as knowledgeable about paperwork and procedures, generous with strategies, materials,
and resources, and openly willing to provide support whenever the beginning teacher requested.
Beginning teachers fortunate enough to have proactive and supportive mentors further described
their first-year experiences as “rewarding” and “wonderful.”
Several teachers recommended providing future new teachers with an opportunity to
evaluate their mentors, thereby identifying ineffective mentors to principals and NTSD. Similarly,
teachers advocated screening mentors before assigning them to beginning teachers.
One
respondent suggested that New Teacher Support Teams work with new teachers at the end of
each school year to glean confidential feedback regarding mentor strengths and weaknesses,
and to “ensure that only committed or caring mentors participate in the program.”
Analyses of the influences of mentor interaction upon intended retention did not yield any
significant results. Frequency and length of meetings and how beginning teachers characterized
interactions with mentors did not significantly influence intended retention of survey respondents.
85
2.6 To what Degree did Campus Environmental Factors Influence Beginning Teacher
Satisfaction?
Methodology
As with beginning teachers’ perceptions of mentor support, the impact of campus
environmental factors was gauged through responses to the New Teacher Comprehensive
Survey. Campus environmental factors included interactions with principals and campus staff,
classroom assignments, additional campus responsibilities, and the pervading culture that existed
at the campus.
General questions regarding experiences with the district overall are also
included in this section, which include experiences with the Human Resource Services
Department and the Payroll Department. Results from the 2005–2006 survey were compared
with those from the previous surveys through difference of means testing, in order to find if
significant differences between responses existed.
Univariate analyses, means testing and
correlation testing also highlighted significant relationships between variables over the four-year
survey period.
Results
Principals.
Beginning teachers continued to emphasize the important role that principals play in
determining their satisfaction. The frequency of interaction and the quality of the interaction
between new teachers and their principals strongly influenced new teachers’ perceptions of
integration into the campus community, how fairly they were treated in relation to colleagues, and
ultimately, how motivated they were to teach at their respective campuses. Positive and frequent
principal interaction invariably contributed to a new teacher’s perception of a supportive campus
environment. All but one of the statements regarding the perception of principals included in
Table 61 below significantly and positively correlated with how long survey respondents intended
to remain teaching with the district. Most of the statements significantly influenced beginning
teachers’ intended tenure.
86
Table 61
New Teachers’ Perceptions* of Their Principals, by Survey Statement
Statement
Agree
Disagree
My principal offers constructive feedback regarding my teaching
performance.
65%
19%
My principal supports my activities conducted within the
classroom.
75%
11%
My principal provides me with instructional support as needed.
64%
16%
My principal encourages me to contact him/her if I feel the need.
76%
15%
My principal offers emotional support.
54%
22%
My principal makes an effort to retain new teachers.
69%
11%
I look forward to going to work.
79%
10%
My principal supports my discipline decisions in the classroom.
71%
9%
My principal clearly expressed what was expected of me as a
beginning teacher.
68%
13%
My principal treats all of the teachers fairly and equally.
65%
20%
Note* The table does not include neutral responses. Responses were based on a
Likert scale.
Curiously, of the above statements, only one- “My principal makes an effort to retain new
teachers,” did not have a statistically significant effect upon intended retention.
Univariate
analyses of the other statements found principals significantly contributed to beginning teachers’
intended retention.
Four measures of principal interaction generated the highest levels of
significance: perceptions of emotional support, whether the principals supported discipline
decisions made in the classroom, whether the principals clearly expressed what they expected of
the new teachers, and whether new teachers looked forward to going to work. The last measure,
whether teachers looked forward to going to work, was strongly influenced by the frequency of
one-to-one interactions with their principals (F = 3.383 (5), p = .006). All four of the strongest
measures together significantly predicted intended length of retention (F = 1.470 (84) p = .033,
R2 = .557).
87
Principals attempted to provide feedback and interaction with peers.
All but 4% of
teachers had at least one walk-through where an administrator or mentor briefly observed the
teacher in the classroom. Most teachers had two or three walk-throughs; 40% of respondents
had four or more walk-throughs. The formal observation of the beginning teachers, on which part
of their performance evaluation was based, introduced another means of interaction with campus
administrators. Per district regulations, teachers were entitled to both pre- and post-observation
conferences; teachers were permitted to waive these conferences if desired.
Only 55% of
respondents affirmed that they participated in both pre- and post-conferences; 14% reported not
attending either of these conferences.
One teacher reported that no appraisals had been
conducted by April 2006, when the survey was distributed. Principals provided most teachers
with the opportunity to observe experienced teachers; only 15% of participants cited they did not
get that opportunity. However, that opportunity, or lack of it, also influenced intended retention
(F = 3.604 (2) p = .029). Several of these teachers also reported infrequent interaction with their
mentors and principals, although most did have some interaction with colleagues.
Compared with prior survey years since 2002-2003, personal one-to-one interaction with
principals in 2005-2006 did not statistically affect intended retention. Although not statistically
significant, it is worth noting that teachers who reported daily interaction with principals reported
intended tenure of at least seven years; 88% intended tenure of ten years or longer. However,
longitudinal analyses continued to suggest that increased interaction significantly increases the
likelihood that beginning teachers will stay with the district. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), testing
with Tukey honestly significant differences (HSD) on the two factors showed that interaction
created a positive influence upon intended retention (F =3.332 (6), p=.000) over four years of
surveying.
Chi-square tests to determine likelihood of intended retention given principal
interaction also proved significant (χ2 = 52.908 (30), p = .006); the strength of the relationship
between intended retention and principal interaction was weak (Cramer’s V = .123) but significant
(p = .006). Although the effect of principal interaction upon intended retention proved small over
four years of surveying, the effect was statistically significant. The more frequently principals
interacted with beginning teachers, the more likely these teachers were to report their intentions
88
to remain with the district. One-to-one interaction with principals is considered one of three
support factors which influence intended retention; perception of departmental meetings and
having a source of advice are the other two factors, which are both discussed below.
Clearly, beginning teachers desired principals who assumed instructional leadership roles
on the campuses. Principals described as active in the affairs of their campuses and supportive
of their beginning teachers positively boosted teachers’ esteem and confidence.
One teacher
summarized the principal as an instructional leader:
The principal at my school is a first-class principal that has many
years of experience in education, and guided me as if I was her
first young teacher; however, the reality is that she has hired and
guided many other new teachers. The principal at my school
used her skills well as a mentor and as a professional
administrator with tact and people skills that made me feel part of
her team.
Principals who offered critique without support tended to have the opposite effect on
teacher perception, especially where little or no interaction took place:
The principal was always at the margin on situations which I
needed help, especially with discipline. Support from the
principal and assistant principals were limited. They were more
of critics, than helpers. I never had real meetings with them to
discuss areas of improvement or feedback.
Similarly, teachers who described their principals as discouraging or distant considered
leaving the teaching profession altogether:
I think principals play an important role in the development of a
new teacher. In my case, the principal was intransigent and
never supported my career as a teacher. She discouraged me,
and was never a role model for me and others in the school,
[nor] for the kids and parents, which says something about her.
Principals like [her] make new teachers feel unwelcome in
school, and in my particular case, made me think about
continuing a career as a teacher. It was a shame to have a
principal like I had.
89
School Environment.
The environment in which teachers worked also contributed to their
satisfaction. School environment included interaction with colleagues, classroom assignments,
teaching resources, and additional duties.
Most teachers (97%) indicated that they regularly interacted with their colleagues.
Moreover, most (78%) were scheduled the same planning periods as other teachers in their
grade levels or subject areas. All but two of the teachers who had coordinated planning periods
also reported that individuals on their campuses checked to confirm that beginning teachers were
properly implementing the curriculum.
Beginning teachers’ perceptions of departmental/grade-level meetings have emerged as
one of three support factors which have for the past three years predicted intended retention of
beginning teacher respondents.
Figure 14 examines beginning teachers’ perceptions of
departmental meetings. Procedural meetings tended to occur at the middle (48%) and high
schools (60%); meetings viewed as opportunities for learning most often occurred among special
education teachers (56%), followed by PK-K teachers (36%).
Interestingly, collaborative
meetings occurred quite frequently at the higher elementary grades (grades 4-6) (62%).
1%
20%
Opportunity for learning
27%
Cause for social interaction
7%
Mostly procedural
Collaborative effort
Nothing gets accomplished
45%
Figure 14 Beginning Teachers’ Perceptions of Departmental/Grade-Level Meetings
As with one-to-one interaction with principals, perception of departmental meetings did
not emerge as a predictor of intended retention among 2005-2006 respondents. However, over
four years of surveying, the relationship continued to have a small, but statistically significant
impact upon intended retention (F = 4.073 (5), p = .001). Differences continued to occur between
meetings viewed as procedural and meetings viewed as an opportunity for learning (t = 3.628,
90
p = .001) and meetings viewed as collaborative (t = 2.731, p = .007). Procedural meetings were
further characterized by the department or grade-level chair setting the meeting agenda and
leading discussions.
The third indicator of campus support- whether beginning teachers had a source of
advice- proved significant over time.
Experienced (buddy) teachers with whom beginning
teachers had established a friendship proved to be the most reliable source of advice, as shown
in Figure 15.
Other sources included deans of instruction, instructional coaches, and new
teachers in the same grades as the respondents. Four percent of respondents did not feel as
though they could ask anyone for help.
Over time, having a source of support had a small,
significant influence upon intended retention (F = 1.809 (17) p = .024).
10%
3%
Mentor
33%
8%
Principal
Buddy teacher
Department head
AC specialist
7%
39%
Other
Figure 15 Sources of Advice for Beginning Teachers
Most teachers perceived fair treatment with regard to classroom assignments. Slightly
more than half (53%) did not feel that they were assigned to classrooms with higher degrees of
disciplinary problems, compared with their veteran colleagues. However, 28% did feel as though
their classrooms had a higher degree of disciplinary problems; the remaining 19% were unsure of
how their classrooms compared.
Most survey respondents’ classrooms contained students with special needs. Of the
82% of teachers with either special education students or English language learners, 58%
reported having sufficient resources to meet the needs of English language learners, and 55%
reported having sufficient needs for special education students. Over half (68%) had classrooms
91
with both types of students. These teachers reported having sufficient resources for English
language learners at a slightly higher rate (55%) than for special education students (52%).
Whether teachers received adequate resources to deal with these students’ needs, or paid for
them out-of-pocket remains unclear. Teachers did report spending personal funds to purchase
classroom supplies; 59% spent more than $200 over the course of the school year. Conversely,
only 1% did not spend any of their own money for classroom supplies.
Only a small percentage of teachers (13%) were assigned to a portable classroom for the
entire year. As with last year, being assigned to a portable classroom by itself did not significantly
impact teachers’ intended length of tenure with the district.
Although these teachers were
assigned to a portable classroom, all of them reported having a source of advice, most often a
colleague (40%) or a mentor (36%). Only one teacher planned to leave the district at the end of
the school year, implying that isolating a beginning teacher in a portable classroom would not
impact that teacher’s integration into the school community, as long as support was readily
available.
On the other hand, teachers who were provided with extra resources, namely, a teacher
assistant (TA) also were not any more likely to retain than teachers who were not assigned a TA.
Of the 35% of teachers who reported having a TA, 63% were assigned to PK-3 classrooms.
However, 24% of teachers with TAs were assigned to middle schools or high schools, and taught
special education (38%), science (24%), math (14%), reading arts (14%), social studies (5%) or
even fine arts (5%).
Mentors were not the only official source of support for beginning teachers. New Teacher
Support Teams provided organized events for beginning teachers at individual campuses and
offered collaborative settings for mentors to construct effective mentoring assistance for their
mentees. Most events were either social or instructional in nature. In 2004-2005, few beginning
teacher respondents were aware of New Teacher Support Teams on their campuses, let alone
what services these teams provided. In 2005-2006, beginning teachers actively participated in
events sponsored by the teams; 81% of respondents who were aware that their campuses held
events indicated participating in one or more activities.
92
Overall, 23% of respondents were
unaware whether their campuses held any events; paperwork submitted to New Teacher Support
and Development by campuses showed that roughly 20% of campuses had not submitted logs
detailing New Teacher Support Team activities.
Anecdotally, teachers continued to stress their needs for early coverage of campus
procedures and paperwork. Beginning teachers advocated early exposure to what paperwork
would be required of them, what forms would likely be of interest to them, and the significance of
the forms outlined.
Teachers reported inconsistency in information they received, and often
received relevant guidance through incidental contact with campus staff.
I would have liked more direction on gradebook and procedures
(everyone seems to have their own “rules”) crisis plans, and a
consistent method of student profiling.
Other teachers reported either an unwillingness of campus staff to assist them, or the staff’s lack
of knowledge regarding procedures:
When I asked the Dean of Instruction how to get a TV/DVD, he
said, “Fill out a form!” and walked off. OK- so, no one knew
where to get this form (even office), nor knew where to get the
TV.
Teachers were required to complete paperwork within time frames, often without much advanced
notice. Several teachers suggested that gradebooks and other required paperwork be made
available through software loaded onto their district laptops in order to automate certain
procedures:
I spend a lot of time doing paperwork that would not be
necessary if we had a computer system that worked and ran a
gradebook and attendance program, like almost every other
district in the nation.
General.
Three reasons emerged as the primary factors which contributed to beginning
teachers’ decisions to seek employment with the district: the opportunity to earn alternative
certification while working as teachers (30%), the availability of positions within areas of
certification (26%), and the opportunity to work with children in an urban environment (18%).
Salary (8%), opportunities for professional development (7%), and having attended DISD as
students (3%) also drew beginning teachers to DISD.
93
The hiring process was pleasant for most teachers; roughly 25% of teachers reported
negative experiences with Human Resource Services’ handling of their resume and paperwork
(26%), processing of paperwork (28%), and overall hiring process (25%). These percentages
have remained constant over four years of surveying.
While salary and benefits had the greatest impact upon teachers’ decisions to remain
with the district, relationships with principals also played an integral role in their decision making,
as shown in Table 62. Teachers were asked to rank the eleven factors from lowest (1) to highest
(11) as the factors influenced their decision to remain teaching with the district.
Table 62
Factors Impacting Beginning Teachers’ Decisions to Stay with the District
Mean
Score
Mode
Score
Salary and benefits
8.65
11
Relationship with principal
7.87
11
Quality of teaching resources
7.22
8
Interaction with colleagues
7.04
8
Level of safety
6.91
8
Student discipline
6.79
9
Mentoring/Support
6.66
8
Distance of commute
6.50
5
Opportunities for promotion
6.38
8
Class size
5.96
2
Quality of physical building/Classroom facilities
5.55
5
Factor
Intended Tenure/Future Plans.
Three factors emerged as influencing intended tenure: one-to-
one visits with the principal, how departmental meetings were viewed, and whether the beginning
teacher felt there was someone who would provide him or her with good advice. The importance
of support to retention was reinforced over all four years of surveying. While the three support
factors individually accounted for small, significant predictors of intended retention, together they
accounted for a significant, larger effect over time (F = 21.346 (115) p = .016).
