Mathematica is examining whether high-intensity teacher induction programs lead to higher retention rates and other positive teacher and student outcomes¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · designr2·q1
Currency · newest study 2006 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? A randomized evaluation is being conducted to test whether high-intensity teacher induction programs lead to higher retention rates and other positive teacher and student outcomes. → Steven Glazerman 2006
Evidence¶
Steven Glazerman 2006¶
Steven Glazerman, Sarah Senesky, Neil Seftor, Amy Johnson. (2006). Design of an Impact Evaluation of Teacher Induction Programs. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/design-of-an-impact-evaluation-of-teacher-induction-programs
q1 · i? · design · r2
The report's own description of the study's purpose: a design document stating that Mathematica "is examining whether high-intensity teacher induction programs lead to higher retention rates and other positive teacher and student outcomes." No results are reported; this is a study-design statement, not a finding.
"Mathematica is examining whether high-intensity teacher induction programs lead to higher retention rates and other positive teacher and student outcomes."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Comprehensive teacher induction did not lead to measurable improvements in student test scores compared to business-as-usual induction in the second year of a randomized controlled study — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Comprehensive teacher induction did not increase teacher retention during the first year of teaching — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Comprehensive teacher induction produced no measurable improvements whether delivered as a one-year or two-year program — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Comprehensive teacher induction generated no significant improvements in novice teachers' classroom practices in the first year — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Comprehensive teacher induction did not measurably increase the percentage of teachers remaining in their district or in the profession compared to business-as-usual induction — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Comprehensive teacher induction generated no significant improvements in student achievement in the first year — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- Comprehensive teacher induction did not measurably improve the qualifications of teachers who were retained compared to business-as-usual induction — related
- Two years of comprehensive teacher induction can boost student achievement compared with business-as-usual induction — related
- Comprehensive teacher induction showed no impacts on outcomes other than student achievement — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
high-intensity-teacher-induction-retention-outcomes-study |
title |
Mathematica is examining whether high-intensity teacher induction programs lead to higher retention rates and other positive teacher and student outcomes |
description |
Mathematica is examining whether high-intensity teacher induction programs lead to higher retention rates and other positive teacher and student outcomes |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2006 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — steven-glazerman-2006 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.