94
As in 2004-2005, most respondents intended to remain teaching with the district for more
than 10 years; intended tenure for longer than 10 years increased from last year. Univariate
testing uncovered a significant difference in years of intended retention by survey year (F =5.818,
p=.001); means testing found differences between the 2005-2006 school year and prior school
years.
Figure 16 shows the overall intended tenure for 2004-2005 survey respondents.
2%
5%
This is my last year
17%
1-3 years
4-6 years
46%
18%
7-10 years
More than 10 years
Unsure
12%
Figure 16 Intended Length of Tenure for Survey Respondents, 2005-2006
Along with intended length of tenure, respondents were asked what their plans were after
leaving the classroom. The highest percentage of teachers surveyed intended to move into a
different school-related position after leaving the classroom (30%). Retirement was the second
highest response, at 19%, followed by those who expressed uncertainty about future plans
(13%).
The percentage of respondents who intended to teach in another district increased
slightly from last year, to 17%. Future plans aligned with responses from last year’s survey.
95
2.7 What were the Retainable Attrition Rates for Teachers Served Through the Professional
Preparation and Support Programs?
Methodology
The Research and Evaluation Department produced a snapshot of the Human Resource
Services database on August 23, 2006. The snapshot included demographic information: dates
of hire; termination dates, if any; and reasons for termination, where applicable. Termination
reasons were assigned codes, which corresponded with answers provided by separating
teachers on their exit surveys.
Termination reasons were further coded as voluntary or
involuntary. “Retainable attrition” refers to voluntary attrition that the district ostensibly influences,
such as leaving for employment in another school district. Retainable attrition discounts the
following separation reasons:
Involuntary separation:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
resignation in lieu of due process
job abandonment
involuntary contract non-renewal
resignation in lieu of non-renewal
separation recommended by supervisor
separation for cause
alternative certification not recommended
certification not completed
due process dismissal
resignation on administrative leave of absence investigation
employee separation agreement
inactivated social security number
Voluntary separation considered non-retainable:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
death
regular retirement
disability retirement
promotion outside of the school district
resignation due to the Social Security loophole
spouse transferred
temporary teaching assignment completed
96
Beginning teachers included in this year’s analysis were hired between May 2005 and
April 2006, and had no prior years of classroom teaching experience. Teachers were considered
to have taught in 2005-2006 if they were assigned a teaching position anytime between
September 1, 2005, and August 31, 2006.
This analysis compared retainable attrition for 2005-2006 to prior years to determine if
the implementation of Professional Preparation and Support programs resulted in lower rates of
retainable attrition. Special populations’ rates of attrition are examined, including attrition rates for
DISD Alternative Certification (AC) interns, and former student teachers.
Results
The retainable attrition rate for beginning teachers increased from 2004-2005, although
the rate remained below the attrition rates of beginning teachers prior to the inception of New
Teacher Support and Development (the 2002-2003 school year). Figure 17 shows the retainable
attrition for all beginning teachers by school year, since the 2001-2002 school year.
30
29.4
25
20.9
20
16.1
15.2
15
14.6
11.8
10
5
0
20002001
20012002
20022003
20032004
20042005
20052006
Figure 17 Retainable Attrition Rates for Beginning Teachers by School Year
Note: Data were reported from the Human Resource Services Personnel
snapshot taken on August 23, 2006.
At the end of the 2005-2006 school year the district implemented a shift in personnel to
accommodate the increasing need for bilingual teachers in the early elementary grades.
97
Subsequently, a considerable number of elementary teachers were reassigned to middle and
high school campuses after they gained certifications in complementing areas.
As with the
reduction in force which occurred districtwide in 2004-2005, this personnel shift may have
contributed to teacher attrition, especially at the elementary level.
Retainable attrition by various subgroups served by New Teacher Support and
Development or Alternative Certification is presented below. Attrition rates for DISD Alternative
Certification interns have been traditionally lower after one school year, compared with beginning
teachers hired within the same cohort. Figure 18 shows the retainable attrition rate for DISD AC
interns as of August 2006, by AC Phase cohort.
45 43.3
40.9
40
32.0
35
29.2 29.9
28.6
30
25
20
15.7
15
8.1
6.9
10
7.1
4.5
3.0
5
0
22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
DISD Alternative Certification Intern Phase
Figure 18 Retainable Attrition Rate for DISD Alternative Certification Interns by Cohort Phase
Note: Phases 22-24 were in the 2002-2003 school year; Phases 25-27 were in the 2003-2004
school year; Phases 28-30 were in the 2004-2005 school year; and Phases 31-33 were in the
2005-2006 school year.
Note: Data were reported from the Human Resource Services Personnel snapshot taken on
August 23, 2006.
Most DISD AC intern attrition occurred in the third year after hire. The retainable attrition rates for
DISD AC interns by school year were as follows:
ƒ
2002-2003: 33%
ƒ
2003-2004: 29%
ƒ
2004-2005: 16%
ƒ
2005-2006: 8%
98
District AC interns who were first enrolled in the Alternative Certification Teacher
Academy (ACTA) retained at a slightly lower rate than DISD AC interns overall.
ACTA
participants were hired into one of three phases: Phase 31, Phase 32, or Phase 33. Of the 111
ACTA participants hired by the district, 91% retained through the 2005-2006 school year.
Retainable attrition by ACTA cohort was as follows:
ƒ
Cohort 1: 3.4%
ƒ
Cohort 2: 15.4%
ƒ
Cohort 3: 0%
No ACTA participants from Cohort 4 had been hired into the AC teacher intern program at the
time of the personnel snapshot.
The retainable attrition rates for teachers who completed their student teaching with the
district remained lower than the overall beginning teacher population, as shown in Figure 19. The
program has been operating as part of the New Teacher Support and Development Department
since the spring semester of 2003. Overall, as of August 2006, student teachers had a retainable
attrition rate of 13.1%. The district has hired 198 student teachers since spring 2003.
60
57.9
50
40
30
20
10
15.4
11.5
11.6
0.0
3.1
0.0
0
Spring Fall 2003 Spring Fall 2004 Spring Fall 2005 Spring
2003
2004
2005
2006
Figure 19 Retainable Attrition Rates of Former DISD Student Teachers by Semester of Student
Teaching
Note: Data were reported from the Human Resource Services Personnel snapshot taken on
August 23, 2006.
Starting in the fall 2003 semester, bilingual student teachers from Texas Women’s
University (TWU) and University of North Texas (UNT) began serving as paid teacher assistants
99
with the district. These student teachers met all of the requirements to be considered highly
qualified teacher assistants.
Student teachers then hired by the district as teachers have
completely retained since fall 2003; none of the student teachers who received pay as teacher
assistants have left the district since being hired as teachers.
2.8 How Satisfied were Student Teachers with the Student Teaching Program?
Methodology
Student teachers who attended the Student Teacher Orientation received the Student
Teacher Pre-Assessment Survey, which asked about expectations of the DISD program, status in
completing requirements to become highly qualified, and future intentions after completing the
program with the district. Of the 70 student teachers registered to conduct student teaching
hours with the district in the fall, 52 filled out the assessments at the orientation. In spring 2006,
90 of the 117 registered student teachers completed the pre-assessment surveys.
Student teachers attending the Student Teacher Celebration in fall 2005 and in spring
2006 received the Student Teacher Post-Assessment Survey, which measured changes in plans
and attitudes towards the district from the beginning of the semester (or year, in the case of fullyear student teachers), and the Evaluation of Cooperating Teachers, which measured student
teachers’ perception of the quality of cooperating teachers’ mentoring and professionalism. Of
the original 70 student teachers, 40 completed the fall Post-Assessment.
At the Spring
Celebration, 56 student teachers completed the Post-Assessment.
Results
Pre-test fall 2005.
At the time of the student teacher orientation, fully 50% of the student
teachers attending only needed to fulfill their student teaching hours in order to satisfy the
100
conditions of becoming highly qualified teachers. Slightly more than one-quarter of respondents
(27%) also needed to pass certification exams. The remainder of student teachers still needed to
take additional coursework (12%), or needed all three (12%) before gaining eligibility to teach in
the classroom. Most student teachers taking coursework in addition to student teaching hours
took only one course (33%) or two courses (38%).
Most student teachers affirmed that their universities offer additional mentoring during
their DISD student teaching assignment. However, more than one-third (35%) were unsure if
their universities did offer any mentoring.
Among areas of certification, more respondents planned to take, or had already taken
Pedagogy and Professional Responsibilities (PPR) (30%) than any other exam. Table 63 shows
the breakdown of the percentage of teachers who are seeking certification in one or more of
DISD’s critical needs areas.
Table 63
Frequency of Student Teachers Seeking Certification in
One or More Critical Areas, by Percentage of Cases
Certification Exam
General (EC-4)
ESL (EC-4)
Math (any)
Bilingual (EC-4)
Science (any)
Special Education
Cases(%)
96%
28%
22%
20%
8%
8%
Most respondents seemed primarily concerned with learning effective instructional
strategies.
Student teachers indicated management of instructional strategies, time, and
materials as the primary benefit to student teaching, as shown in Figure 20.
101
4%
4% 2%
Mgmt. of instructional
strategies, time, and materials
Learning classroom curriculum
15%
Mgmt. of student discipline
Gaining contacts within DISD
58%
Other
17%
Insight into school community
Figure 20 Primary Benefit to Student Teaching, by Percent
Similarly, most student teachers (40%) believed they needed the most assistance in
learning instructional strategies. Student discipline (19%), time management (15%), and lesson
planning (10%) also ranked among areas of concern.
Few student teachers seemed most
concerned with learning campus procedures/policies, financial help for resources, or conflict
resolution.
Finally, most respondents felt that teaching effective instructional strategies was the
primary role of the cooperating teacher (64%).
Observation and critique also seemed an
important role for 21% of respondents. Other roles (student assessment, emotional support, time
management, and paperwork/procedures) drew minimal response.
Student teachers felt comfortable taking over a class after observing their cooperating
teachers for six to ten days (35%). Almost 30% felt ready almost immediately, citing the need for
five or fewer days of observation. The remaining 35% cited 11-15 days (16%), 16-20 days (8%),
21-25 days (2%) or more than 25 days of observation (10%). There were no discernable patterns
among universities or subject areas that would allow for predicting how many days of observation
were desirable before taking over the classrooms.
Roughly 20% of student teachers in the Fall 2005 class classified themselves as bilingual
in Spanish. Of these student teachers, Table 64 offers a breakdown of what areas of certification
in which they have already tested, or plan to test.
102
Table 64
Certification Exams Bilingual Student Teachers have Taken
or Plan to Take, by Percentage of Cases
Certification Exam
PPR
Bilingual (EC-4)
General (EC-4)
Foreign Language (any)
Physical Education
ESL (EC-4)
Other – TOPT
Special Education
Cases (%)
90%
80%
70%
40%
20%
20%
20%
10%
All of the respondents intended on attending at least one workshop.
Classroom
Management drew the most interest, as shown in Table 65.
Table 65
Workshops Student Teachers Intended to Attend,
by Percent of Cases
Workshop Title
Classroom Management
Lesson Cycle
Learning Centers
Bulletin Boards
Cases (%)
87%
79%
71%
40%
Student teachers purposely sought to conduct their field hours with the district. Almost
90% of student teachers surveyed selected DISD for their student teaching at least in part
because they intended to teach in the district after becoming highly qualified. Almost half of
student teachers also desired gaining experience in an urban setting.
The reputation of the
student teaching program also influenced 21% of student teachers’ selection of the district for
student teaching hours. Slightly less than 40% of student teachers were assigned to student
teach in DISD by their supervising professors or universities.
The majority of student teachers (71%) viewed teaching as a career choice. Twenty
percent felt they possessed the skills suitable for teaching, although they did not consider teaching
as a first choice for their careers. The remaining 10% planned to use the experience that they
would gain as teachers in a school administrative position.
103
Over 70% of student teachers anticipated teaching in DISD after completing their student
teaching work. Most of the remaining teachers (23%) were uncertain as to their plans. Only 6%
did not plan to teach in the district. For those who were unsure or did not plan to work in DISD,
most cited either teaching in another district (31%) or other plans (31%). Roughly 20% of these
student teachers had no plans or were unsure, and 20% planned to continue their education.
Among student teachers bilingual in Spanish, 80% anticipated teaching in the district; the
remaining 20% were unsure about future plans or planned to move out-of-state.
The overwhelming majority of respondents (96%) were confident that student teaching
program would sufficiently prepare them for a full-time teaching position with the district. The
remaining 4% were unsure if the program would prepare them.
Pre-Test – Longitudinal Results (Spring 2003 – Fall 2005).
Since the inception of the program,
most student teachers came into the program needing both their student teaching hours and to
pass certification exams (42%). Slightly fewer student teachers needed only their student teaching
hours (35%). Only 18% needed coursework, field hours, and to pass certification exams. Of
those taking college coursework, most took only one class during student teaching, with the next
highest frequency taking three classes.
Most student teachers (63%) have affirmed that their universities offer mentoring during
their student teaching. Only 8% did not believe their universities offered any mentoring.
Not surprisingly, almost half (47%) of all student teachers felt that learning management
of instructional strategies, time, and materials was the primary benefit to student teaching.
Learning classroom curriculum ranked second, at 22%, followed by management of student
discipline (20%). Gaining contacts within DISD drew almost 10% of responses.
Student teachers most often (62%) cited teaching effective instructional strategies as the
primary role of the cooperating teacher. Observation and critique also drew a sizeable response
over time (28%). The teaching of student discipline only garnered 3% of the responses.
Overall, student teachers felt comfortable taking over the classroom after 6-10 days of
observation, as shown in Figure 21.
104
6%
5%
22%
5 days or less
6-10 days
13%
11-15 days
16-20 days
21-25 days
More than 25 days
18%
26%
Figure 21 Number of Days of Observation Student Teachers Felt They Needed Before Taking
Over the Classroom, Spring 2003 to Fall 2005, by Percent
For 80% of student teachers, teaching was a first choice as a career. Only 15% felt that
although their skills were suitable for teaching, it was not a favorable career choice. A smaller
percentage (6%) planned to use their teaching experience to move into a school administrative
position.
At the time of the pre-test, fully 64% of respondents intended to seek employment with
the district after completing all of the requirements needed to become highly qualified. Only 4%
of respondents did not anticipate teaching with the district. Among those student teachers who
viewed teaching as a “first choice for a career,” 66% intended to seek employment with the
district, with an additional 30% uncertain of their future plans. Among those student teachers who
did not plan to work for the district, the greatest percentage (37%) planned to seek employment in
another district.
One of the most consistent indicators of student teachers’ perceptions of the program has
been whether student teachers believed the program would effectively prepare them for full-time
teaching positions with the district. Over six semesters of surveying, 94% of student teachers
affirmed believing that the program would effectively prepare them for teaching in DISD.
Moreover, no student teacher felt the program would leave them unprepared; the remaining 6%
cited uncertainty as to the program’s efficacy.
105
Pre-test spring 2006.
Student teachers represented eight area universities, as shown in Figure
22. Several student teachers from the University of Texas – Arlington (UTA) and Texas Women’s
University (TWU) were paid as part-time teaching assistants during their student teaching
assignment. These teaching assistants served in classroom assignments in critical needs areas,
particularly in bilingual classrooms. These teaching assistants met all of the conditions to be
considered highly qualified by Texas standards. In addition, all but two student teachers from the
University of North Texas (UNT) enrolled in the full-year professional development schools
conducted at one of the following DISD campuses: Cowart, Donald, Greiner, Hooe, Kahn, or
Winnetka.
Several UTA student teachers also enrolled in professional development schools
conducted at Cochran, Dorsey, Hernandez, and Milam. Student teachers enrolled in professional
development schools are referred to as interns in the table below. One teacher enrolled in the
Texas A&M University – Commerce (TAMU) Alternative Certification Program conducted student
teaching hours in the spring as well.
7
UTD
UTA
1
9
11
2
UNT
Student
Teachers
30
10
TWU
Teaching
Assistants
9
21
TAMU
Interns
21
SMU
10
Paul Quinn
ACP
4
Le Tourneau
0
10
20
30
40
Figure 22 Number of Student Teachers, by University Attended
SMU = Southern Methodist University; TAMU = Texas A&M University – Commerce;
TWU = Texas Women’s University; UNT = University of North Texas;
UTA = University of Texas – Arlington; UTD = University of Texas at Dallas
The largest percentage of student teachers (28%) was assigned to pre-kindergarten
through fourth grade classrooms. Student teachers assigned to bilingual classrooms comprised
the second largest group, with 13% assigned to pre-kindergarten through fourth grade bilingual
classrooms. Approximately 10% of student teachers were assigned to reading, language arts,
106
and English classrooms. Other placements included: art, deaf education, modified bilingual/ESL,
ESL, history, math, science, physical education, Spanish, and theater arts. Classroom
assignments for 16 student teachers were not available for this report.
Over 25% of student teacher respondents either graduated from DISD (19%) or attended
DISD for a period of time (8%). Roughly 20% of respondents affirmed that they were bilingual in
Spanish. Of the DISD graduates, 35% claimed that they were bilingual in Spanish.
At the time of the student teacher orientation, 34% of the student teachers attending only
needed to fulfill their student teaching hours in order to satisfy the conditions of becoming highly
qualified teachers. The next highest percentage of student teachers (26%) also each needed to
pass one or more certification exams to complete their credentialing. The remaining student
teachers either needed only to complete additional coursework (17%) or needed coursework, had
not yet passed certification exams, and needed to complete their student teaching hours (23%).
Among Spanish bilingual student teachers, 25% needed only their student teaching hours
in order to become highly qualified. An equal size (31%) also needed to pass their certification
exams, or to take both courses and certification exams.
Of the bilingual student teachers, all but two gained or planned to gain certification in
bilingual education.
Bilingual EC-4 certification was prevalently sought; 77% of all bilingual
student teachers had already taken or planned to take the exam. Physical education was equally
popular for bilingual student teachers seeking certification in bilingual EC-4; 92% of these
respondents also planned to gain certification in physical education. For the two bilingual student
teachers who did not plan to be certified in bilingual EC-4, both intended to be certified in physical
education and technology; one also planned to gain certification in special education.
Student teachers not bilingual in Spanish sought certification in a variety of areas,
although general EC-4 and physical education proved most popular, as shown in Table 66 below.
107
Table 66
Intended Areas of Certification for Non-Bilingual Student Teachers
Certification Area
N
Percent
General EC-4
51
70
Physical Education
49
67
Bilingual 4-8
17
23
Special Education
11
15
General 4-8
10
14
Art/Music/Dance/Theater
7
10
Bilingual EC-4
4
6
Technology
2
3
As of the pre-test, the value of the student teaching experience for most student teachers
(64%) was in learning management of instructional strategies. The only other sizable response
was in learning district curriculum (13%). Management of student discipline, insight into the
school environment, or determining whether teaching was the right career path yielded little
response as the primary benefit to student teaching with the district.
Student teachers were split as to which area of concern they needed the most assistance
with in order to be successful. While the largest percentage of student teachers felt they needed
assistance with instructional strategies (28%), almost as many cited student discipline as the
greatest area of concern (27%). Financial assistance to purchase needed teaching resources
also garnered a strong response (17%). Time management issues were also considered by 14%
of respondents as an area of concern.
Most student teachers felt comfortable taking over the classroom relatively early in the
semester.
Over 40% felt comfortable taking over the classroom after five or fewer days of
observing their cooperating teachers. Another 31% needed an additional week of school (6-10
days) before taking over the classroom. Only 3 teachers (3%) felt they needed longer than one
month of observation. All three of these teachers intended to be certified in special education.
108
Consistent with the emphasis upon instructional strategies, 64% of student teachers felt
that the primary role of their cooperating teachers would be to teach them effective instructional
strategies. Observation and critique garnered the only other notable response (23%).
Student teachers showed a strong interest in attending workshops.
Except for two
student teachers, respondents selected one or more of the following workshops: Classroom
Management, Bulletin Boards, Lesson Cycle, and Learning Centers.
Over 40% selected one
workshop for attendance; 16% selected two workshops; 12% selected three workshops, and 26%
expressed interest in attending all four workshops offered. Classroom Management gained the
strongest interest – 70% of respondents selected this workshop. Learning Centers was almost as
popular, with 60% of respondents expressing interest in attending. Lesson Cycles (48%) and
Bulletin Boards (43%) also generated considerable interest.
Among bilingual student teachers, almost all (93%) planned to attend the Classroom
Management workshop, and the Learning Centers workshop (77%). The Lesson Cycle workshop
drew a stronger percentage response (69%) compared with all survey respondents.
Respondents were asked what factors led them to conduct their student teaching with the
district. The largest percentage of survey respondents (44%) selected DISD for student teaching
because they planned to teach in the district. Desire for experience in an urban setting (36%)
and assignment by the supervising professor (31%) were also often cited. The reputation of the
student teaching program motivated 15% of student teacher respondents to select the district.
Among student teachers who cited plans to teach in the district as a motivating factor, the
reputation of the program and desired experience in an urban setting also provided considerable
impetus for selecting the DISD Student Teaching Program.
Other factors included having
previous work experience with the district, the district’s proximity to the student teachers’ homes,
the fall 2005 presentations made by the NTSD executive director at several student teachers’
universities outlining the program, and the professional and helpful reputation of the NTSD
executive director.
Plans to teach in the district drew most student teachers seeking bilingual certification
(62%). Compared with all survey respondents, fewer cited their supervising professors selecting
109
the district on their behalf (23%). Experience in an urban setting drew 15% of these student
teachers, and the program’s reputation and the professional development school each drew 8%
of bilingual certified student teachers.
Most student teachers viewed teaching as their first career choice. Among bilingual
student teachers, 82% saw teaching as their first career choice.
Similarly, 83% of special
education student teachers planned for a career in teaching. Those who anticipated teaching in
the district (see below) had the highest percentage of response regarding teaching as a career
choice (85%). Roughly 10% of each subgroup saw teaching as a suitable use of their skills, but
not a primary career choice. Over 10% of bilingual student teachers saw teaching as a stepping
stone for a career in administration.
The majority of student teachers intended to seek employment with the district after
completing their assignment. At the time of the pre-test, 55% affirmed their intentions to seek
teaching appointments with DISD. An additional 31% were unsure of their future plans. Only
14% did not intend to work for DISD after completing their student teaching hours. For those
student teachers uncertain or not planning to work for DISD, the highest percentage (47%)
planned to work for another district. Another 14% planned to continue with their education. Other
plans included teaching out-of-state, teaching wherever suitable positions were available,
teaching in private school, working in a counseling program, conducting missionary work, and
uncertainty as to where the student teachers would be living after completing college.
Interest in employment with DISD was substantially higher among student teachers
seeking bilingual certification. Approximately 70% intended to seek employment with DISD after
completing their student teaching. Among the other bilingual teachers, only one did not intend to
seek employment with the district, while the others were unsure at the time of the survey.
Teaching in another district and continuing education ranked high among student teachers either
not planning, or unsure as to whether they would work for the district.
At the time of the pre-test, 92% of respondents expressed confidence that the program
would effectively prepare them for a full-time teaching position with the district. The remaining
110
respondents were either unsure (5%) or did not feel confident in the program’s effectiveness
(3%).
Post-test fall 2005.
Compared with the fall 2005 pre-test, a smaller percentage of student
teachers attended the student teacher celebration, and consequently completed the post-test and
cooperative teacher evaluation.
Forty student teachers completed both surveys, garnering a
response rate of 57% of student teachers. A slightly larger percentage of DISD graduates (38%)
and partial attendees of DISD (10%) attended the celebration, compared with the pre-test.
By the time of the student teacher celebration, 54% of respondents had completed all of
the requirements needed to become a highly qualified teacher. Most of the other respondents
still needed to pass one or more certification examinations. Only 3% still had coursework to
complete, in addition to passing one or more certification examinations. Of the 54% who had
completed all of their requirements, 86% would work for DISD if the district offered positions to
them (see below for further discussion).
Half of all respondents selected the district for student teaching. Approximately 1/3 of
student teachers credited their universities as selecting the district. The remainder cited either
their supervising professors (11%) or other entities (5%).
The majority of student teachers indicated that their universities offered some form of
mentoring to complement the student teaching program.
Less than 20% claimed that their
universities did not offer any mentoring.
Most student teachers either gained, or intended to gain certification in general–EC-4
education, preparing them to meet the district’s critical need for PK-K educators. Table 67 shows
the areas of certification sought by fall 2005 student teachers. The smaller percentage of student
teachers responding to the survey may account for the differences between the pre-test and posttest measures of areas of certification.
111
Table 67
Areas of Certification Sought by Fall 2005 Student Teachers
Areas of Certification
General (EC-4)
PPR
Mathematics (any)
Bilingual (EC-4)
ESL (EC-4)
General (4-8)
Social Studies
Special Education
ESL (4-8)
Physical Education
Art/Music/Dance/Theater
Bilingual (4-8)
Computer Science
English/Language Arts/Reading (4-8)
Foreign Language (any)
Other
Sciences (any)
Technology
(%)
58%
58%
13%
10%
10%
10%
8%
8%
5%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
Half of all student teachers credited their cooperating teacher with the primary
responsibility for helping them succeed as student teachers. Only universities garnered another
sizeable response as the primary force behind the student teachers’ successes (28%). Campus
administrators, the district, and supervising professors each garnered 6% of respondents’ votes.
Most (90%) student teachers attending the celebration attended at least one workshop
offered by the program. Table 68 shows the frequency of attendance for each workshop, and the
percentage of attendees who would recommend the workshop to other student teachers. Most
(64%) student teachers attended more than one workshop; 10% attended all four workshops.
Table 68
Workshops Attended and Recommended by Fall 2005 Student Teachers
Workshop
Classroom Management
Lesson Cycle
Learning Centers
Bulletin Boards
Attended (%)
75%
75%
23%
10%
112
Recommended (%)
90%
57%
67%
75%
Student teaching with the district continued to translate into an effective means of
recruiting for the district. As noted above, 86% of student teachers prepared to teach claimed
they would seek full-time teaching positions with the district if offered a position.
student teacher did not anticipate seeking a teaching position with DISD.
Only one
Overall, 88% of
respondents affirmed that they anticipated working for DISD once they completed all of their
requirements.
Among those student teachers in the critical needs areas of bilingual EC-4,
science, and special education, 100% of respondents intended to seek employment with the
district. Among student teachers certified in mathematics, one respondent was uncertain, but the
remaining student teachers anticipated employment with the district.
Of the 40 student teachers, seven (18%) had received offers of employment with the
district at the time of the celebration. Table 69 shows the areas of certification for these student
teachers.
Table 69
Areas of Certification for Student Teachers Who were
Offered Teaching Positions with the District
Area of Certification
PPR
Bilingual (EC-4)
General (4-8)
General (EC-4)
Mathematics (any)
Foreign Language (any)
Other – TOPT
Science (any)
%
43
29
29
29
29
14
14
14
Three of the student teachers above have been conditionally hired as substitute teachers.
An additional five student teachers have also been hired as substitute teachers. Three of the 40
student teachers worked as part-time teaching assistants during their field experience with DISD.
Interaction with the Human Resource Services’ Substitute Office was mainly positive. Of
the slightly more than half of student teachers who interacted with the Substitute Office at the
time of the survey, 85% affirmed that the office staff treated them as professionals. The timing of
113
the survey suggests that the New Teacher Comprehensive Survey may better represent a
measure of the quality of interactions between former student teachers and the Substitute Office.
Consistent with past semesters, a high percentage of student teachers affirmed that the
program effectively prepared them for a full-time teaching position with the district. Of the student
teachers responding to the survey, 95% agreed that they felt prepared for working for the district;
the other 5% were still uncertain at the time of the survey.
Post-Test – Longitudinal Results (Spring 2003-Fall 2005).
Similar to the fall 2005 results, just
over half of all student teachers (55%) completed all of the requirements needed to become
highly qualified teachers by the end of their student teaching with the district. Of the remaining
student teachers, 35% still needed to pass certification examinations, 7% still needed only to take
coursework, and 3% needed both coursework and to pass certification examinations.
Cooperating teachers played the primary role in determining the successes of the student
teachers. While 64% cited their cooperating teachers, 18% cited universities and 7% credited
their supervising professors.
Over the six semesters of surveying, 78% of student teachers anticipated seeking
employment with the district.
Less than 10% responded that they would not seek teaching
positions with DISD, leaving 13% uncertain of their plans by the end of their student teaching.
As noted above, most student teachers (97%) confirmed that the program effectively
prepared them for a full-time teaching position with the district. From the spring 2003 semester,
only three student teachers (1%) did not feel as though the program sufficiently prepared them.
Post-test spring 2006.
Compared with the pre-test, more student teacher respondents sought
certification in one or more of the district’s critical needs areas. Whether this reflected changes in
certification plans to meet the district’s needs, or was instead a representation of Student Teacher
Celebration attendants who had not attended the Student Teacher Orientation, is not clear.
Reponses from student teachers earning critical needs certifications was considerably larger,
however, in comparison with the pre-test section.
114
A substantial portion of the respondents taking the post-test had fulfilled all of the
requirements needed to teach in their chosen fields.
Over 60% had completed all of their
requirements. Of the remainder, almost all still needed to complete their certification exams.
Table 70 shows the credentialing status of student teachers seeking certification in the district’s
critical needs areas.
Table 70
Credentialing Status of Student Teachers Seeking Certification in Critical Needs Areas
Completed all
Requirements
Need to Pass
Certification Exams
Need Additional
Courses and Pass
Certification Exams
Certification Area
N
Percent
N
Percent
N
Percent
Bilingual EC-4
11
73
3
20
1
7
Special Education
1
33
1
33
1
33
Eng/LA/Read (all levels)
2
40
3
60
0
0
ESL (EC-4)
6
86
1
14
0
0
Mathematics (all levels)
0
0
3
100
0
0
20
61
11
33
2
6
Total
Among DISD graduates, all but one respondent (92%) had completed all of the
requirements needed to be a teacher. The one DISD graduate still needed to complete one or
more certification exams.
Most of the student teachers hired as part-time teaching assistants with the district also
had completed all of the requirements needed to be a teacher. Of the eight respondents, six
(75%) were ready for full-time teaching positions. The other two teaching assistants still needed
to pass one or more certification exams.
At the time of the post-test, the district had already hired five of the student teachers
surveyed as substitute teachers.
The hires were part of the fast-track hiring initiative New
Teacher Support and Development began in cooperation with the Human Resource Services
Department in 2004-2005 (see REIS05-177-02 for more information about the fast-track hiring
program).
While two student teachers had completed all requirements, the other three still
needed to pass one or more certification exams.
115
Consistent with every semester since the program’s inception, the majority of student
teachers planned to gain certification in general EC-4. Given that certification in general EC-4
satisfies Texas’ requirement to be highly qualified to teach early elementary classes, many of the
student teachers who specialized in one of the district’s critical needs areas also sought general
EC-4 certification. Bilingual EC-4 certification garnered the second most frequent response, with
27% of student teachers surveyed. ESL EC-4 also ranked somewhat high among responses
(13%), as did general 4-8 (11%).
No other certification area drew more than 10% of the
responses.
DISD graduates sought certification in one of three areas, not including the Pedagogy
and Professional Responsibilities Test (PPR) and the Texas Oral Proficiency Test (TOPT):
general EC-4 (67%), bilingual EC-4 (50%), and ESL EC-4 (8%).
Student teachers employed as teaching assistants all sought certification in bilingual EC4. In addition, 25% also sought certification in general EC-4. Half of these student teachers also
included the TOPT among certification exams taken.
Student teachers hired as substitute teachers sought certification in the following areas:
general EC-4, physical education, history, and social studies.
Many of the student teachers self-selected into the district’s program.
Over 50% of
student teacher respondents stated that they chose where to conduct their student teaching
hours. Among DISD graduates, 75% chose the district for student teaching. Student teachers in
the critical needs areas more often cited their universities or supervising professors as having
selected DISD.
Student teachers attributed the success of their student teaching experience to district
personnel, particularly their cooperating teachers.
Student teachers’ universities (17%) and
supervising professors (15%) also received credit for successful experiences.
The student teaching experience was further heightened for student teachers who
attended the various workshops offered through New Teacher Support and Development, and for
those who visited the New Teacher Center. Table 71 shows attendance at the four workshops
and the percent of attendees who would recommend the workshops they attended. Only 21% of
116
student teachers did not attend any workshops.
As a group, student teachers who sought
bilingual certification did not attend workshops as frequently compared with other student teacher
groups and student teachers overall. Teaching assistants, a subgroup of student teachers who
sought bilingual certification, attended workshops least often.
Table 71
Workshop Attendance by Percent Attended and Recommended
Percent
Attended
Percent
Recommended
Lesson Cycles
21
92
Classroom Management
54
80
Learning Centers
45
52
Bulletin Boards
64
39
Workshop
Almost 70% of student teachers visited the New Teacher Center at least once, as shown
in Figure 23. No student teachers surveyed visited the New Teacher Center six or more times.
Although workshops were conducted at the New Teacher Center, some respondents may have
not have counted workshop attendance as visiting the center.
40%
32%
30%
21%
23%
20%
18%
10%
4%
2%
0%
Zero
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Figure 23 Number of Times Student Teachers Visited the New Teacher
Center by Percent
The largest percentage of student teachers surveyed anticipated seeking employment
with the district in a full-time teaching position, although the percentage of respondents seeking
employment was uncharacteristically lower when compared with other semesters (see below for
117
longitudinal analyses). Of the respondents, 42% believed they would seek employment with the
district after completing their requirements; 33% were not planning to work for DISD after
graduation, and 26% were uncertain of their future plans. At the time of the survey, 14 of the
student teachers (25%) had been offered full-time teaching positions with the district.
Among those uncertain or not planning to work full-time for the district, 65% intended to
seek employment with another district.
Other plans included substituting (13%), continuing
education (10%), or uncertainty regarding future plans (10%).
District graduates anticipated working for the district more often than student teachers
overall. Almost 70% of DISD graduates anticipated working for the district; the remaining 31%
were either not planning to seek employment (23%) or unsure of future plans (8%). Five of the
graduates (39%) had received offers of employment with DISD by the survey date.
District graduates not planning or unsure about working for the district planned to teach in
another district, continue their education, or work as a substitute.
Table 72 shows the anticipated employment plans and hiring status of student teachers
seeking certification in one of the district’s critical needs areas.
Table 72
Anticipated Employment Plans and Hiring Status of Student Teachers with
Critical Needs Certification
Anticipate District Employment
Certification
District Offered Position
Yes
No
Unsure
N
Percent
11
1
3
9
60
Special Education
1
2
0
0
0
Eng/LA/Read (all levels)
1
2
2
1
20
ESL (EC-4)
3
3
1
2
29
Mathematics (all levels)
1
1
1
0
0
17
9
7
12
36
Bilingual EC-4
Total
Consistent with past semesters, most student teachers agreed that the program
sufficiently prepared them for a full-time teaching position with the district.
118
Of the survey
respondents, 84% felt the program prepared them for teaching; 11% were uncertain as to the
program’s effectiveness, and 5% did not feel as though the program sufficiently prepared them for
working with the district.
All of the program’s detractors sought certification in general elementary (EC-4 and 4-8).
Within subgroups support for the program ranked considerably higher. The following subgroups
universally expressed confidence in the program’s efficacy: district graduates, part-time teaching
assistants, student teachers hired as substitute teachers, student teachers with English/Language
Arts/Reading, ESL EC-4, and math certification. All but one bilingual student teacher (93%) felt
the program was effective. Two of the three special education student teachers agreed that the
program prepared them for teaching in DISD. Both of the student teachers above expressed
uncertainty as to the program’s effectiveness.
Post-test, Spring 2003 – Spring 2006.
Over time, student teachers appeared to be prepared for
teaching after completing their student teaching. Since the program’s inception, 56% of student
teachers had completed all of the requirements needed to be highly qualified to teach by the time
of the student teacher celebrations. Another 35% needed only to pass one or more certification
exams.
District personnel largely received credit for successful student teaching experiences. Of
the 340 student teachers surveyed since spring 2003, 74% attributed their success to their
cooperating teachers, campus administration, principals, the district in general, and the executive
director of New Teacher Support and Development.
The majority of student teachers intended to seek employment with the district after
completing their student teaching. Of those surveyed, 73% stated they would work for DISD if
offered a position.
Student teachers overwhelmingly credited the program for effectively preparing them for
a full-time teaching position with the district (94%).
Student teachers continued to evaluate their
Cooperating Teacher Evaluation – fall 2005.
cooperating teachers positively, although one area (portfolio building) generated a significantly
119
lower positive response, as shown in Table 73. No single cooperating teacher was rated as
either did not address or poor in every area of concern. Three student teachers rated their
cooperating teachers as excellent teachers in every area of concern.
Student teachers generally observed their cooperating teachers for 10 or fewer days
before taking over the classroom. Thirty percent of student teachers observed for five days or
less; 33% observed for 6-10 days before taking over the classroom. Only three of the student
teachers observed their cooperating teachers for more than one month before taking over the
classroom. Of interest, these student teachers consistently rated their cooperating teachers as
good or excellent across all areas of concern.
Table 73
Student Teacher Rating of Cooperative Teachers’ Coverage of Areas of Concern
Did not
Address
3%
Poor/
Fair
6%
Good/
Excellent
91%
Emotional Support
5%
10%
85%
Lesson Planning
3%
15%
82%
Student Discipline
3%
15%
82%
Time Management
--
18%
82%
Motivating Students
3%
17%
81%
--
20%
80%
Campus Procedures/Policies
7%
15%
78%
Curriculum/TEKS
3%
19%
78%
Student Assessment
3%
19%
78%
Conflict Resolution
8%
19%
73%
Portfolio Building
30%
15%
55%
Area of Concern
Instructional Strategies
Observation & Critique
Only one student teacher claimed that the cooperating teacher assigned was never
present while the student teacher taught in the classroom. The largest percentage of student
teachers (48%) cited their cooperating teachers being present “most of the time.” Thirty percent
of respondents stated that their cooperating teachers were always present in the classroom.
120
Other district officials assisted cooperating teachers in supervising student teachers in 58% of the
classrooms.
Cooperating teachers, for the most part, interacted with student teachers through
positive, nurturing activities. Half of all cooperating teachers encouraged their student teachers to
engage in reflective activities.
Just under 50% of cooperating teachers met daily with their
student teachers to discuss progress in the classroom, and 35% met at least once each week.
Conversely, two student teachers disclosed that they never met with their cooperating teachers to
discuss their progress. Ninety percent of cooperating teachers regularly involved the student
teachers in activities before the student teachers took over their classrooms. Only one student
teacher did not attend content/grade level meetings. Cooperating teachers provided lesson plans
to 75% of the student teachers. All student teachers were permitted to introduce their own lesson
plans.
Overall, more than 80% of student teachers felt that their cooperating teachers
consistently modeled professionalism during the internship. Conversely, no more than 8% of
student teachers described their cooperating teachers as unprofessional in the following
categories: attitude towards students, work ethic, appearance, and interaction with other campus
staff. Professionalism in attitude towards students and professionalism in dealing with other
campus staff tied with the lowest positive response (80%).
Professionalism in appearance
received the highest positive response (88%). Professionalism in work ethic generated a positive
response rate of 83%.
Cooperating Teacher Evaluation – Longitudinal Results (Spring 2004-Fall 2005).
This
evaluation instrument was first introduced in spring 2004, to better measure the student teachers’
experiences on campuses. Table 74 looks at the same areas of concern as presented in Table
73 above.
121
Table 74
Student Teacher Rating of Cooperative Teachers’
Coverage of Areas of Concern, 2004-2005
Did not
Address
1%
Poor/
Fair
11%
Good/
Excellent
88%
Student Discipline
1%
12%
87%
Curriculum/TEKS
3%
12%
85%
Lesson Planning
2%
14%
84%
Motivating Students
2%
14%
84%
Observation & Critique
1%
15%
84%
Time Management
2%
14%
84%
Campus Procedures/Policies
5%
12%
83%
Student Assessment
1%
17%
82%
Emotional Support
3%
16%
81%
Conflict Resolution
5%
20%
75%
Portfolio Building
23%
19%
58%
Area of Concern
Instructional Strategies
As with the fall 2005 semester, portfolio building generated the lowest positive response,
as well as the highest did not address percentage. Conflict resolution appears to be another area
of concern student teachers felt did not receive sufficient coverage.
Over the four semesters of this survey’s administration, only one student teacher claimed
that her cooperating teacher was never present in the classroom during her period of teaching, as
described in the section above. As with the fall cohort, most student teachers (44%) stated that
their cooperating teachers were present in the classroom most of the time.
Similarly, 35%
asserted that their cooperating teachers were always present in the classroom. For 48% of
student teachers, at least one other district official supervised each student teacher’s teaching.
For the most part, cooperating teachers have worked towards promoting professional
development and growth in student teachers’ skills. Cooperating teachers encouraged 58% of
student teachers to engage in reflective activities. The overwhelming majority of cooperating
teachers (92%) regularly involved student teachers in classroom activities before they took over
their cooperating teachers’ classrooms. An even higher percentage (94%) brought their student
122
teachers to content/grade level meetings. Over 80% of cooperating teachers provided copies of
their own lesson plans to their student teachers; all but one cooperating teacher permitted student
teachers to introduce the lesson plans the student teacher created.
Overall, cooperating teachers were described as professional in their attitude towards
students, work ethic, appearance, and in dealing with other campus staff. Appearance ranked
highest, with 89% of cooperating teachers garnering a positive response. Attitude towards other
students ranked lowest, although over 80% of cooperating teachers were still evaluated
positively.
Cooperating Teacher Evaluation spring 2006.
While student teachers expressed strong support
for the program, support for cooperating teachers was not as strong. No area of concern received
positive ratings over 78%. Table 75 shows student teachers’ evaluations of their cooperating
teachers’ coverage of important areas of concern. Compared with all previous semesters, the
positive ratings decreased in all areas.
Table 75
Student Teacher Rating of Cooperative Teachers’ Coverage of Areas of Concern
Did not
Address
4%
Poor/
Fair
22%
Good/
Excellent
74%
Emotional Support
7%
21%
72%
Lesson Planning
4%
18%
78%
Student Discipline
2%
22%
76%
Time Management
--
25%
75%
Motivating Students
2%
25%
73%
Observation & Critique
5%
16%
79%
--
25%
75%
4%
18%
78%
--
23%
77%
Conflict Resolution
4%
34%
63%
Portfolio Building
32%
21%
47%
Area of Concern
Instructional Strategies
Campus Procedures/Policies
Curriculum/TEKS
Student Assessment
123
The number of days student teachers observed their cooperating teachers before taking over the
classroom ranged from five or fewer days (29%) to more than 25 days (27%).
Once the student teachers took over their classrooms, most cooperating teachers
remained in the classrooms to oversee their teaching. The majority of student teachers (54%)
reported that their cooperating teachers remained in the classroom most of the time. Less than
25% of respondents reported that their cooperating teachers were always present in the
classroom. The remaining 23% reported that their cooperating teachers were either occasionally
present (16%) or never present in the classroom while the student teacher was teaching (7%).
Unfortunately, student teachers who reported that their cooperating teachers were either
occasionally or never present rarely confirmed that other district officials were present to
supervise their teaching.
Other district officials were typically included to supervise student
teachers whose cooperating teachers were always present, or were present most of the time.
The disparities among the frequency of the cooperating teachers’ presence in the classrooms
impacted student teachers’ perceptions of their cooperating teachers’ other roles, as shown
below.
Difference of means testing found significant differences between cooperating teachers
occasionally or never present and cooperating teachers who were mostly or always present.
Differences emerged with regard to whether their cooperating teachers encouraged them to
engage in reflective activities (t= -3.220, p= .003), how often student teachers met with their
cooperating teachers to discuss progress (t= 2.788, p= .013), whether cooperating teachers
provided copies of their own lesson plans (t = -2.952, p= .009), and whether the student teachers
were allowed to introduce their own lessons (t= 2.075, p=.044). Differences also emerged in
three of the four professionalism indicators of cooperating teachers: attitude towards students (t=
2.488, p= .016), work ethic (t=3.119, p= .003), and dealing with other campus staff (t= 3.411, p=
.001). Using univariate analyses of the impact of how frequently cooperating teachers were
present in the classrooms after the student teachers took over teaching also produced significant
causal relationships.
In addition to producing statistically significant effects upon student
teachers’ impression of cooperating teachers’ professionalism, the cooperating teachers’
124
presence effected how often they met with student teachers to discuss their progress (F= 5.648,
p= .002, R2 = .249), and whether they encouraged reflective activities (F= 3.006, p= .039, R2=
.15).
Cooperating Teacher Evaluation 2004-2006.
Cooperating teachers typically enjoyed approval
ratings of 80% or higher across most dimensions of the evaluation.
Cooperating teachers’
instruction of student discipline received the highest positive ratings, with 84% of student teachers
rating their coverage as either good or excellent.
Coverage of instruction strategies (83%),
curriculum/TEKS (83%), lesson planning (82%), and observation and critique (82%) received
strong positive ratings.
Conversely, emotional support (78%), conflict resolution (71%) and portfolio building
(55%) received approval ratings lower than 80%. Portfolio building was reported most often as
an area of concern not covered by cooperating teachers (26%), along with conflict resolution
(5%), emotional support (4%), campus procedures/policies (3%), and curriculum/TEKS (3%).
Conflict resolution received the highest negative rating (25%), followed by portfolio building (20%)
and student assessment (19%).
Most student teachers (51%) took over their classrooms within two school weeks, as
shown in Figure 24.
More than 25 days
21-25 days
16-20 days
11-15 days
6-10 days
5 days or less
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Figure 24 Number of Days Student Teachers Observed Cooperating Teachers
before Taking over Classrooms by Percent of Responses
125
Once student teachers took over the classrooms, cooperating teachers often met with
them to discuss progress and concerns. Student teachers reported that 42% of their cooperating
teachers met with them daily to discuss concerns; another 37% met at least once each week.
Conversely, only 21% either met rarely (15%) or not at all (6%).
Most cooperating teachers treated student teachers professionally, allowing them to
introduce their own lesson plans (97%) and inviting student teachers to attend departmental or
grade level meetings (91%).
Similarly, 92% of cooperating teachers regularly involved their
student teachers in classroom activities prior to the student teachers taking over classroom
instruction.
Over two years of surveying significant correlations among indicators occurred, especially
in connection with how often the cooperating teachers met with student teachers to discuss their
progress. The frequency of meeting to discuss progress significantly and positively correlated
with how often the cooperating teachers were present in the classroom, whether the cooperating
teachers encouraged student teachers to engage in reflective activities, and if the student
teachers were involved in classroom activities before taking over the classrooms. All correlations
were significant at the .01 level or lower.
Similarly, cooperating teachers’ presence in the
classrooms significantly and positively correlated with encouraging reflective activities and
meeting to discuss progress at the .01 level of significance.
The four indicators above: frequency of cooperating teachers’ presence in the
classrooms, frequency of meeting to discuss progress, if the student teachers were involved in
classroom activities prior to taking over the classroom, and whether student teachers were
encouraged to engage in reflecting activities all in turn affected the student teachers’ perceptions
of their cooperating teachers’ professionalism. Using univariate models of analyses, where each
of the four professionalism indicators were the dependent variables, and the four above indicators
were used as fixed factors, significant relationships emerged.
For all four equations, the
corrected model was statistically significant. One interesting interaction also proved significant for
all four models: cooperating teachers’ presence in the classrooms and whether student teachers
126
were involved in classroom activities. Frequency of meetings and student teacher involvement
proved to significantly predict all but one professionalism indicator (work ethic).
The four indicators also served to predict perceived effectiveness of coverage of areas of
concern.
One or more of the four factors, including interactions between the four factors,
significantly impacted all area of concern indicators except for coverage of instructional strategies
and portfolio building. The frequency of meeting with cooperating teachers to discuss progress
proved statistically significant in predicting responses to all areas of concern except for
instructional strategies and portfolio building.
Student Teacher perceptions regarding the effectiveness and professionalism of their
cooperating teachers were largely shaped by coverage of important areas and interaction
between both groups. While the majority of cooperating teachers seemed to satisfactorily provide
instruction and model professionalism, cooperating teachers reported as leaving student teachers
unsupervised, never involving student teachers in the classroom, never meeting to discuss
progress, or never having encouraged student teachers to reflect on teaching practices did occur.
Given that cooperating teachers are required to submit student teacher evaluations as part of
course grades, New Teacher Support and Development should explore ways to improve
oversight of cooperating teachers. Alternatively, providing staff development training similar to
that which campus mentors receive, which delineates program expectations and how to model
areas of concern and professionalism, might also prove to reduce the incidence of ineffective
cooperating teachers.
Former District Students as Student Teachers: Fall 2005.
Out of the 52 student teachers who
completed a pre-assessment, 18 (35%) graduated from the district.
Another three student
teachers attended the district for a time, but did not graduate from DISD. Therefore, 40% of fall
2005 student teachers surveyed attended the district. A positive discrepancy from the postassessment occurred which showed one additional student teacher who attended the district for a
time, thereby raising the survey percentage to 42%.
127
Among DISD graduates, 83% intended to seek employment with the district after
completing their student teaching assignment. The remaining 17% were unsure of future plans.
The largest percentage of DISD graduates sought certification as EC-4 Generalists. Table 76
shows the distribution of certification areas sought by DISD graduates. Among graduates, six
(38%) were bilingual in Spanish.
Table 76
Areas of Certification Sought by DISD Graduates Completing Their Student
Teaching with the District (Fall 2005)
Areas of Certification
N
(%)
General (EC-4)
9
50%
Bilingual (EC-4)
3
17%
English/Language Arts/Reading (4-8)
2
11%
English/Language Arts/Reading (8-12)
2
11%
General (4-8)
2
11%
Other
2
11%
Physical Education
2
11%
ESL (EC-4)
1
6%
Foreign Language (any)
1
6%
Mathematics (any)
1
6%
Sciences (any)
1
6%
Social Studies
1
6%
Former District Students as Student Teachers: Spring 2006.
Of the 90 student teachers who
attended the student teacher orientation in the spring, 20 (22%) were graduates of the district.
Another four had attended, but not graduated, from the district, making a total combined 27% of
district attendees among the spring cohort.
Most former students planned to come back to teach in Dallas: 92% intended to seek
employment with the district, with the remaining 8% unsure of their future plans.
Table 77 shows the distribution of certification areas sought by the spring cohort of DISD
attendees. Approximately 25% reported that they were bilingual in Spanish.
128
Table 77
Areas of Certification Sought by DISD Graduates Completing Their Student
Teaching with the District (Spring 2006)
Areas of Certification
N
(%)
General (EC-4)
16
67%
Bilingual (EC-4)
6
25%
ESL (EC-4)
5
21%
Art/Music/Dance/Theater
2
8%
Physical Education
2
8%
English/Language Arts/Reading (4-8)
1
4%
English/Language Arts/Reading (8-12)
1
4%
Foreign Language (any)
1
4%
Mathematics (any)
1
4%
Sciences (any)
1
4%
129
SUMMARY
Campus administrators and teachers served through the T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers
Program continued to steadfastly support the program.
Feedback submitted by principals,
mentors, and teachers served was almost exclusively positive, with less than 1% considered
neutral or negative in context. The most frequent comments characterized T3 coaches as helpful,
excellent, and supportive.
Most of the teachers served through the T3 program received assistance with learnercentered instruction. Most teachers received assistance in at least two areas of concentration.
Campuses generally requested T3 services in the fall semester. Most spring semester requests
came at the request of late hires. Roughly half of all campuses requested T3 services.
For the first time in three years of analyses, traditionally certified teachers’ overall CEI
scores and reading scores fell below those of alternatively certified teachers. However, there was
no statistical difference in CEI scores between AC and traditionally certified teachers.
Comparisons between AC interns based upon when they received training produced
statistically significant differences between the summer trainees and the fall trainees assigned to
high school science classrooms. Differences among phases initiated during the same school
year occurred in reading CEIs. Among Phases 25-27, which all began in the 2003-2004 school
year, data showed that Phase 27 interns’ reading CEIs were significantly lower than Phase 26
interns’ reading CEIs. Phase 27 interns were all recruited internationally. No other significant
differences occurred among phases.
Roughly 20% of assisted teachers who generated CEIs received T3 services in the spring
semester. Assisted teachers assigned to high school campuses generated the highest CEIs in
reading and mathematics; elementary teachers generated the highest science CEIs.
New Teacher Support and Development created Ready, Set, Prep to assist teachers who
have one to three years of teaching experience with preparation for the challenges which occur
the first few weeks of school. The workshops were based upon the high need areas of teacher
development T3 coaches saw while working with program requests, and upon interest expressed
131
from teachers themselves during the T3 visits. Teachers received invitations to voluntarily attend
the five-day series of workshops. A substantial percentage of the invited teachers were late hires
who had missed New Teacher Orientation.
New Teacher Center attendance dropped dramatically in 2005-2006. Approximately 200
teachers visited the center. Attendance drop-off most likely reflected the department’s move from
the Nolan Estes Plaza to the School Support Service Center mid-year.
Interns from Cohort 1 of the DISD Alternative School Counseling Certification Program
were placed as the counselors of record on 14 campuses.
All of these counselor interns
successfully completed their certification in school counseling. Eleven of the 14 counselors had
received their Masters degree by the end of the spring semester.
In order to provide the district with a pool of highly qualified teacher candidates in critical
needs and other areas, the AC Department created the Alternative Certification Teacher
Academy (ACTA). The academy mirrored the training provided to DISD AC teacher interns, and
participants went through the same interview and selection process as AC teacher interns. The
department held four academies in 2005-2006. All but 10% of the teachers who attended the
ACTA in Cohorts 1-3 were later hired by campuses, and they were placed into the AC teacher
intern program. Teachers displaced by Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana were invited to attend
ACTA without charge.
The ratio of mentors to beginning teachers dropped from 2004-2005. Beginning teachers
reported decreased satisfaction with their mentors. Higher percentages of teachers reported that
no one provided them with assistance in multiple areas, compared with 2004-2005. Experienced
“buddy” teachers often assumed mentoring duties where assigned mentors failed to cover.
Teachers advocated campuses engage in evaluation of mentors to ensure nurturing, qualified
mentors.
Principals continued to strongly influence beginning teacher satisfaction, and ultimately,
teachers’ intent to remain in the district. The frequency of interaction and the quality of the
interaction between new teachers and their principals strongly influenced new teachers’
perceptions of integration into the campus community, how fairly they were treated in relation to
132
colleagues, and ultimately, how motivated they were to teach at their respective campuses.
Positive and frequent principal interaction invariably contributed to a new teacher’s perception of
a supportive campus environment.
The more frequently principals interacted with beginning
teachers, the more likely these teachers were to report their intentions to remain with the district.
Teachers continued to stress their needs for early coverage of campus procedures and
paperwork. Beginning teachers advocated early exposure to what paperwork would be required
of them, what forms would likely be of interest to them, and the significance of the forms outlined.
Teachers reported inconsistency in the information they received, and often experienced campus
staff unwillingness to assist them in learning about paperwork and procedures.
Retainable attrition for beginning teachers increased in 2005-2006, although it remained
lower than rates prior to the inception of Professional Preparation and Support (previously New
Teacher Initiatives). Alternative Certification interns and student teachers had lower single year
rates of retainable attrition than beginning teachers overall.
Student teachers reported high levels of satisfaction with the Student Teaching Program,
although their satisfaction with cooperating teachers declined in the spring 2006 semester.
In
both the fall 2005 and spring 2006 semesters, the majority of student teachers reported their
intentions to seek employment with the district.
Student teachers in critical needs areas,
especially bilingual student teachers, reported the highest levels of intent to teach in Dallas. Over
three years, all bilingual student teachers who received pay as teacher assistants and were later
hired as teachers retained employment with the district.
133
134
Recommendations
ƒ
New Teacher Support and Development should either reconsider active advertising
of the Advanced Study Program, or consider seeking additional, alternative funding
for the program. To date, the program budget has remained constant since the
2003-2004 school year, and available slots have been filled by teachers already
enrolled in the program. However, Human Resource Services recruiters continue to
promote the program to perspective teachers (section 2.3, 55-57).
ƒ
New Teacher Support and Development should consider ways to evaluate campus
mentors. The department is tasked with creating fair measures which would not rely
solely upon beginning teachers’ evaluations in order to limit hostilities which would
arise
between
mentors
and
former
beginning
teachers.
Among
possible
considerations would be to increase mentor training to include sessions with both
mentors and their mentees to ensure that certain requirements are substantively
covered, such as action plans (section 2.5, pp.82-83).
ƒ
Principals should know of their influence upon beginning teacher retention.
The
department should emphasize the importance of increased frequency in one-to-one
interaction. (section 2.6, pp. 83-87)
ƒ
New teacher induction, especially for late hires, should include providing familiarity
with district and campus paperwork. Guidance may include receiving binders with
common forms, along with instruction as to the timelines and rationale behind the
forms. (section 2.6, p. 90)
ƒ
New Teacher Support and Development should utilize student teachers’ evaluations
of their cooperating teachers to identify cooperating teachers who do not remain in
the classrooms after their student teachers take over their classrooms. Cooperating
teachers reported as negligent should not be considered for future semesters.
(section 2.8, pp. 116-119, 121, 123-124, 127)
135
136
APPENDICES
137
138
Appendix A
Beginning Teacher Institute Participants’ Retainable Attrition and Classroom Effectiveness,
2002 – 2005
139
October 13, 2005
TO:
Linda Isaacks, Associate Superintendent, Professional Preparation and Support
Suzie Fagg, Executive Director, New Teacher Support and Development
Sylvia Hunt, Specialist
FROM:
Michelle Leake, Evaluation Specialist
SUBJECT: Beginning Teacher Institute Participants’ Retainable Attrition and Classroom
Effectiveness, 2002 – 2005
As requested, the longitudinal rates of retainable attrition for former Beginning
Teacher Institute (BTI) participants are provided below. The data used for the analysis come
from a September 9, 2005 snapshot of the Human Resource Personnel database. Dr. Hunt
provided the evaluator with a list of participants in 2002, 2003, and 2004 (N = 44).
The retainable attrition rate for BTI participants as of September 2005 was 13.6%. Most
attrition occurred among 2002–2003 participants, as shown in Figure 1A below.
20
15.8
15.4
13.6
15
8.3
10
5
0
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2002-2005
Figure 1A Retainable Attrition Rate for Beginning Teacher Institute Participants,
2002 – 2005
Seven of the 44 participants left the district over the three-year period.
One of the
participants left in 2003-2004 for an extra-district reason (certification not completed), and was
not included in the retainable attrition rate above. Figure 2A shows the reasons for participants
leaving the district. All attrition occurred in either May or July of the year of separation. The
141
majority of attrition for all participants occurred in 2004-2005; four of the seven participants left in
that year. Two participants left in 2003-2004. One participant left in 2002-2003.
14%
29%
Employment in
another district
Moving from the
metroplex
14%
Personal illness
Certification not
completed
14%
29%
Personal
Figure 2A Reasons for Separation from the District for BTI Participants
Two of the program participants who separated from the district scored in the 4th quintile
on beginning teacher CEI scores; one participant who separated scored in the 1st quintile on
beginning teacher CEI scores.
Scores for the remaining leavers were not generated* (see
below).
Several of the program goals are directed towards improving the classroom management
and strategies of the participants, including strategies for teaching higher order thinking skills.
Subsequently, the program participants would be expected to increase classroom performance,
relative to all other beginning teachers. Analysis of CEI data for program participants yielded the
quintile distribution shown in Figure 3A below.
8
6
4
2
0
1st Q
2nd Q
3rd Q
4th Q
Figure 3A Quintile Distribution for BTI Program
Participants’ CEI scores
142
Please note: not all participants generated a CEI score, or their scores may have been excluded
from the analysis, due to the number of student scores that were used to compute the CEI
scores. As a rule, CEI scores generated from less than eight student scores were excluded from
the analysis.
Conclusions
ƒ
Program participants who left tended to leave after one additional year with the
district. Two-thirds of the leavers with documented CEI scores performed in the 4th
quintile of beginning teacher CEI scores, although the n is too small to draw any valid
conclusions tying program effectiveness to attrition by CEI scores.
ƒ
The highest number of participants with documented CEI scores scored within the
4thquintile for all beginning teachers. The second largest group of participants scored
in the lowest quintile. As with the conclusion above, the size of the sample is too
small to make any definitive conclusions regarding the effectiveness of the program
in improving classroom performance.
Inclusion of 2004-2005 CEI data for
participants may yield a better data set for analysis.
Recommendations
ƒ
To improve on the program’s effect upon participants’ retention, implement a followup workshop or series of workshops for former program participants. The additional
attention to participants suggests the program continues to be supportive, and will
provide participants with the opportunity to discuss further issues and concerns.
ƒ
An alternate suggestion to improve the program’s effect upon retention would be to
arrange for follow-up consultations or observations in the second year by the
program specialists who directed the BTI, or by instructional coaches. Introduction of
interpersonal, one-on-one assistance reduces the perception of isolation, which is still
a substantive cause of attrition for second-year teachers.
143
Appendix B
Universities Attended by Former Student Teachers Hired by the District
145
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
Community College
DBU
Le Tourneau
Paul Quinn
SMU
Texas A&M
TWU
UNT
UTA
UTD
Other
Figure 1B Universities Attended by Former Student Teachers Hired by the District
147
Appendix C
New Teacher Workshops 2005-2006
149
Table 1C
New Teacher Support and Development Workshops, 2005-2006
Workshop Title
Number of Attendees
Classroom Management (2)
52
Lesson Cycle (2)
37
Student Folders and Record Keeping (2)
32
Implementing Effective Vocabulary Instruction (2)
27
Intermediate Centers
25
How to Teach the ADD/ADHD Student
23
Bulletin Boards
22
Guided Reading and Graphic Organizers (2)
17
Using the Teacher Evaluation Criteria to Develop Effective Lessons
17
Gender Differences in Learning
13
Parent Communication
11
Early Childhood Centers
10
Cooperative Learning and Whole Group Activities
7
151
Appendix D
Recruitment Types, Locations, and Number of Contacts for the Alternative Certification Program,
2005-2006
153
Table 1D
Recruitment Types, Locations, and Number of Contacts for the Alternative Certification Program,
2005-2006
Job Fair
Location
Contacts
Career Expo
Albuquerque, NM
23
Hispanic Engineering and Science Career Fair
Albuquerque, NM
32
Campus interviews (bilingual)
Arlington, TX
5
Career Fair
Arlington, TX
20
Conference
Arlington, TX
14
Education Career Fair
Arlington, TX
No data available
Employer Showcase
Arlington, TX
38
Conference interviews
Austin, TX
3
Education Career Fair
Austin, TX
4
Hotel interviews
Austin, TX
27
Information session
Austin, TX
10
Job and Career Fair
Austin, TX
11
Liberal Arts Career Fair
Austin, TX
14
Natural Sciences Career Expo
Austin, TX
13
Natural Sciences Career Fair
Austin, TX
26
Career Fair
Brownsville, TX
27
Career Fair
Brownsville, TX
14
Teacher Job Fair
Brownsville, TX
11
Career Expo
Canyon, TX
4
Job Fair
Carrollton, TX
28
Information Fair
Chicago, IL
31
Education Career Fair
College Station, TX
5
Liberal Arts Job Fair
College Station, TX
58
Job Fair
Commerce, TX
40
Job Fair
Commerce, TX
29
Bilingual Education Conference*
Corpus Christi, TX
20
Career Fair
Corpus Christi, TX
15
Job Fair
Corpus Christi, TX
5
Teacher Job Fair
Corpus Christi, TX
3
Campus interviews
Dallas, TX
8
Career Conference
Dallas, TX
46
Table 1D Continues
155
Table 1D Continued
Job Fair
Location
Contacts
Career Fair
Dallas, TX
50
Career Fair
Dallas, TX
No data available
College Visit
Dallas, TX
22
Community Employment and Empowerment Expo
Dallas, TX
No data available
Information session
Dallas, TX
54
Information session
Dallas, TX
16
Information session
Dallas, TX
5
Job Fair
Dallas, TX
33
Job Fair
Dallas, TX
25
Job Fair
Dallas, TX
13
Job Fair
Dallas, TX
8
Recruiting Expo
Dallas, TX
30
Recruiting Expo
Dallas, TX
21
Information Fair
Dallas, TX (DISD)
330
Information Fair
Dallas, TX (DISD)
300
Information Fair
Dallas, TX (DISD)
180
Information Fair (bilingual)
Dallas, TX (DISD)
141
Information Fair for counselors*
Dallas, TX (DISD)
12
Information session for counselors*
Dallas, TX (DISD)
24
Information session for counselors*
Dallas, TX (DISD)
20
Librarian Information Fair*
Dallas, TX (DISD)
21
Librarian Information Fair*
Dallas, TX (DISD)
20
Librarian Information Fair*
Dallas, TX (DISD)
9
Math/Science Information Fair
Dallas, TX (DISD)
41
All Major Career Fair
Denton, TX
29
Career Festival
Denton, TX
33
Education Career Day
Denton, TX
No data available
Engineering Career Fair
Denton, TX
12
Fall Career Day
Denton, TX
15
Fall Career Day
Denton, TX
14
Information session
Denton, TX
13
Spring Career Day
Denton, TX
16
Teacher Career Day
Denton, TX
12
Table 1D Continues
156
Table 1D Continued
Job Fair
Location
Contacts
Career Day
Edinburg, TX
25
Job Expo
Edinburg, TX
15
Bilingual intake
El Paso, TX
No data available
Bilingual intake
El Paso, TX
No data available
Career Day
El Paso, TX
15
Career Expo
El Paso, TX
30
Engineering and Science Expo
El Paso, TX
35
Hotel information sessions and interviews
El Paso, TX
120
Hotel interviews
El Paso, TX
No data available
Information session
El Paso, TX
105
Information session (bilingual)
El Paso, TX
30
Information session (bilingual)
El Paso, TX
10
Information session and interviews
El Paso, TX
108
Information session and testing
El Paso, TX
23
Career Fair
Fort Worth, TX
7
Assistive and Rehabilitative Services Job Fair
Forth Worth, TX
7
Teacher Recruitment Day
Grambling, LA
Workforce Job Fair
Grand Prairie, TX
6
Information sessions and testing
Guadalajara, Mexico
22
Information sessions and testing
Guadalajara, Mexico
11
Information sessions, testing, and interviews
Guadalajara, Mexico
14
Career Day
Hawkins, TX
No data available
Career Fair
Hawkins, TX
8
Biosciences/Bioengineering Career Day
Houston, TX
16
Career Expo
Houston, TX
No data available
Engineers Career Fair
Houston, TX
4
Information session
Houston, TX
No data available
Job Fair
Houston, TX
39
Job Fair
Houston, TX
10
Liberal Arts and Social Sciences Career Fair
Houston, TX
27
Career Fair
Irving, TX
10
Career Fair
Kingsville, TX
21
Career Fair
Kingsville, TX
10
No data available
Table 1D Continues
157
Table 1D Continued
Job Fair
Location
Contacts
Career Fair
Laredo, TX
13
Career Expo
Las Cruces, NM
14
Employment Extravaganza
Las Cruces, NM
15
Hispanic Professional Engineers Career Fair
Las Cruces, NM
15
Military Job Fair
Live Oak, TX
14
Career Fair
Lubbock, TX
8
Bilingual intake
Mexico City, Mexico
No data available
Information session
Mexico City, Mexico
25
Information sessions and testing
Mexico City, Mexico
48
Information sessions and testing
Mexico City, Mexico
10
Interviews
Mexico City, Mexico
43
Meetings with universities/American Chamber of
Commerce
Mexico City, Mexico
8
Bilingual intake
Monterrey, Mexico
No data available
Hotel interviews
Monterrey, Mexico
20
Information session
Monterrey, Mexico
13
Information session
Monterrey, Mexico
7
Information session (bilingual)
Monterrey, Mexico
67
Information session (bilingual)
Monterrey, Mexico
66
Information session, testing, and interviews
Monterrey, Mexico
35
Information session, testing, and interviews
Monterrey, Mexico
No data available
Information sessions and testing
Monterrey, Mexico
20
Information sessions and testing
Monterrey, Mexico
6
Business Career Day
Nacogdoches, TX
8
Career Day
Nacogdoches, TX
29
Multicultural Career Fair
Norman, OK
1
Job Fair
Odessa, TX
6
Bilingual Education Conference
Phoenix, AZ
No data available
Information session (bilingual)
Phoenix, AZ
0
Career Fair
Prairie View, TX
31
College visit
Prairie View, TX
26
Non-tech Career Fair
Prairie View, TX
64
Information sessions
Puerto Rico
99
Information sessions
Puerto Rico
48
Table 1D Continues
158
Table 1D Continued
Job Fair
Location
Information sessions and interviews
Puerto Rico
191
Career Expo
Richardson, TX
23
Information session
Richardson, TX
0
Teacher Recruitment Day
Ruston, LA
Business and Industry Career Fair
San Antonio, TX
25
Campus interviews
San Antonio, TX
1
Career Fair
San Antonio, TX
20
Career Fair
San Antonio, TX
No data available
Information session
San Antonio, TX
7
Information sessions
San Antonio, TX
8
Job Fair
San Antonio, TX
3
Job Fair
San Marcos, TX
12
Multicultural Job Expo
San Marcos, TX
No data available
Hotel interviews
Santiago, Chile
80
Conference (ESOL)
Tampa, FL
22
Virtual Career
Tampa, FL
No data available
Career Fair
Waco, TX
24
Career Fair
Wichita Falls, TX
29
Career Fair
Wichita Falls, TX
7
Total Number of Trips
Total Number of Contacts
Note Italicized job fairs were held at universities.
Note * Job fairs for the AC School Counselor and/or School Librarian Programs
159
Contacts
No data available
149
4041
Appendix E
New Teacher Comprehensive Survey
161
Professional Preparation and Support
New Teacher Comprehensive Survey
Please fill out the following form that relates to your experiences as a beginning teacher within the
District. This information is confidential and will not be used for teacher identification or
evaluation. Your responses will assist the Professional Preparation and Support Department in
identifying and meeting the needs of beginning teachers. District personnel will not gain access
to your individual responses. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact
Michelle Leake, Evaluation Specialist at [email protected] or (972) 925-6453. Return the
survey in the enclosed envelope to Michelle Leake, Box 130.
Certification
1.
What route did you seek for certification?
a. Traditional
b. Alternative
c. Post-baccalaureate
2.
What certification(s) do you have or are currently seeking? (circle all that apply)
a. Generalist (EC-4)
b. Generalist (4-8)
c. Bilingual Generalist (EC-4)
d. Bilingual Generalist(4-8)
e. ESL/Generalist (EC-4)
f. ESL/Generalist (4-8)
g. English /Language Arts/Reading (all levels)
h. English/Language Arts/Reading/Social Studies
i. Gifted and Talented
j. Health
k. Health Science Technology Education
l. History
m. Life Science
n. Mathematics (all levels)
o. Mathematics/Science
p. Mathematics/Physics
q. Music
r. PPR (all types)
s. Physical Education
t. Physical Science
u. Science (all levels)
v. Social Studies (all levels)
w. Special Education
x. Technology Applications (all levels)
y. Technology Education
z. Other _________________
Continue to Page 2
163
New Teacher Support and Development
3.
Did you attend the Fall Salute to New Teachers?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I was hired after the Fall Salute was held.
4.
Have you visited the New Teacher Center at the Student Support Service Center (Buckner
Building)?
a. Yes
b. No
5.
How many times have you visited the New Teacher Center?
a.
Once
b.
2-3 times
c.
4-5 times
d.
Six times or more
e.
I have never visited the New Teacher Center.
6.
Have you attended any workshops offered at the New Teacher Center?
a.
Yes
b.
No
7.
Have you ever visited the New Teacher Initiatives Website?
a.
Yes
b.
No
8.
Did you attend your campus New Teacher Orientation in August?
a.
Yes
b.
No
c.
I was hired after August.
9.
Did you participate in the year-long 2005-2006 Beginning Teacher Institute?
a.
Yes
b.
No
10. If you participated in the Beginning Teacher Institute, were you able to apply the skills and
strategies you learned to your classroom teaching?
a.
Yes
b.
No
c.
I did not attend the BTI in 2005-2006.
11. If you participated in the Beginning Teacher Institute, would you recommend it to another
teacher?
a.
Yes
b.
No
c.
I did not attend the BTI in 2005-2006.
12. Did you attend the New Teacher Fair, held at the International Apparel Mart in July 2005?
a.
Yes
b.
No
164
c.
I was hired after July.
Continue to Page 3
Mentors
13. Were you assigned to a campus mentor within 15 days of reporting to campus?
a. Yes
b. No
14. Was your mentor’s subject discipline (i.e. science) the same as yours?
a. Yes
b. No
15. Did your mentor teach at the same grade level as you?
a. Yes
b. No
16. When did you meet with your mentor most often?
a. Mornings before school
b. During lunchtime
c. Right after school
d. Evenings
e. Weekends
f. We met at different times
17. On average, how many times per week would you say that you met with your mentor?
a. Less than once/week
b. 1 – 2 times/week
c. 3 – 4 times/week
d. 5 or more times/week
18. On average, how long did meetings with your mentor last?
a. Less than 30 minutes
b. 30 minutes – less than 1 hour
c. 1 hour
d. More than 1 hour
19. Given your answer to the question above, do you feel as though your mentor was readily
accessible to talk or meet with?
a. Yes
b. No
20. Which statement best describes your interaction with your mentor?
a. My mentor and I had regularly scheduled meetings, where a prior agenda was
established.
b. My mentor and I had regularly scheduled meetings, in order to discuss my current
concerns.
c. My mentor and I met whenever I indicated I wanted to discuss an area of concern.
d. My mentor periodically contacted me to discuss my progress.
e. My mentor and I chatted briefly between classes.
165
f.
I really did not interact with my mentor.
21. How much time did you spend with your mentor on your action plan?
a. We never addressed my action plan
b. 1 day
c. 2 days
d. 3-4 days
e. 1 week or more
f. I am a DISD AC Intern and do not have an action plan.
g. I am a university/outside AC Intern and do not have an action plan.
Continue to page 4
22. Who provided the following services or resources to you?
AC= DISD AC Department/Specialist; AP=Assistant Principal; CF= Campus Facilitator;
DC= Department Chair; DI= Dean of Instruction; GC= Grade-level Chair; IC=
Instructional Coach; M= Mentor; NTST=New Teacher Support Team; O= Office Staff;
P= Principal; T= Other Teachers; NO= No One (circle all that apply)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Familiarize with paperwork compliance/bureaucratic requirements
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
GC
IC
M
NTST
O
NO
P
T
Emotional support
AC
AP
CF
NO
DC
DI
GC
IC
M
NTST
O
P
T
Classroom management tips
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
NO
GC
IC
M
NTST
O
P
T
Assistance with staff development
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
GC
NO
IC
M
NTST
O
P
T
IC
M
NTST
O
P
T
Assistance with integrating into school community
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
GC
IC
M
NTST
O
P
T
NTST
O
P
T
Observation and critique of teaching
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
GC
NO
f.
NO
g.
Modeling classroom instruction and role play
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
GC
NO
166
IC
M
h.
Effective instructional delivery demonstrations/suggestions
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
GC
IC
M
NTST
O
P
T
Identifying good teaching resources
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
GC
O
P
T
NO
i.
IC
M
NTST
NO
j.
Familiarize with campus communication systems/procedures
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
GC
IC
M
NTST
O
P
T
NO
k.
Effective ways to communicate with parents
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
GC
IC
M
NTST
O
P
T
Familiarize with campus resources
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
GC
IC
M
NTST
O
P
T
Guidance for translating TEKS objectives into lesson plans
AC
AP
CF
DC
DI
GC
IC
M
NTST
O
P
T
NO
l.
NO
m.
NO
Continue to Page 5
Alternative Certification
The following section deals only with those teachers who are part of the Alternative Certification
Program, or are already alternatively certified.
If you are traditionally certified, please skip to the Principals section on Page 8.
23. What type of alternative certification program best describes your credentialing?
a. Currently in the DISD Alternative Certification program
b. Completed/currently enrolled in an AC program through a university
c. Completed an AC program with another school district
d. Relocated teacher from New Orleans
e. Other ______________________________________________
167
If you are not in the DISD AC Program, please skip to the Principals section on Page 8.
24. Approximately how many times were you visited by your DISD AC Specialist/part-time
Specialist?
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
0
1-2
3-5
6-8
9 times or more
25. How many times did your mentor meet with you during the fall semester?
a. 0
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3
e. 4 times or more
26. If you met with your mentor at least once during the fall semester, how long, on average,
was each meeting?
a. Less than 30 minutes
b. 30 minutes – less than 1 hour
c. 1 hour – less than 2 hours
d. 2 hours – less than 4 hours
e. 4 hours or more
27. Did your mentor meet with you on at least two separate occasions during the spring
semester?
a. Yes
b. No, but my mentor met with me once during the spring semester.
c. No, my mentor did not meet with me at all during the spring semester.
28. If you met with your mentor at least once during the spring semester, how long, on average,
was each meeting?
a. Less than 30 minutes
b. 30 minutes – less than 1 hour
c. 1 hour – less than 2 hours
d. 2 hours – less than 4 hours
e. 4 hours or more
Continue to page 6
29. If your assigned campus mentor visited you at least once during the school year, what
activities occurred during the meeting? (circle all that apply)
a. Observation of my teaching
b. Critique of my teaching
c. Videotape my teaching
d. Went over beginning teacher six week checklist
e. Reviewed campus procedures and policies
f.
Reviewed campus communication systems
g. Filled out observation and evaluation forms
h. Other_________________________________________________________________
i.
My mentor did not visit with me
168
j.
Nothing substantive occurred at our meetings.
30. Please rate how well the AC Department covered the following topics in training.
1= Poor; 2= Fair; 3= Adequate; 4= Good; 5= Excellent
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
n.
o.
p.
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) _______
TAKS Expectations _______
Lesson Planning and Lesson Cycle _______
Classroom Management _______
Discipline Management _______
Inclusion Strategies _______
Technology in the Classroom _______
Teacher Behaviors/Diversity _______
Professionalism _______
Higher Order Thinking Skills _______
Modes of Teaching _______
Assessment _______
Differentiated Instruction _______
First Days of School _______
Parent Involvement/Communication _______
Curriculum and Instruction Collaborative Training (i.e. Early Childhood, MLEP,
Special Education, Math, Reading) _______
31. Which statement best reflects your opinion of the frequency of TExES certification review
sessions (including follow-up) provided by the AC Department:
a.
I believe the AC Department provided the perfect number of TExES review
sessions I needed.
b.
I needed more TExES review sessions than what the department provided.
c.
I believe the AC Department did not need to provide as many TExES review
sessions as they did.
32. Approximately how many hours did you spend on your own preparing/studying for your
TExES certification examinations?
a.
0
b.
1-5 hours
c.
6-10 hours
d.
11-15 hours
e.
16-20 hours
f.
21 hours or more
Continue to page 7
33. Which statements reflect your overall opinion of the university-based coursework you took?
a.
The university coursework complemented the training I received from the AC
Department.
b.
The university coursework provided practical tips and strategies which I needed
to succeed in the classroom.
c.
The university coursework duplicated the training I received from the AC
Department.
169
d.
The information which I learned from my university coursework did not translate
well to the classroom setting.
e.
I did not take any university-based coursework.
f.
Other_________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
34. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements
regarding your AC Specialist:
0= Not Applicable; 1= Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= Neutral; 4= Agree; 5= Strongly Agree
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
My AC Specialist provided me with constructive feedback on visits. _______
My AC Specialist provided essential training that I needed to pass my certification
exams. ____
My AC Specialist supported me emotionally. ______
My AC Specialist listened to me, and responded to what I was saying. ______
During my pre-assignment training, my AC Specialist provided a true indication of
what it would be like to teach in the classroom. _____
My AC Specialist made me feel as though I could succeed as a teacher. ______
My AC Specialist provided me with access to good teaching resources. ______
My AC Specialist was available either via email or in person if needed. _______
My AC Specialist was an excellent resource for information regarding district
procedures and contacts. _____
My AC Specialist made certain that I received the support I needed at the campus.
_______
I would have liked more conferences with my mentor and my AC Specialist
together. _______
I would recommend my AC Specialist to future AC interns/beginning teachers.
_______
Continue to page 8
Principals
35. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements:
1= Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= Neutral; 4= Agree; 5= Strongly Agree
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
My principal offers constructive and timely feedback regarding my teaching
performance. _____
My principal supports my activities conducted within the classroom. _______
My principal provides me with instructional support as needed. ______
My principal encourages me to contact him/her if I feel the need. ______
My principal offers me emotional support. _______
My principal makes an effort to retain new teachers. _______
I look forward to going to work. ________
My principal supports my discipline decisions in the classroom. _________
My principal clearly expressed what was expected of me as a beginning teacher.
________
My principal treats all of the teachers fairly and equally. _______
170
36. Were you given opportunities to observe experienced teachers?
a.
Yes
b.
No
37. How many walk-throughs did you have?
a.
Never
b.
Once
c.
2-3 times
d.
4 or more times
38. Who conducted your 45-minute classroom observation?
a.
Principal
b.
Mentor
c.
Assistant principal
d.
Dean of instruction
e.
Other _______________________
f.
No one conducted my 45-minute observation.
39. Did your appraisal include both a pre- and post-observation conference?
a.
Yes
b.
Only a pre-conference
c.
Only a post-conference
d.
Neither
40. Choose the answer that best describes how often you met one-to-one with your principal:
a.
Once
b.
Very rarely (2-3 times)
c.
At least once each month
d.
At least once each week
e.
My principal met with me pretty much on a daily basis
f.
I never met with my principal on a one-to-one basis
Continue to page 9
School Environment
41. Which group of teachers would you say that you interact with more on a regular basis?
a.
Teachers in the same grade level
b.
Teachers in the same content area
c.
I interact with both groups equally.
d.
I do not interact with either group on a regular basis.
42. Is your planning period at the same time as other teachers on your grade level or subject
area?
a.
Yes
b.
No
43. Besides the mentor you were assigned to, did you have a veteran “buddy” teacher?
a.
Yes
b.
No
171
44. Does anyone check to see if you are following the curriculum?
a.
Yes
b.
No
45. How would you characterize departmental meetings?
a.
They provide an opportunity for learning.
b.
They are mostly a cause for social interaction.
c.
They are mostly procedural, where the head (chairperson) goes over his/her
agenda.
d.
They are a collaborative effort, where everyone gets involved.
46. Would you say that you were assigned to a class with a higher degree of disciplinary
problems as compared with veteran teachers in the same grade level/content area?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Unsure
47. If you have a question not related to subject content, whose advice do you seek most often?
a. My mentor
b. My principal
c. An experienced teacher that I get along with
d. Department head
e. Campus administrator
f.
AC Department/Specialist
g. Other _____________________
h. I do not feel as though I can ask anyone for help
48. Were you given adequate resources to deal with your special education students?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I do not have any special education students in my classroom.
49. Were you given adequate resources to deal with your English language Learners?
a. Yes
b. No
c. I do not have any ELL students in my classroom.
50. Are you assigned to any additional duties (i.e. hall monitoring, metal detectors)?
a. Yes
b. No
Continue to Page 10
51. Are you assigned to supervise any school-related, extra-curricular activities (i.e.
cheerleading, coaching)?
a. Yes
b. No
52. If given the opportunity, would you seek a transfer to another campus before the beginning
of the next school year?
a. Yes
b. No
172
c.
Unsure
53. Were you assigned to teach in a portable classroom for the entire school year?
a. Yes
b. No
54. How many events or functions hosted by your New Teacher Support Team during the school
year did you attend?
a. None
b. 1
c. 2
d. 3
e. 4 or more
f.
To my knowledge, my campus New Teacher Support Team did not host any
functions for beginning teachers.
55. What kinds of activities were offered at the New Teacher Support Team functions? (Circle all
that apply)
a. Activities designed to improve my teaching skills (i.e. classroom management,
lesson planning)
b. Activities designed to make me feel more welcome on campus, including
networking among colleagues
c. Other
____________________________________________________________________
d. I did not attend any functions hosted by my New Teacher Support Team.
e. To my knowledge, my campus New Teacher Support Team did not host any
functions for beginning teachers.
56. Were you provided with an aide, such as a Teaching Assistant, in your classroom?
a. Yes
b. No
General
57. What was the primary factor that contributed to your decision to seek employment with
DISD?
a. Availability of position within area of teaching
b. Salary
c. Benefits
d. Opportunity to work with inner-city children
e. Convenient location of likely school assignment
f. Opportunity for professional development
g. Having contacts within the District
h. The opportunity to earn my teaching certification through the Alternative
Certification Department while teaching in a classroom.
i. The opportunity to earn additional stipends/signing bonuses (i.e. Bilingual)
j. My experience as a student teacher with the district.
k. Other _________________________________
Continue to page 11
173
58. Rank each of the following factors on how they impact your decision to remain teaching in
DISD. Please use each number only once.
Least
Most
Important
1
2
Important
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
a.
Quality of physical buildings/classroom facilities _________
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Relationship with the principal ________
Salary and benefits _________
Opportunities for promotion ________
Distance of commute _________
Level of safety ________
Student discipline _______
Mentoring/support __________
Quality of teaching resources _______
Interaction with colleagues ________
Class size _______
10
11
59. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree with the following statements:
0= Not Applicable; 1= Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3= Neutral; 4= Agree; 5= Strongly Agree
a.
b.
c.
d.
Human Resources handled my resume and paperwork efficiently. ________
Human Resources made the hiring process at DISD a pleasant experience.
______
I had no problems getting my hiring paperwork processed. ______
The Substitute Office treated me as a professional. ______
60. What is your primary teaching assignment?
a. Self-contained PK-3
b. Self-contained 4-6
c. Math
d. Science
e. Social Studies
f.
Reading/Language Arts
g. ESL
h. Fine Arts
i.
Special Education
j.
Physical Education
k. Other ___________________
l.
Floater
61. Are you assigned to teach a bilingual classroom?
a. Yes
b. No
62. Did you conduct your student teaching with DISD?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Not applicable (i.e. I am Alternatively Certified)
174
63. How much of your own money have you spent on classroom supplies this year?
a. None
b. Less than $50.00
c. $50.00 - $100.00
d. $100.00 - $200.00
e. More than $200.00
Continue to Page 12
64. What grade level were you assigned to teach?
a. Pre-Kindergarten – Kindergarten
b. 1-3
c. 4-6
d. 7-8
e. 9-12
f.
I teach at all levels (i.e. Special Education)
65. What is your gender?
a. Male
b. Female
66. What is your ethnicity?
a. African-American
b. American Indian
c. Asian
d. Hispanic
e. White
f.
Other _____________________
67. What is your age?
a. 18-23
b. 24-29
c. 30-35
d. 36-41
e. 42-47
f.
48+
68. What is the name of the campus where you are currently assigned?
(As a reminder: This will be kept confidential, and will not be used for identification purposes.)
______________________________________________________
69. How many years do you anticipate being a teacher with DISD?
a. This is my last year.
b. 1-3 years
c. 4-6 years
d. 7-10 years
e. More than 10 years
70. What do you anticipate doing after you leave your teaching position in DISD?
a. Teaching in another district
b. Taking up a new profession
175
c.
d.
e.
f.
Retiring
Moving into a different school-related position (i.e. administration)
Other________________________________________________________________
Unsure
Continue to page 13
71. Please make any comments or suggestions regarding your experience as a beginning
teacher with the district. Use the back of this survey if more room is needed.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Thank you for your cooperation in taking this survey. Your input will help DISD improve the
support for beginning teachers that DISD provides.
176
Appendix F
Student Teacher Surveys: Pre-test, Post-test, Cooperating Teacher Evaluation
177
Student Teachers
Pre-Assessment Survey Spring 2006
Please fill out the following form related to your student teaching assignment. This
information is confidential and will not be used for identification purposes. Your
responses will assist us in identifying needs of student teachers. Using a #2 pencil,
darken the bubble to the left of your answer.
African American
Ethnicity
American Indian
Anglo
Asian
Hispanic
Other
(Mark all that apply)
18 – 22
23 – 27
28 – 32
33 – 37
Yes, the ExCET
Yes, the TExES
Yes, the TOPT
38 – 42
43 – 47
48 – 52
53+
Yes, and I still have to
take more exams.
No
When do you intend to take your TExES/ExCET certification
exams?
February 18, 2006
April 8, 2006
June 10, 2006
August 5, 2006
Other_______________
General (EC-4)
General (4-8)
Bilingual (EC-4)
Bilingual (4-8)
Computer Science
Eng/LA/Read (4-8)
Eng/LA/Read (8-12)
ESL (EC-4)
ESL (4-8)
Business Ed.
Health
History
Only need student
teaching hours
Need hours and some
courses
Art/Music/Dance/Theatre
Phys. Ed. (any)
Special Ed.
Technology
Mathematics (any)
Sciences (any)
Math/Science (any)
Foreign Lang. (any)
Social Studies
PPR
Other ____________
Other ____________
Need hours and to pass
certification exams
Need hours, courses,
and pass
certification exams
None
1
2
3
4 or more
Yes
No
Unsure
Age
Have you taken any certification exams yet?
(Mark all that apply)
What certification exams do you plan to take/have taken?
(Note those already taken AND those you plan to take)
Which scenario best describes your level of credentialing?
How many college courses are you currently taking?
(Do not include student teaching hours)
Does your university offer any additional mentoring during
your student teaching assignment?
179
Did you graduate from DISD?
Yes
No
No, but I attended DISD
for a time.
What do you see as the primary benefit to student teaching?
Give only ONE answer
Management of
student discipline
Management of
instructional
Student discipline
Instructional
strategies
Time management
Student discipline
Instructional
strategies
Time management
5 days or less
6-10 days
11-15 days
Learning classroom
curriculum
Gaining contacts within
DISD
Conflict Resolution
Campus
procedures/policies
Emotional support
Conflict Resolution
Campus
procedures/policies
Emotional support
16-20 days
21-25 days
More than 25 days
What workshops would you be interested in attending?
Classroom
Management
Bulletin Boards
Lesson Cycle
Learning Centers
Which factors led you to conduct your student teaching with
DISD? Mark all that apply
Assigned by
supervising
professor (no
choice)
Yes
Plan to teach in DISD
Reputation of program
Prof. Development
School
No
Effective
instructional
strategies
Observe and critique
First choice as a
career
Not first choice for a
career, but talents
Yes
Build good lesson plans
Student discipline
technique
Emotional Support
Teaching skills will
serve as a fallback,
in case I need a
job.
No
Unsure
Teaching in another
district
Taking up a different
profession
Yes
Continuing education
No plans
currently/Unsure
Other
No
Unsure
Which of the following areas of concentration do you feel
that you need help with in order to be a successful student
teacher? (Please mark all that apply)
Given your answer above, which area do you feel you need the
most assistance with, in order to become a successful student
teacher? Give only ONE answer
How many days of observation do you feel you will need
before taking over teaching a class?
Are you bilingual in Spanish?
In your opinion, what is the primary role of the cooperating
teacher you are working with? Give only one answer
Which statement best describes how you view teaching as a
profession?
After your student teaching assignment is completed, do you
anticipate teaching at DISD?
If you answered “No” or “Unsure” above, what are your
plans after your assignment is completed?
Do you feel as though student teaching at DISD will
effectively prepare you for a full-time, professional teaching
position with the District?
180
Student Teachers
Post-Assessment Survey Spring 2006
Please fill out the following form related to your student teaching assignment. This information is confidential and will
not be used for identification purposes. Your responses will assist us in identifying needs of student teachers. Using a
#2 pencil, darken the bubble to the left of your answer. Please fill out both sides of the survey.
Gender
Female
Male
Ethnicity
African American
American Indian
Anglo
Asian
Hispanic
Other
Age
18 – 22
23 – 27
28 – 32
33 – 37
Yes, the ExCET
Yes, the TExES
No
38 – 42
43 – 50
51+
General (EC-4)
General (4-8)
Bilingual (EC-4)
Bilingual (4-8)
Computer Science
Eng/LA/Read (4-8)
Eng/LA/Read (8-12)
ESL (EC-4)
ESL (4-8)
Business Ed.
Health
History
Completed all of the
requirements needed
to be a teacher.
Need more college
Supervising Professor
University
Art/Music/Dance/Theat
Phys. Ed. (any)
Special Ed.
Technology
Mathematics (any)
Sciences (any)
Math/Science (any)
Foreign Lang. (any)
Social Studies
PPR
Other ____________
Other ____________
Need to pass
certification exam
Need courses, and to
pass certification
Self
Other
Did your university offer any additional mentoring during
your student teaching assignment?
Yes
No
Unsure
What was your student teaching assignment? (What was the
assignment of the cooperating teacher you worked with?)
Elem, self-cont.
Elem, deptmentalized.
Bilingual preK-5
ESL preK-12
Eng/LA/Read. 7-12
Fine Arts K-12
Vocational/Career
Foreign Lang. 7-12
Have you passed the ExCET or TExES yet?
What ExCET or TExES exams have you taken or plan to
take?
(Mark all that apply)
Which scenario best describes your level of credentialing?
Who chose your student teaching assignment with DISD?
181
Yes, but I still have to
take more exams.
No
(Mark all the apply)
In your opinion, who was primarily responsible for helping
you become a successful student teacher? (Mark only one
response)
Spec. Ed. K-12
Math 7-12
Science 7-12
Social Studies 7-12
This is my first choice
as a career.
This is not my first
choice for a career, but
Cooperating Teacher
Campus administration
Principal
Which of the following workshops did you attend, if any?
(Mark all that apply)
Classroom Management
Bulletin Boards
Which of the following workshops would you recommend, if
any? (Mark all that apply)
Classroom Management
Bulletin Boards
Now that your student teaching assignment is completed, do
you anticipate teaching at DISD?
Yes
If you answered “No” or “Unsure” above, what are your
plans after your assignment is completed?
Teaching in another
district
Taking up a different
profession
Yes
Continuing education
No plans
currently/Unsure
Other
No
Do you feel as though student teaching at DISD effectively
prepared you for a full-time, professional teaching position
with the District?
Yes
No
Unsure
How many times did you visit the New Teacher Center
(including to attend workshops)?
Four times
Five times
Six times or more
Are you a graduate of DISD?
None
Once
Twice
Three times
Yes
Have you been hired as a substitute teacher with the district?
Yes
No
Which statement best describes your interaction with the
Human Resource Substitute Office?
The staff at the
Substitute Office treated
me as a professional.
The staff at the
Substitute Office did
not treat me as a
professional.
Which statement best describes how you view teaching as a
profession?
Have you been offered a teaching position with DISD?
182
Computer K-12
P.E., K-12
Other
My teaching skills will
serve as a fallback,
in case I need a job.
I plan to use my
University
DISD
Supervising Professor
Lesson Cycle
Learning Centers
I did not attend any
workshops.
Lesson Cycle
Learning Centers
I did not attend any
workshops.
No
Unsure
No
No, but I attended
DISD for a time.
Were you employed as a part-time teaching assistant with the
district during your student teaching assignment?
183
Yes
No
Student Teachers
Evaluation of Cooperating Teachers
Spring 2006
Please fill out the following form to evaluate your cooperating teacher. This information is confidential, and will be
used to assist New Teacher Initiatives Department in selecting cooperating teachers. Using a #2 pencil, darken the
bubble to the left of your answer.
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Time Management
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Lesson Planning
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Student Discipline
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Student Assessment
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Campus Procedures/Policies
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Conflict Resolution
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Observation and Critique of Your Teaching
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Emotional Support
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
How sufficiently did your cooperating teachers
address the following areas:
Instructional Strategies
Curriculum/TEKS
Portfolio Building
185
Motivating Students
Did not address
Poor
Fair
Good
Excellent
How many days of observation did you have before teaching a
class?
5 days or less
6-10 days
11-15 days
16-20 days
21-25 days
More than 25 days
How often was your cooperating teacher present in the
classroom during the period when you were teaching?
Never
Occasionally
Most of the time
Always
Did other district officials besides your cooperating teacher
ever supervise your student teaching (i.e. other teachers,
principal)?
Yes
No
Did your cooperating teacher encourage you to engage in
reflective activities? (i.e. keep a journal, self-evaluation of
instructional delivery)
Yes
No
How often did you and your cooperating teacher have
meetings so you both could discuss your progress?
Never
Very rarely
At least once/week
Daily
Before taking over the class, did your cooperating teacher
regularly involve you in classroom activities?
Yes
No
Did your cooperating teacher give you copies of his/her lesson
plans?
Yes
No
When you took over teaching in the classroom, were you
permitted to introduce your own lesson plans?
Yes
No
Did you ever attend departmental/grade-level meetings at your
campus with your cooperating teacher?
Yes
No
My cooperating teacher modeled professionalism in his/her
attitude towards their students.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
My cooperating teacher modeled professionalism in his/her
work ethic.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Circle the response that most closely expresses your opinion of
the following statements:
186
My cooperating teacher modeled professionalism in his/her
dress/appearance.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
My cooperating teacher modeled professionalism when dealing
with other campus staff.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
187
Appendix G
T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers Coach Surveys
189
NEW TEACHER INITIATIVES
New Teacher Support and Development Department
ADMINISTRATOR FEEDACK FORM
___
Administrator
_______________
Campus
__
Area
, Instructional Coach with the Beginning Teacher
Support and Mentoring Department, provided services to
__ ____
__ on the following date(s):
Teacher
Areas of support/focus:
The Instructional Coach addressed the areas checked below:
‰
‰
‰
‰
‰
Learner-Centered Instruction
Student Participation in Learning Process
Instruction and Communication
Management of Student Discipline
Evaluation and Feedback on Student Progress
‰
‰
‰
Classroom Environment
Management of Instructional Strategies, Time and
Materials
Professional Development and Communication
In an effort to continually enhance the support provided by the Instructional Coaches, your feedback
on the quality of services delivered would be appreciated. Thank you in advance for taking a few
moments out of your day to share your valuable comments with us.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Suzie Fagg, Director, New Teacher Support
and Development Department, at 214-932-7371.
Comments:
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________
Administrator Signature
______________________
Date
Please fax this form to:
Suzie Fagg, Director, New Teacher Support and Development Department
214-932-7373
191
Professional Support and Development
Department
T3: Teachers Teaching Teachers
Satisfaction Survey 2005-2006
Please fill out the following form related to the intensive mentoring you received from the Professional Preparation and
Support Department’s instructional coaches. This information is confidential and will not be used for identification or
teacher evaluation purposes. Using a #2 pencil, darken the bubble to the left of your answer. Please fill out both
sides of the survey.
This is my first year
4-7 years
How many years of professional teaching experience
1
year
8-10 years
do you have?
2 years
More than 10 years
3 years
AC- DISD
Traditional
What type of certification do you have, or are currently
AC-University
seeking?
AC-Other
Who initiated the request for intensive mentoring from an
instructional coach?
Your principal
Your mentor
You
Your New Teacher
Support Team
Other ______________
How many days did you work with your instructional coach
(not including follow-up)?
1 day
2 days
3 days
4 days
Yes
5 days
6 days
7 days
8 days or more
No
Did your instructional coach follow-up later to check on
your progress?
Yes
Yes, more than once
No
Which area(s) of support/focus did your instructional coach
address? (Please mark all that apply)
Learner-Centered
Instruction
Student Participation in
Learning Process
Mgmt. of Instructional
Strategies, Time,
and Materials
Classroom Environment
Lesson Demonstration
Observation
Rearrange Classroom
Profile Data
Provide Resources
Inform about district
programs
Instruction and
Communication
Management of Student
Discipline
Evaluation & Feedback
on Student Progress
Prof. Development and
Communication
Build Classroom Mgmt.
Systems
Simulate PDAS
Set-up Learning Center
Provide Student
Assessments
Other _____________
Other _____________
Renee Hauntz
Beverly McIntyre
Kathy Mumphrey
Did you receive the assistance of an instructional coach on a
second occasion (not including follow-up)?
Which of the following mentoring activities, if any, did your
instructional coach perform? (Please mark all that apply)
Which instructional coach provided assistance to you?
(If you received services from more than one coach, please
mark all that apply.)
193
Sara Adams
John Ahne
Dee Ellis
Please note: this question is asking only about the
instructional coaches from Professional Preparation and
Support.
Liliana Suero
Jennifer Timmons
Ann-Marie Towell
Cynthia Warren
I do not recall.
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Please mark the response that most closely expresses your
opinion of the following statements:
I valued the in-class observations that the instructional coach
provided.
My instructional coach provided a great deal of emotional
support.
My instructional coach showed me effective ways to manage
student behavior in the classroom.
My instructional coach made me feel as though I could
succeed as a teacher.
My instructional coach recommended procedures/strategies
for keeping students engaged while I worked with smaller
groups.
My instructional coach listened to me, and responded to what
I was saying.
My instructional coach helped me build organizational skills.
My instructional coach upheld the confidentiality of our
meetings.
My instructional coach showed me how to reflect upon my
own teaching.
My instructional coach demonstrated effective ways to make
teaching student-centered.
My instructional coach assisted me in organizing my
classroom in a way that promoted student engagement.
194
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
My instructional coach provided me with access to good
teaching resources.
195
Not Applicable
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Appendix H
New Teacher Center Survey
197
New Teacher Initiatives Department
New Teacher Center
Usage Survey
Please take a few minutes to complete this short survey. It is designed to better assess your resource needs and
measure your satisfaction with the New Teacher Center. The results of this survey are confidential, and will be
reviewed by the New Teacher Initiatives Department and the Research and Evaluation Department.
Please return the completed survey to the New Teacher Center attendant.
Arts &Crafts
Laminator
What resource(s) did you utilize during your visit? (Mark all
Binding
Machine
Media Center
that apply)
Copier
Office Supplies
Diecut Machine
Paper Cutter
Poster Maker
Workshop
PC
MAC
TV/VCR
Yes
No
Did you encounter any difficulties with the use of the center?
If you answered “Yes” above, what was the nature of the
difficulty?
Which designation best describes you?
Machine not working
No paper/ materials
Too long of a wait to
use center/machine
1st year teacher
2nd year teacher
Machine too difficult to
operate
Other __________
_______________
Mentor
Campus administrator
Which grade level do you work with?
PK-6
7-8
9-12
Have you visited the center before?
Yes
No
What other resources would you like to have available in the
Welcome Center?
Lesson plan ideas
More computers
Mentoring
How did you hear about the center?
Principal
Colleague
Mentor
Newsletter
Additional workshops
Longer hours
Weekends
Other _____________
AC Specialist
Instructional Coach
Campus Flier
Other _____________
If “Yes”, then STOP HERE. If “No”, then continue.
199
200
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement