north carolina new teacher support program › files › 2015 › 07 › north...implement the north...

North Carolina New Teacher Support

Program

Final Race to the Top Evaluation Report

Authors:

Kevin Bastian and Julie Marks

Education Policy Initiative at Carolina, The University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill

August 2015

Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina

NC NTSP: Final RttT Evaluation Report

August 2015

Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 6

Data and Analyses........................................................................................................................... 8

Evaluation Sample ...................................................................................................................... 8

Data Sources ............................................................................................................................... 9

Analysis..................................................................................................................................... 10

Findings......................................................................................................................................... 11

Implementation ......................................................................................................................... 11

To What Extent was the NC NTSP Implemented as Intended? ........................................... 11

To What Extent did the NC NTSP Reach its Target Population? ........................................ 11

Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes.............................................................................................. 13

How do Teachers Perceive the Impact of NC NTSP Components on their Knowledge,

Skills, and Attitudes about Teaching? .................................................................................. 13

How do Teachers Perceive the Impact of NC NTSP Components on Self-Efficacy and Job

Satisfaction? .......................................................................................................................... 15

Teacher Effectiveness ............................................................................................................... 16

To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact Teacher Effectiveness, as Measured by Teacher

Value Added to Student Achievement? ................................................................................ 16

To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact Teacher Effectiveness, as Measured by the

North Carolina Educator Evaluation System (NCEES) Teacher Evaluation Ratings? ........ 18

Retention ................................................................................................................................... 20

To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact the Retention of Novice Teachers a) in the Same

Schools or LEAs, and b) in the State? .................................................................................. 20

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 22

Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................ 22

Implementation ..................................................................................................................... 22

Teacher Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes ............................................................................ 22

Teacher Effectiveness ........................................................................................................... 22

Teacher Retention ................................................................................................................. 22

Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 23

Recommendations and Next Steps............................................................................................ 23

Appendix A. Evaluation Sample................................................................................................... 25

Appendix B. Data Sources ............................................................................................................ 30

Appendix C. To What Extent was the NC NTSP Implemented as it was Intended? ................... 42


August 2015

Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina 2

Appendix D. To What Extent did the NC NTSP Reach its Target Population? ........................... 44

Appendix E. How do Teachers Perceive the Impact of the NC NTSP Components on their

Confidence, Knowledge, and Skills in Teaching? ........................................................................ 52

Appendix F. How do Teachers Perceive the Impact of the NC NTSP on their Self-Efficacy and

Job Satisfaction? ........................................................................................................................... 58

Appendix G. To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact Teacher Effectiveness as Measured by

Teacher Value-Added to Student Achievement? .......................................................................... 61

Appendix H. To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact Teacher Effectiveness as Measured by

the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System (NCEES) Teacher Evaluation Ratings? .......... 82

Appendix I. To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact the Retention of Novice Teachers to the

Same School, LEA, and the State? ............................................................................................... 90


August 2015


NORTH CAROLINA NEW TEACHER SUPPORT PROGRAM: FINAL RACE TO THE

TOP EVALUATION REPORT

Executive Summary

Overview

The North Carolina New Teacher Support Program (NC NTSP) was developed to provide

induction supports to beginning teachers in North Carolina’s lowest-achieving schools and to

meet two high-priority needs identified by the state’s Race to the Top (RttT) grant: (1) helping

teachers to succeed during their initial years in teaching; and (2) retaining qualified teachers,

particularly in high-need schools. The NC NTSP aims to improve the instructional knowledge,

skills, attitudes, effectiveness, and retention of participating teachers through the provision of

three support components: institutes (multi-day trainings); instructional coaching; and

professional development. This report reflects findings from an independent external evaluation

of the NC NTSP conducted by the Education Policy Initiative at Carolina as part of the statewide

RttT evaluation undertaken by the Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North

Carolina (CERE–NC).

Data and Methods

This final evaluation report draws upon the following data sources: (1) participation records from

each of the components of the NC NTSP; (2) Perception of Success Inventory for Beginning

Teachers (PSI-BT) survey responses; and (3) student demographics and test scores, classroom

rosters, teacher evaluation ratings, EVAAS scores, certified salaries, school personnel, and

school characteristics files provided by the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.

With these data sources, the Evaluation Team used a comparison group design to examine: levels

of participation in NC NTSP components; NC NTSP teachers’ perceptions of the impact of

program components on their confidence, knowledge, and skills for teaching; teachers’

perceptions of their self-efficacy and job satisfaction; and the impact of the NC NTSP on teacher

value-added, teacher evaluation ratings, and teacher retention.

Summary of Findings

This report reflects evaluation findings for the two full years of program implementation

spanning the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years. The study design and analysis were developed

to address evaluation questions across four overarching areas: implementation; teacher

knowledge, skills, and attitudes; teacher effectiveness; and teacher retention.

Implementation

To what extent was the NC NTSP implemented as intended, and to what extent did it reach its

target population? Over the course of the four-year grant period, the NC NTSP was developed,

staffed, and implemented from the ground up and has grown to scale, serving over 1,100 teachers

in 114 schools as of the 2013-14 school year. There were substantial differences in program

participation and implementation across the four NC NTSP regions. As the NC NTSP doubled in


August 2015


size in 2013-14, there was a drop in attendance at institutes and professional development

sessions and fewer instructional coach visits per teacher.

Teacher Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes

How do teachers perceive the impact of NC NTSP components on their confidence, knowledge,

skills, and attitudes toward teaching? There was a statistically significant difference in the

proportion of NC NTSP evaluation sample respondents who felt the program components had a

positive impact on their teaching, compared with similar services provided by their own school.

This significant difference also existed between NC NTSP respondents’ perceptions of program

utility and comparison sample perceptions of analogous school-provided services.

Teacher Effectiveness

To what extent does the NC NTSP impact teacher effectiveness as measured by teacher value-

added to student achievement (EVAAS) and the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System

(NCEES) teacher evaluation ratings? Overall, NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers had

significantly higher EVAAS estimates than comparison sample teachers in fifth and eighth grade

science. When assessing results by cohort, positive and significant EVAAS results were

concentrated within NC NTSP Cohort 1 teachers, while NC NTSP Cohort 2 teachers were

generally no more or less effective. Regarding teacher evaluation ratings, there were no

significant differences between NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers and comparison teachers

in overall models. By cohort, NC NTSP Cohort 1 teachers had significantly higher evaluation

ratings on four standards in 2013-14.

Teacher Retention

To what extent does the NC NTSP impact the retention of novice teachers in the same schools or

local education agencies (LEAs) and in the state? Overall, NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers

were significantly more likely to return to teaching in North Carolina public schools, to the same

LEA, and to the same low-performing school. NC NTSP teachers from both cohorts were

significantly more likely than comparison sample teachers to return to the same low-performing

school.

Limitations

Two primary limitations should be taken into account when interpreting the findings in this

report: (1) the ability to isolate the impact of the NC NTSP is diminished due to the lack of a

comparison group of teachers working in schools similar to those served by the NC NTSP in all

ways other than participating in the program; and (2) given the time required for program

development and scaling up, the length of the evaluation period is not adequate to assess the

effectiveness of a consistent program model implemented as intended for first-, second-, and

third-year teachers over the course of three years.


August 2015


Recommendations and Next Steps

There are three overarching recommendations for the NC NTSP after the close of the RttT grant:

1. The impacts of the NC NTSP on teacher value-added to student achievement and teacher

retention support a recommendation to sustain the program beyond the end of the RttT grant;

2. Findings from this evaluation should be used to explore the disparities in program

implementation by region, and moving forward, implementation fidelity should be formally

monitored; and

3. Strategies should be explored to counter the decline in program participation and

effectiveness seen in 2013-14, such as requiring participating schools and Local Education

Agencies (districts) to enforce mandatory participant attendance, and/or concentrating

resources toward instructional coaching (the most intensive program component).


August 2015


Introduction

North Carolina’s $400 million, four-year Race to the Top (RttT) grant was built upon a

comprehensive plan to strengthen the education workforce, with the goal of having a great

teacher in every classroom and a great principal leading every school. With this end in mind, the

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) identified the state’s highest-priority

needs, including the recruitment and preparation, equitable distribution, professional

development, and induction and retention of high-quality teachers.1

Data from the 2010 Teacher Working Conditions Survey illustrated the need for induction

supports prior to RttT, showing that while nearly all new teachers (93%) are assigned a mentor,

almost half (47%) do not have time during the day to meet with their mentors, and one in eight

indicate that they never received any additional support as new teachers.1,2

These supports are

particularly needed in high-need schools, where novice teachers are concentrated and where the

teacher turnover rate is often greatest.

To help teachers succeed during their early-career years and persist in the state’s highest-need

schools, NCDPI partnered with the UNC General Administration (UNC-GA) to develop and

implement the North Carolina New Teacher Support Program (NC NTSP). The NC NTSP is a

comprehensive induction program for early-career teachers designed to increase competency in

goal-setting, backwards planning and assessment, data-driven decision-making, classroom

management, and strategies for success in the school and community. The goal of the NC NTSP

is to help participating novice teachers acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to increase the

quality of their instruction, raise student achievement, and persist in teaching.

The NC NTSP drew from the successful induction model utilized by Teach For America to

create a three part program comprised of 1) institutes (multi-day training sessions); 2) intensive

face-to-face and virtual instructional coaching; and 3) professional development sessions held

throughout the academic year. Implementation of these beginning teacher supports is organized

through a central NC NTSP office and regional anchor sites located at four UNC system

institutions—East Carolina University (ECU), the UNC Center for School Leadership

Development (UNC-CSLD), UNC Charlotte (UNCC), and UNCG Greensboro (UNCG).

As part of the statewide evaluation of RttT conducted by the Consortium for Education Research

and Evaluation–North Carolina (CERE–NC),3 the Education Policy Initiative at Carolina (EPIC)

was tasked with conducting an independent external evaluation of the NC NTSP from the 2011-

12 to the 2013-14 school years. Over this time period, EPIC has collected and analyzed data on

program implementation and participation, short-term and intermediate outcomes, and

summative impact findings to address the following evaluation questions:

1 NC RttT Proposal, 2010

2 Teacher Working Conditions Survey, 2010

3 The Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina (http://cerenc.org) is a partnership of:

the SERVE Center, University of North Carolina at Greensboro; the Education Policy Initiative at Carolina,

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, North Carolina

State University.

http://cerenc.org/


August 2015


Implementation

1. To what extent was the NC NTSP implemented as it was intended?

2. To what extent did the NC NTSP reach its target population?


3. How do teachers perceive the impact of NC NTSP components on their confidence,

knowledge, and skills in teaching?

4. How do teachers perceive the impact of NC NTSP components on their self-efficacy and job

satisfaction?


5. To what extent does the NC NTSP impact teacher effectiveness as measured by teacher

value-added to student achievement?

6. To what extent does the NC NTSP impact teacher effectiveness as measured by the North

Carolina Educator Evaluation System (NCEES) teacher evaluation ratings?

Teacher Retention

7. To what extent does the NC NTSP impact the retention of novice teachers in the same

schools or LEAs and in the state?


August 2015


Data and Analyses

Evaluation Sample

For the 2012-13 academic year, the inclusion criteria for the NC NTSP evaluation sample was all

first- and second-year teachers who began receiving NC NTSP services by December 2012 and

who worked in schools that were eligible for and agreed to participate in the NC NTSP.

The exclusion criteria for the 2012-13 NC NTSP evaluation sample were as follows:

Teachers who began receiving NC NTSP supports in January 2013 or later;

Novice teachers receiving NC NTSP supports in non-RttT schools;

The small number of third-year teachers served by the program in 2012-13; and

Teach for America (TFA) corps members.

For the 2013-14 academic year, the Evaluation Team defined the NC NTSP evaluation sample as

all first-, second-, and third-year teachers who began receiving NC NTSP supports by December

2013 and who worked in schools that were eligible for and agreed to participate in the NC NTSP.

While this sample includes third-year teachers who were fully served by the program in 2013-14,

it again excludes teachers who began receiving NC NTSP supports in January 2014 or later,

novice teachers who received NC NTSP supports in non-RttT schools, and TFA corps members.

In the 2012-13 academic year, the NC NTSP evaluation sample consisted of 344 teachers

working in 59 schools and 16 LEAs, with a large majority (72%) of this treatment sample being

first-year teachers. In the 2013-14 academic year, the NC NTSP evaluation sample consisted of

808 teachers working in 91 schools and 25 LEAs. Approximately 50% of the treatment sample

were first-year teachers, 36% were second-year teachers, and 15% were in their third year of

teaching.

To best isolate the impact of the NC NTSP, the Evaluation Team used a comparison group

design to compare findings between NC NTSP program participants and comparison teachers

who did not receive the intervention. An optimal comparison group would be comprised of

teachers who were identical to the evaluation sample in every way other than participating in the

NC NTSP; however, identifying such a group poses a particular challenge for evaluations of

programs that are universally offered within the eligible target population, leaving two primary

options for comparison groups: (1) those who were not eligible for the program but are thought

to be similar due to characteristics that place them narrowly outside the program criteria, and (2)

those who are eligible for the program but did not participate.

To assess the impact of the NC NTSP, the Evaluation Team created two comparison groups. The

group included in the main body of this final evaluation report meets the criteria of Option One

above—schools that were in the bottom decile of school performance in 2011-12 but that were

not eligible for and did not receive NC NTSP services. The key limitation of this sample is that it

is comprised of schools that did not receive any RttT services, meaning comparisons to this

group do not allow for isolation of the impact of the NC NTSP from other RttT programs.


August 2015


In the 2012-13 school year, this comparison group (labeled Non-RttT Comparison throughout the

report) consisted of all of the first- and second-year teachers who began working in these schools

by December 2012. In the 2013-14 school year, this comparison group consisted of all of the

first-, second-, and third-year teachers who began working in these schools by December 2013.4

Overall, the Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample included 1,033 teachers working in 147

schools and 48 LEAs in the 2012-13 school year and 1,507 teachers working in 149 schools and

48 LEAs in the 2013-14 school year.

Table 1 presents school characteristics for the NC NTSP evaluation sample and the Non-RttT

Comparison evaluation sample. Across 2012-13 and 2013-14, NC NTSP teachers worked in

schools with more students qualifying for subsidized school meals, more racial and ethnic

minority students, a higher short-term suspension rate, and a lower school performance

composite than did comparison teachers. In 2012-13, NC NTSP schools also had a significantly

higher percentage of novice teachers. Please see Appendix A for more details on the NC NTSP

evaluation sample, both comparison samples,5 and additional characteristics of the treatment and

comparison sample schools.

Table 1. School Characteristics for the NC NTSP and Non-RttT Comparison Group

Characteristic

2012-13 School Year 2013-14 School Year

NC NTSP

Non-RttT

Comparison NC NTSP

Non-RttT

Comparison

Free and Reduced-Price

Lunch Percentage 93.58 85.93

** 91.78 87.40**

Racial/Ethnic

Minority Percentage 90.87 78.37

** 89.63 78.67**

Short-Term Suspension Rate

(Per 100 students) 48.86 33.52

** 38.14 25.50**

Performance Composite 20.04 23.25** 31.07 34.29

**

Novice Teacher Percentage 32.99 27.19** 32.93 30.29

Note: +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Data Sources

The Evaluation Team collected the data presented in this final evaluation report from the UNC-

GA implementation team, the NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers and comparison sample

teachers, and administrative datasets supplied by NCDPI. Specifically, this final evaluation

report draws upon the following data sources: (1) participation records from each of the

components of the NC NTSP (institutes, instructional coaching, and professional development);

(2) the Perception of Success Inventory for Beginning Teachers (PSI-BT) survey responses of

NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers and Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers; and (3)

student test scores, student demographics, classroom rosters, teacher evaluation ratings, EVAAS

scores, certified salaries, school personnel, and school characteristics files provided by NCDPI.

4 Like the NC NTSP evaluation sample, the Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample excludes TFA corps members.

5 The second sample is identified as the NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample.


August 2015


With these data sources, the Evaluation Team examined: levels of participation in NC NTSP

components; NC NTSP teachers’ perceptions of the impact of program components on their

confidence in, knowledge of, and skills for teaching; their self-efficacy and job satisfaction; and

the impact of the NC NTSP on teacher value-added measures, teacher evaluation ratings, and

teacher retention. Please see Appendix B for more details on program documents provided by the

UNC-GA implementation team and for PSI-BT survey items, response rates, and respondent

characteristics.

Analysis

This summative report utilizes data collected over a two-year period from two cohorts and across

four regional sites. While the NC NTSP was implemented using a structured program model

across regions and over time, natural variation is to be expected based upon the different needs

and contextual factors within each region. Furthermore, due to the annual scaling-up of the

program, different cohorts were exposed to different levels of program intensity. To account for

these differences, the Evaluation Team will present impact results for teacher value-added

measures, teacher evaluation ratings, and teacher retention in the following groupings:

Overall: To determine the overall impact of the NC NTSP, the Evaluation Team will present

results for the NC NTSP and Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers using pooled

data from the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school-years.

By Region: To examine any regional differences in outcomes, the Evaluation Team will

present results, separately, for each of the four regions served by the anchor institutions at

East Carolina University (ECU), the University of North Carolina Center for School

Leadership Development (UNC-CSLD), the University of North Carolina at Charlotte

(UNCC), and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG). These results use

pooled data from 2012-13 and 2013-14.

By Cohort: To examine the impact of the NC NTSP based on when a teacher entered the

program, the Evaluation Team will present results, separately, for teachers who entered the

program in 2012-13 (Cohort 1) and those who entered the program in 2013-14 (Cohort 2).

Appendices G through I show value-added, evaluation rating, and retention results in reference

to a second comparison group (the NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample), display results for

first-year teachers only, and include results from analyses with a more comprehensive set of NC

NTSP and comparison sample teachers.


August 2015


Findings

Implementation

To What Extent was the NC NTSP Implemented as Intended?

After the receipt of RttT grant funds, the NC NTSP was developed from the ground up in the

2010-11 school year. As such, the model was scaled up over time as the program increased

capacity and there was increased buy-in from Local Education Agencies (LEAs)6 and schools

across the state.

As shown in Table 2, there was a 30-fold increase in the number of teachers served by the NC

NTSP over the course of the grant period. By 2013-14, the NC NTSP provided induction

services to 1,108 teachers in 114 schools and 27 LEAs. Overall, the NC NTSP provided

induction services to novice teachers in 73 RttT schools in 2012-13 and 91 RttT schools in 2013-

14.7 By the end of the RttT funding period, this coverage includes over three-quarters of the

lowest-achieving schools the program was tasked to serve.

Please see Appendix C for more details on the implementation of the NC NTSP.

Table 2. NC NTSP Program Implementation

Year Teachers Served Schools Served LEAs Served

2010-11* N/A N/A N/A

2011-12 35 13 5

2012-13 542 77 19

2013-14 1108 114 27

* Note: The 2010-11 school year was used for program development, and focused on program

planning, staffing, identification of anchor institutes, and school recruitment.

To What Extent did the NC NTSP Reach its Target Population?

The NC NTSP is comprised of three components: institutes (multi-day trainings); instructional

coaching; and professional development. In 2012-13, institutes were held at one centralized

location at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; in 2013-14, there were regional

institutes held prior to the start of the school year, followed by a centralized institute in

September. All instructional coaching interactions and professional development opportunities

were organized and implemented at the regional level.

6 LEA is North Carolina’s term for traditional school districts and charter schools.

7 There were a small number of schools served by the NC NTSP that were not in the RttT sample. Please see

Appendix C for more details.


August 2015


As shown in Table 3, the attendance and reach for all three NC NTSP components notably

declined between the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years. In addition, there was notable

variability across regions in program attendance and reach.

In the 2012-13 school year, nearly 55% of all NC NTSP evaluation sample participants attended

an institute. There was considerable variation between regions, however, with almost 75% of

teachers from the ECU region attending an institute, compared with only 40% of teachers in the

UNCG region. In 2013-14, institute attendance decreased by over 50% across all regions and fell

to 21% overall.

Table 3. NC NTSP Evaluation Sample Participation

NC NTSP

Overall

ECU

Region

UNC-CSLD

Region

UNCC

Region

UNCG

Region

NC NTSP Institute

Attended a

2012-13 Institute 54.94% 74.24% 66.25% 46.67% 39.74%

Attended a

2013-14 Institute 20.54% 27.51% 18.99% 16.48% 19.50%

NC NTSP Instructional Coaching

Average Number of

In-Person Coaching

Visits Per Month in

2012-13

3.73 6.02 2.10 3.39 4.01

Average Number of

In-Person Coaching

Visits Per Month in

2013-14

2.39 3.82 1.65 2.56 1.77

NC NTSP Professional Development

Average Number of

PD Sessions Attended

in 2012-13

2.22 2.41 3.59 1.17 2.26

Average Number of

PD Sessions Attended

in 2013-14

0.76 1.03 1.22 0.14 0.52

The middle panel of Table 3 reflects a decrease in the frequency of instructional coaching visits

between the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years and shows substantial variation in the average

number of in-person coaching visits between regions. Program-wide, teachers averaged 1.3

fewer in-person instructional coaching visits per month in 2013-14.8 Coaching visits declined

across all regions, with the largest decreases in the UNCG and ECU regions. In the 2012-13 and

2013-14 school years, the ECU region had the highest average number of instructional coaching

visits, while the UNC-CSLD had the lowest average number of instructional coaching visits.

8 The drop in the average number of in-person coaching visits was not due to the NC NTSP serving third-year

teachers in 2013-14 (a teacher group that averaged fewer coaching visits overall); rather, the average number of in-

person instructional coaching visits declined for first- and second-year teachers.


August 2015


To further illustrate the variation in program intensity across regions, Figure 1 displays the

average number of total contact hours (in-person and virtual) between instructional coaches and

NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers in the 2013-14 school-year.9 Overall, teachers in the ECU

and UNCC regions averaged 41 and 34 contact hours, respectively, while teachers in the UNC-

CSLD and UNCG regions averaged approximately 10 contact hours.

Finally, the bottom panel of Table 3 (above) reports the average number of NC NTSP

professional development sessions participants attended. Overall, professional development

attendance was low, with a marked decline in the 2013-14 school year. In 2012-13, NC NTSP

teachers averaged 2.2 professional development sessions (out of six), with a high of 3.59

sessions in the UNC-CSLD region.10

In 2013-14, NC NTSP teachers averaged 0.76 professional

development sessions (out of six), with a high of 1.22 in the UNC-CSLD region and a low of

0.14 in the UNCC region. Please see Appendix D for more detailed information on participation

in NC NTSP components.

Figure 1. Average Total Contact Hours with Instructional Coaches (2013-14)

Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes

How do Teachers Perceive the Impact of NC NTSP Components on their Knowledge, Skills, and

Attitudes about Teaching?

A survey assessing teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge, skills, and attitudes was

administered to the NC NTSP evaluation sample and the Non-RttT Comparison evaluation

sample teachers. The Evaluation Team asked questions to reflect items specific to NC NTSP

participants alone (e.g., related to institutes or instructional coaching), as well as items that

allowed NC NTSP and comparison sample teachers to respond (e.g., concerning analogous

support services provided by their schools or LEAs). Respondents were asked the extent to

which they agreed that each NC NTSP component (or analogous school-/LEA-provided

9 The UNC-GA program implementers only tracked and reported contact hours for the 2013-14 school year.

10 In 2012-13, several LEAs and schools in the UNC-CSLD region required their NC NTSP teachers to attend the

NC NTSP professional development sessions.

41.16

11.35

33.61

10.20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

ECU Region UNC-CSLD Region UNCC Region UNCG Region


August 2015


component) had been helpful in developing their confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching.

Given the potential for response bias, due in part to lower than desirable response rates (see

Appendix B), survey results should be interpreted with caution.

The top panel of Table 4 presents the summative survey item for NC NTSP institutes. In 2012-13

and 2013-14, approximately 80% of NC NTSP survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that

the NC NTSP institute was helpful in developing their confidence, knowledge, and skills in

teaching. Within years, however, there was considerable variation in responses by region,

ranging from 59% to 94% in 2012-13 and from 65% to 100% in 2013-14.

The middle panels of Table 4 display responses to two items related to NC NTSP instructional

coaching. In both the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years, 77% of the NC NTSP evaluation

sample respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the program’s instructional coaching was

helpful in developing their confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching. In 2012-13 and 2013-

14, approximately 60% of NC NTSP evaluation sample respondents attributed “quite a bit” or a

“great deal” of their teaching success to help from their NC NTSP instructional coaches.

Table 4. NC NTSP Summative Survey Items

NC NTSP

Overall

ECU

Region

UNC-CSLD

Region

UNCC

Region

UNCG

Region

NC NTSP Institute was helpful in developing my confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching

Percentage Agree or

Strongly Agree in 2012-13 80.00 81.58 59.09 93.93 76.47

Percentage Agree or


NC NTSP Instructional Coaching was helpful in developing my confidence, knowledge, and skills in

teaching

Percentage Agree or


Percentage Agree or


Of the success you have had as a beginning teacher, what amount would you attribute to help from

your NC NTSP Instructional Coach

Percentage Responding

Quite a Bit or a Great Deal

in 2012-13

62.43 53.19 45.45 66.67 83.78

Percentage Responding

Quite a Bit or a Great Deal

in 2013-14

58.20 65.98 52.71 52.88 55.21

NC NTSP Professional Development was helpful in developing my confidence, knowledge, and skills

in teaching

Percentage Agree or



August 2015


As a basis of comparison, Figure 2 displays the responses of NC NTSP evaluation sample

teachers to comparable items about their school-provided mentors. While 77% of NC NTSP

respondents indicated that their NC NTSP instructional coaches were helpful in developing their

confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching, only 60% of NC NTSP respondents answered

similarly about their school-provided mentors. Likewise, while approximately 60% of NC NTSP

respondents attributed “quite a bit” or a “great deal” of their teaching success to their NC NTSP

instructional coaches, less than half of the NC NTSP respondents answered similarly for their

school-provided mentors. Both of these differences were statistically significant.

The last panel of Table 4 (above) presents the summative survey item for NC NTSP professional

development. In 2012-13, 87% of NC NTSP evaluation sample respondents agreed or strongly

agreed that the program’s professional development sessions were helpful in developing their

confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching.11

Please see Appendix E for more details on NC NTSP teachers’ perceptions of program utility.

Figure 2. Teacher Perceptions of NC NTSP Quality Relative to School-Provided Support

How do Teachers Perceive the Impact of NC NTSP Components on Self-Efficacy and Job

Satisfaction?

The Evaluation Team assessed teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy and job satisfaction with

five previously-validated items on the PSI-BT. As shown in Table 5 (following page), in both

2012-13 and 2013-14, the percentages of NC NTSP evaluation sample respondents who agreed

or strongly agreed with the self-efficacy and job satisfaction items were higher than the

percentages of Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample respondents who did so. In 2012-13, NC

11

Due to an error in the response categories recorded for the 2013-14 summative professional development

question, the Evaluation Team is unable to present 2013-14 results.

49.09

60.10

45.92

60.38

58.10

77.05

62.43

77.58

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Attributes "Quite a Bit" or "A Great Deal" of

Success to Coach/Mentor

Agrees/Strongly Agrees that Coach/Mentor Helpful

in Developing Confidence, Knowledge, and Skills in

Teaching

NC NTSP-Provided 2012-13 NC NTSP-Provided 2013-14

School-Provided 2012-13 School-Provided 2013-14


August 2015


NTSP evaluation sample respondents registered significantly higher levels of agreement (84% to

78%) with the self-efficacy item, “I feel inspired to instruct students to the best of my ability.” In

2013-14, NC NTSP evaluation sample survey respondents rated their self-efficacy and job

satisfaction significantly higher than did comparison sample respondents on all five items. These

differences should be interpreted carefully, however, due to the low response rate for Non-RttT

Comparison teachers and the potential for bias in the sample of teachers who responded.

See Appendix B for more details on these response rates and differences between NC NTSP

teachers who did and did not respond to the PSI-BT, and see Appendix F for more details on the

NC NTSP and Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample responses to the self-efficacy and job

satisfaction items.

Table 5. Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction Survey Items

Survey Items

Percentage Agree or Strongly Agree

NC NTSP

2012-13

Comparison

2012-13

NC NTSP

2013-14

Comparison

2013-14

I am able to successfully

teach students with a

variety of ability levels

78.92% 72.64% 84.07% 74.16%

I am able to motivate all

students 60.24% 54.07% 68.87% 54.50%

I feel inspired to instruct

students to the

best of my ability

84.15%

77.92% 81.52% 75.14%

In general, I am satisfied

with my current job 59.15% 54.55% 56.76% 47.75%

I consider teaching to be my

ideal career 70.73% 67.20% 68.07% 60.68%


To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact Teacher Effectiveness, as Measured by Teacher Value

Added to Student Achievement?

To assess the contributions of NC NTSP teachers to student achievement, the Evaluation Team

analyzed EVAAS teacher effectiveness estimates. The Evaluation Team combined EVAAS data

from elementary and middle grades to run separate models for mathematics, reading, and science

(End-of-Grade [EOG] science exams in grades five and eight), and combined EVAAS data from

End-of-Course (EOC) exams (Biology, English II, and Math I) to run a single EOC model. For

these models, the Evaluation Team made teacher EVAAS estimates the outcome variable and

regressed this measure of value added to student achievement on a set of school characteristics

and teacher experience. The Evaluation Team chose to control for these variables due to the

significant differences in school characteristics between NC NTSP and comparison sample

schools, and because these contextual variables are not accounted for in EVAAS models. Results

from these models express the adjusted-average differences in student achievement—in normal


August 2015


curve equivalency units—between students taught by NC NTSP teachers and students taught by

Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers.

The top portion of Table 6 displays overall EVAAS results for NC NTSP evaluation sample

teachers in comparison to Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers. Over the 2012-13

and 2013-14 school years, students taught by NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers in fifth and

eighth grade science made significantly larger achievement gains than did students taught by

Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers. There were no significant differences for

EOG mathematics, EOG reading, and all EOC exams.

The bottom portion of Table 6 illustrates the heterogeneity of value-added results across regions.

Students taught by NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers in the ECU region made significantly

larger achievement gains in mathematics, reading, and fifth and eighth grade science than did

students taught by Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers. Conversely, students

taught by NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers in the ECU region made significantly smaller

achievement gains on EOC exams. NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers in the UNCC region

were significantly more effective in elementary and middle grades mathematics, and NC NTSP

evaluation sample teachers in the UNCG region were significantly more effective in courses with

EOC exams.

Table 6. NC NTSP Overall and Regional EVAAS Results (2012-13 and 2013-14)

Elementary

and Middle

Grades

Mathematics

Elementary

and Middle

Grades

Reading

5th

and 8th

Grade

Science

EOC

Exams

NC

NT

SP

vs.

Non

-

Rtt

T C

om

pari

son

Gro

up (

2012-1

3 a

nd

2013-1

4)

NC NTSP Overall 0.828 0.259 1.011+ 0.083

ECU Region 2.219**

1.116**

2.772*

-0.652*

UNC-CSLD Region -0.007 -0.161 1.052 -0.727

UNCC Region 1.915+ 0.236 0.234 -0.370

UNCG Region -1.033 -0.336 -0.051 1.214*



August 2015


Table 7 presents considerable variability in teacher value added to student achievement by NC

NTSP cohort. NC NTSP Cohort 1 teachers—first served by the program in 2012-13—were

significantly more effective than Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers in elementary

and middle grades mathematics and reading in 2012-13 and when pooling data for two years

(2012-13 and 2013-14). Teachers from both NC NTSP cohorts were more effective in fifth and

eighth grade science in 2013-14. There were no other significant differences for NC NTSP

Cohort 2 teachers.

Table 7. NC NTSP EVAAS Results by Cohort

Elementary and Middle Grades

Math

Elementary and Middle Grades

Reading

Cohort 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13

2013-14

NC NTSP

Cohort 1 3.054

** 0.639 1.483+

1.670** 0.307 0.759

*

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- -0.189 -0.011 --- -0.183 -0.273

5th

and 8th

Grade Science EOC Exams

NC NTSP

Cohort 1 0.971 1.208

+ 1.127 0.693 -0.088 0.029

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- 1.261

+ 0.862 --- -0.122 0.202


Please see Appendix G for: (1) more details on the value-added methodology; (2) a complete set

of EVAAS results, including both comparison groups and models focusing on first-year teachers

only; (3) an alternative set of value-added models with student-level data; and (4) value-added

results with a more comprehensive set of NC NTSP and comparison sample teachers.

To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact Teacher Effectiveness, as Measured by the North

Carolina Educator Evaluation System (NCEES) Teacher Evaluation Ratings?

Since many important aspects of teaching will not be fully captured by measures of teachers’

value added to student achievement, the Evaluation Team analyzed teachers’ evaluation ratings

on the five North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards (NCPTS), all of which are directly

assessed by school administrators. For these analyses, the Evaluation Team estimated models for

which the outcome variable was a teacher’s evaluation rating on a one-to-five scale (where one

was Not Demonstrated and five was Distinguished) and controlled for teacher experience and

school characteristics. Results from these models estimate the odds of NC NTSP evaluation

sample teachers receiving higher evaluation ratings than their Non-RttT Comparison evaluation

sample peers. Statistically significant results greater than one indicate higher evaluation ratings;

statistically significant results less than one indicate lower evaluation ratings.


August 2015


Over the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years, the top panel of Table 8 shows no significant

evaluation rating differences between NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers and Non-RttT

Comparison evaluation sample teachers. When analyzing the data by region, the bottom panel of

Table 8 shows that NC NTSP teachers in the UNCC region had significantly higher evaluation

ratings on Leadership (Standard 1) and Reflecting on Practice (Standard 5).

Table 8. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Evaluation Rating Results (2012-13 and 2013-14)

Standard

1

Standard

2

Standard

3

Standard

4

Standard

5

NC

NT

SP

vs

Non

-Rtt

T

Com

pari

son

(2012-1

3 a

nd

2013

-14)

NC NTSP Overall 1.072 0.960 0.993 0.975 0.996

ECU Region 0.878 0.921 0.666 0.655 0.941

UNC-CSLD Region 0.834 0.719 0.906 0.896 0.886

UNCC Region 1.822+ 1.601 1.613 1.588 1.735

+

UNCG Region 0.928 0.771 0.931 0.913 0.675


To determine whether evaluation ratings differ by NC NTSP cohort, Table 9 presents separate

evaluation rating results for Cohorts 1 and 2. For NC NTSP Cohort 1, there were no significant

differences in 2012-13; however, in their second year in the program (2013-14), NC NTSP

Cohort 1 teachers had significantly higher evaluation ratings on Leadership (Standard 1),

Content Knowledge (Standard 3), Facilitating Student Learning (Standard 4), and Reflecting on

Practice (Standard 5). In contrast, NC NTSP Cohort 2 teachers had significantly lower evaluation

ratings for Classroom Environment (Standard 2) in 2013-14 and when pooling data for two years

(2012-13 and 2013-14).

Please see Appendix H for: (1) more details on the evaluation rating models; (2) a complete set

of evaluation rating results, including both comparison groups and models focusing on first-year

teachers only; and (3) evaluation rating results with a more comprehensive set of NC NTSP and

comparison sample teachers.

Table 9. NC NTSP Evaluation Rating Results by Cohort

Cohort

Standard

1

Standard

2

Standard

3

Standard

4

Standard

5

2012-13 School Year

NC NTSP Cohort 1 1.082 1.128 0.997 0.842 0.980

NC NTSP Cohort 2 --- --- --- --- ---

2013-14 School Year

NC NTSP Cohort 1 1.722* 1.388 1.709

+ 1.844

* 1.572

+

NC NTSP Cohort 2 0.845 0.700+ 0.748 0.811 0.801

2012-13 and 2013-14 School Years

NC NTSP Cohort 1 1.376 1.267 1.323 1.203 1.257

NC NTSP Cohort 2 0.779 0.658* 0.694 0.752 0.730



August 2015


Retention

To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact the Retention of Novice Teachers a) in the Same

Schools or LEAs, and b) in the State?

To determine whether NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers were more likely to remain in

teaching than their Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample peers, the Evaluation Team

estimated models for three types of retention: (1) returning to any North Carolina public school

in the following school year (2013-14 and 2014-15); (2) returning to the same LEA in the

following school year; and (3) returning to the same low-performing school in the following

school year. For these analyses, the outcome variable was a “1” if the teacher returned in the

following school year and a “0” if the teacher did not return. In these models, the Evaluation

Team controlled for teacher experience and school characteristics and, post-estimation,

converted the results to predicted retention probabilities to facilitate easier interpretation of the

results.

Overall, when pooling data from the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years, NC NTSP evaluation

sample teachers were significantly more likely to return to a North Carolina public school and to

their same LEA than were Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers. However, given

the need to keep teachers in high-need environments, the most important retention results are for

teachers returning to the same low-performing school. As shown in Figure 3 (following page),

the program-wide predicted probability of school-level retention was 73%—significantly higher

than for the Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample (66%). These school-level predicted

probabilities of retention were above 70% in all four NC NTSP regions and were significantly

higher than those for Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers in the ECU, UNCC, and

UNCG regions.

Examining school-level retention by cohort, Figure 4 (following page) indicates that NC NTSP

Cohort 1 teachers had significantly higher retention rates than did Non-RttT Comparison

evaluation sample teachers. When school-level retention was calculated for Cohort 2 in the 2014-

15 school year, results demonstrated that they also had significantly higher retention rates than

did Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers.

Please see Appendix I for: (1) more details on the retention models; (2) a complete set of

retention results, including both comparison groups and models focusing on first-year teachers

only; and (3) retention results with a more comprehensive set of NC NTSP and comparison

sample teachers.


August 2015


Figure 3. NC NTSP School-Level Retention (2013-14 and 2014-15)


Figure 4. NC NTSP School-Level Retention Results by Cohort


NC NTSP Cohort 2 does not have a bar for returning in 2013-14 because they entered the program in 2013-14.

73.04** 77.26**

70.22 72.66+ 72.35+

65.78

0

20

40

60

80

NC NTSP

Overall

ECU Region UNC-CSLD

Region

UNCC Region UNCG Region Non-RttT

Comparison

Pre

dic

ted

Pro

ba

bil

ity

of

Ret

urn

ing

74.11+ 75.76** 74.18** 71.12* 71.67*

67.14 64.92 65.78

0

20

40

60

80

Returns in 2013-14 Returns in 2014-15 Overall: 2013-14 & 2014-15

Pre

dic

ted

Pro

ba

bil

ity

of

Ret

urn

ing

NC NTSP Cohort 1 NC NTSP Cohort 2 Non-RttT Comparison


August 2015


Conclusions

Summary of Findings

Implementation

Over the course of the four-year grant period, the NC NTSP was developed, staffed, and

implemented from the ground up and has grown to scale, serving over 1,100 teachers in 114

schools as of the 2013-14 school year. There were substantial differences in program

participation and implementation across the four NC NTSP regions. Furthermore, as the NC

NTSP doubled in size in 2013-14, there was a drop in attendance at institutes and professional

development sessions, as well as fewer instructional coach visits per teacher.


A large majority of NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers who responded to the PSI-BT survey

felt that the program components helped their confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching. In

addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of NC NTSP evaluation

sample respondents who felt the program components had a positive impact on their teaching,

compared to similar services provided by their own school. This significant difference also

existed between NC NTSP perceptions of program utility and Non-RttT Comparison sample

perceptions of analogous school-provided services.


Overall, NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers were significantly more effective than Non-RttT

Comparison evaluation sample teachers in fifth and eighth grade science, based on students’

End-of-Grade exam results. When assessing results by cohort, significant EVAAS results were

concentrated within NC NTSP Cohort 1 teachers—Cohort 1 teachers were significantly more

effective in elementary and middle grades mathematics and reading (both in 2012-13 in isolation

and with two years of pooled data) and were more effective in fifth and eighth grade science in

2013-14. There was only one positive and significant result for Cohort 2 teachers, who were

significantly more effective than Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers in fifth and

eighth grade science in 2013-14.

In terms of teacher evaluation ratings, there were no significant differences between NC NTSP

evaluation sample teachers and Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers in the overall

models. By cohort, NC NTSP Cohort 1 teachers had significantly higher evaluation ratings on

four North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards (Leadership, Content Knowledge,

Facilitating Student Learning, and Reflecting on Practice) in the 2013-14 school year, while

Cohort 2 teachers had significantly lower evaluation ratings on a fifth Standard (Classroom

Environment).

Teacher Retention

Overall, NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers were significantly more likely to return to

teaching in North Carolina public schools, to the same LEA, and to the same low-performing


August 2015


schools in comparison to Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers. Focusing on school-

level retention, NC NTSP teachers from both cohorts were significantly more likely to return to

the same low-performing school than were Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample teachers.

Limitations

Two primary limitations should be taken into account when interpreting the findings in this

report:

1. The Evaluation Team’s ability to isolate the impact of the NC NTSP is diminished by two

factors. First, the NC NTSP serves schools that received the highest proportion of RttT

interventions, some of which—District and School Transformation—are providing support

services similar to those provided by the NC NTSP. Thus, choosing comparison sample

schools outside of this eligible sample, like the Non-RttT Comparison group, precludes the

ability to hold these additional RttT interventions constant. Second, the NC NTSP is

universally offered in all of North Carolina’s lowest-achieving schools, meaning

comparisons with schools that are eligible yet non-participating may not take into account

potential confounding factors related to selection into the program. If there are differences

between the NC NTSP sample and the comparison groups that the Evaluation Team does

not control for and that influence the outcomes of interest, then the evaluation results will

be biased.

2. A second challenge of this evaluation lies in the fact that the data used in these analyses

represent three program components (institutes, instructional coaching, and professional

development) implemented across four regional sites with two cohorts of teachers and in a

model that has greatly expanded in scope over the course of the evaluation period. Simply

put, given the time required for program development and scaling up, a longer evaluation

period is needed to assess adequately the effectiveness of a consistent program model

implemented as intended for first-, second-, and third-year teachers over the course of three

years.

Recommendations and Next Steps

There are three overarching recommendations for the NC NTSP after the close of the RttT grant:

1. Given the overwhelming need for effective teachers who remain in low-performing schools,

the impacts of the NC NTSP on teacher value added to student achievement and teacher

retention support a recommendation to sustain the program beyond the end of the RttT

grant.

2. Findings from this evaluation should be used to explore the disparities in program

implementation by region. Going forward, the Evaluation Team recommends that program

implementation fidelity be monitored formally to obtain reasonable consistency between

regions.

3. Further study is required to determine whether the decline in program participation and

effectiveness in the 2013-14 school year is an artifact of the substantial scaling-up of the

program between 2012-13 and 2013-14. If the efficacy of the program remains diluted

when implemented at scale, the program implementers should explore options such as: (1)


August 2015


making agreements with participating LEAs and schools to require attendance at institutes

and professional development; (2) concentrating program resources on higher-intensity

instructional coaching; and/or (3) limiting program size to ensure a high-intensity program.


August 2015


Appendix A. Evaluation Sample

The Evaluation Team defined the NC NTSP evaluation sample for the 2012-13 academic year as

all first- and second-year teachers who began receiving NC NTSP services by December 2012

and who worked in schools that were eligible for and agreed to participate in the NC NTSP (RttT

schools).12

This excludes teachers who began receiving NC NTSP supports in January 2013 or

later, novice teachers receiving NC NTSP supports in non-RttT schools, the small number of

third-year teachers served by the program in 2012-13, and TFA corps members. For the 2013-14

academic year, the Evaluation Team defined the NC NTSP evaluation sample as all first-,

second-, and third-year teachers who began receiving NC NTSP supports by December 2013 and

who worked in schools that were eligible for (RttT schools) and agreed to participate in the NC

NTSP. While this includes third-year teachers, who were fully served by the program in 2013-

14, this again excludes teachers who began receiving NC NTSP supports in January 2014 or

later, novice teachers receiving NC NTSP supports in non-RttT schools, and TFA corps

members. For this final RttT evaluation report, the Evaluation Team excluded these groups

because (1) estimates of program performance need to be based upon a sample of teachers who

received NC NTSP supports for a majority of the school year; (2) the primary objective of the

Evaluation Team is to evaluate the performance of the program in its intended treatment area—

RttT schools; and (3) TFA corps members are significantly more likely to exit teaching after

their two-year service commitment, are significantly more effective, on average, than other

novice teachers (particularly in mathematics and science courses), and already receive induction

services from TFA, and thus, did not fully participate in the NC NTSP.

As shown in the left panel of Table A1 (following page), in the 2012-13 academic year the NC

NTSP evaluation sample consisted of 344 teachers working in 59 schools and 16 LEAs. A large

majority (72%) of this treatment sample were first-year teachers, and as stated above, all these

teachers worked in RttT schools and entered the program by December 2012. The right panel of

Table A1 shows that in the 2013-14 academic year the NC NTSP evaluation sample consisted of

808 teachers working in 91 schools and 25 LEAs. Nearly 50% of this treatment sample were

first-year teachers, 36% were second-year teachers, and 15% were in their third year of teaching.

All these teachers worked in RttT schools and entered the NC NTSP by December 2013.

12

The directive of the NC NTSP is to provide comprehensive induction services to novice teachers employed in the

state’s lowest-performing schools—schools that in the year before RttT began were either in the lowest 5% of all

schools in terms of student achievement or had graduation rates below 60%. We refer to these schools as “RttT

schools.”


August 2015


Table A1. NC NTSP Evaluation Sample

2012-13

NC NTSP

Evaluation Sample

2013-14

NC NTSP

Evaluation Sample

Teacher Count 344 808

Teachers by Region

ECU 66 189

UNC-CSLD 80 237

UNCC 120 182

UNCG 78 200

1st Year Teacher % 71.80 48.51

2nd

Year Teacher % 28.20 36.14

3rd

Year Teacher % n/a 15.35

Teachers in RttT Schools 344 808

Teachers Served by NC NTSP

Before January 344 808

TFA Corps Members n/a n/a

School Count 59 91

Schools by Region

ECU 12 23

UNC-CSLD 15 29

UNCC 18 19

UNCG 14 20

LEA Count 16 25

LEAs by Region

ECU 5 9

UNC-CSLD 4 5

UNCC 4 6

UNCG 3 5

To assess the impact of the NC NTSP, the Evaluation Team implemented a comparison group

design to contrast the outcomes of NC NTSP teachers with those of other novice teachers

working in low-performing schools. Isolating the effects of the NC NTSP on participating

teachers is particularly challenging because several other RttT interventions were also

concentrated in RttT schools over the same time period. The most notable was the District and

School Transformation (DST) initiative, which provided regular professional development and

coaching designed to improve the effectiveness and retention of teachers in RttT schools.

To address these challenges, the Evaluation Team created two different comparison groups to

better isolate the impact of the NC NTSP. For the first group, the Evaluation Team used school

performance composite data from the 2011-12 school year to identify schools in the bottom

decile of performance that were not eligible for (non-RttT schools) and did not receive NC NTSP

services. In the 2012-13 school year this comparison group, labeled Non-RttT Comparison,

consisted of all the first- and second-year teachers who began working in these schools by

December 2012. In the 2013-14 school year this comparison group consisted of all the first-,


August 2015


second-, and third-year teachers who began working in these schools by December 2013.13

Like

the NC NTSP evaluation sample, this Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample excludes TFA

corps members and those beginning work in these schools after December. Overall, the left panel

of Table A2 shows that the evaluation sample for the Non-RttT Comparison group consisted of

1,033 teachers working in 147 schools and 48 LEAs in the 2012-13 school year; in 2013-14, the

Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample consisted of 1,507 teachers working in 149 schools and

48 LEAs.

For the second comparison group, the Evaluation Team identified RttT schools (eligible for the

NC NTSP) that did not participate in the NC NTSP. In the 2012-13 school year this comparison

group, labeled NC NTSP Eligible Comparison, consisted of all the first- and second-year

teachers who began working in these schools by December 2012. In the 2013-14 school year this

comparison group consisted of all the first-, second-, and third-year teachers who began working

in these schools by December 2013. As with the evaluation samples for the NC NTSP and the

Non-RttT Comparison, the evaluation sample for the NC NTSP Eligible Comparison group

excludes TFA corps members and those beginning work in these schools after December.

Overall, the right panel of Table A2 shows that the evaluation sample for the NC NTSP Eligible

Comparison group consisted of 201 teachers working in 32 schools and 18 LEAs in the 2012-13

school year. In 2013-14 the NC NTSP expanded to serve an additional set of RttT schools.

Therefore, in the 2013-14 school year, the evaluation sample for the NC NTSP Eligible

Comparison group was reduced in size and consisted of 169 teachers working in 16 schools and

11 LEAs. In the main body of the final evaluation report, the Evaluation Team only reports

results for the Non-RttT Comparison sample; throughout the report appendices, the Evaluation

Team provides results for both the Non-RttT Comparison and the NC NTSP Eligible Comparison

groups.

Table A2. Evaluation Sample Comparison Groups

Like the NC NTSP sample, both of these comparison groups consist of novice teachers working

in low-performing schools. The Non-RttT Comparison group provides a larger sample for

13

Because the NC NTSP fully served third year teachers in the 2013-14 school year, the Evaluation Team included

third year teachers in both comparison samples in 2013-14.

Characteristics

Non-RttT Comparison NC NTSP Eligible Comparison

2012-13

Evaluation

Sample

2013-14

Evaluation

Sample

2012-13

Evaluation

Sample

2013-14

Evaluation

Sample

Teacher Count 1033 1507 201 169

1st Year Teacher % 60.47 40.69 60.70 39.05

2nd

Year Teacher % 39.53 34.77 39.30 33.14

3rd

Year Teacher % n/a 24.53 n/a 27.81

Teachers Hired Before

January 1033 1507 201 169

TFA Corps Members n/a n/a n/a n/a

School Count 147 149 32 16

LEA Count 48 48 18 11


August 2015


analyses; however, since it is comprised of schools that did not receive RttT services,

comparisons to this group do not allow for isolation of the impact of the NC NTSP from other

RttT programs. The NC NTSP Eligible Comparison group addresses this concern by comparing

NC NTSP teachers to novice teachers who received other RttT supports (primarily through

DST). Because this group is much smaller, it provides less statistical power for detecting

differences in outcomes. In addition, it is unknown why these schools declined to participate in

the NC NTSP (in 2012-13 and 2013-14) and why some schools chose to enter the program in

2013-14. Therefore, analyses may not take into account other factors related to non-participation.

Throughout subsequent appendices, the Evaluation Team presents results for the NC NTSP

evaluation sample and the Non-RttT Comparison and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison evaluation

samples. In appendices focused on teacher value-added to student achievement, teacher

evaluation ratings, and teacher retention, the Evaluation Team presents two additional sets of

results: (1) those for all teachers served by the NC NTSP and all novice teachers in comparison

sample schools, and (2) those for an amended NC NTSP evaluation sample that includes teachers

served in non-RttT schools who entered the NC NTSP by December of the academic year and

were not TFA corps members.

Table A3 (following page) presents school characteristics for the NC NTSP evaluation sample

and for the evaluation samples for each of the comparison groups in 2012-13 and 2013-14. In

2012-13, NC NTSP teachers worked in schools with (1) more students qualifying for subsidized

school meals; (2) more racial and ethnic minority students; (3) higher short-term suspension rates

and higher violent acts rates (in comparison to NC NTSP Eligible Comparison schools); (4)

higher percentages of novice teachers; and (5) lower performance composites (in comparison to

the Non-RttT Comparison schools). In 2013-14, NC NTSP teachers worked in schools with (1)

more students qualifying for subsidized school meals (in comparison to Non-RttT Comparison

schools); (2) more racial and ethnic minority students; (3) higher short-term suspension rates (in

comparison to Non-RttT Comparison schools); and (4) lower performance composites.


August 2015


Table A3. School Characteristics for the NC NTSP and Comparison Groups

Characteristic

2012-13 School Year 2013-14 School Year

NC NTSP

Sample

Non-RttT

Comparison

Group

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

Group

NC NTSP

Sample

Non-RttT

Comparison

Group

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

Group

Free and Reduced-Price

Lunch Percentage 93.58 85.93

** 87.16

+ 91.78 87.40** 86.54

Racial/Ethnic

Minority Percentage 90.87 78.37

** 82.31

* 89.63 78.67**

80.55+

Short-Term Suspension

Rate (Per 100 Students) 48.86 33.52

** 27.56

** 38.14 25.50** 26.30

Violent Acts Rate

(Per 1000 Students) 12.24 10.96 4.82

** 8.71 10.46 6.30

Total Per-Pupil

Expenditures $11,001 $10,052

+ $11,136 $10,534 $10,307 $10,214

Performance Composite 20.04 23.25** 22.55 31.07 34.29

** 39.94

*

Novice Teacher

Percentage 32.99 27.19

** 26.59

** 32.93 30.29 32.63

School Level

Elementary/Elementary-

Middle Combination

35

(59.32%)

89

(60.54%)

23

(71.88%)

57

(62.64%)

94

(63.09%)

10

(62.50%)

Middle School 10

(16.95%)

24

(16.33%)

2

(6.25%)

13

(14.29%)

23

(15.44%)

1

(6.25%)

High School 14

(23.73%)

33

(22.45%)

7

(21.88%)

21

(23.08%)

31

(20.81%)

5

(31.25%)

K-12 School 0

(0.00%)

1

(0.68%)

0

(0.00%)

0

(0.00%)

1

(0.67%)

0

(0.00%)

School Count 59 147 32 91 149 16

Note: This table displays school characteristics for schools in the NC NTSP, Non-RttT Comparison, and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison samples. +, *, and

** indicate statistically significant differences between NC NTSP schools and Non-RttT Comparison/NCNTSP Eligible Comparison schools at the 0.10,

0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Appendix B. Data Sources

The Evaluation Team collected the data presented in this final evaluation report from the UNC-

GA implementation team, NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers and comparison sample

teachers, and administrative datasets supplied by the North Carolina Department of Public

Instruction (NCDPI). Specifically, this final evaluation report draws upon the following data

sources: (1) participation records from each of the components of the NC NTSP—institutes,

instructional coaching, and professional development; (2) survey responses by NC NTSP

evaluation sample teachers and Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers; and (3) student test

scores, student demographics, classroom rosters, teacher evaluation ratings, certified salaries,

school personnel, and school characteristics files provided by NCDPI. With these data sources

the Evaluation Team examined levels of participation in NC NTSP components, NC NTSP

teachers’ perceptions of program utility and self-efficacy/job satisfaction, and the impact of the

NC NTSP on teacher value-added to student achievement, teacher evaluation ratings, and teacher

retention. Below, we elaborate on the data sources used in this final evaluation report.

NC NTSP Program Documents

To examine the evaluation sample’s participation in the components of the NC NTSP, the UNC-

GA program implementers supplied the Evaluation Team with requested program documents.

For the 2012-13 year this included (1) the curricula, agendas, and rosters of attendees for the

2012 NC NTSP Summer and Winter Institutes; (2) counts of NC NTSP instructional coach visits

with each teacher; and (3) the agendas and rosters of attendees for NC NTSP professional

development sessions. Data for the 2013-14 year included (1) the curricula, agendas, and rosters

of attendees for the 2013 NC NTSP Regional Institutes and Statewide Institute; (2) counts of in-

person and virtual NC NTSP instructional coach visits with each teacher; (3) contact hours—in-

person and virtual—between NC NTSP teachers and program instructional coaches; and (4) the

agendas and rosters of attendees for NC NTSP professional development sessions.

Survey Responses by NC NTSP and Non-RttT Comparison Sample Teachers

To assess (1) the perceptions of NC NTSP teachers regarding the focus and utility of NC NTSP

components, and (2) the perceptions of both NC NTSP and Non-RttT Comparison sample

teachers regarding school-provided novice teacher supports, school context, teacher practices,

self-efficacy, and job satisfaction, the Evaluation Team partnered with North Carolina State

University’s (NCSU) College of Education to administer the Perceptions of Success Inventory—

Beginning Teachers (PSI-BT) survey in the spring of 2013 and 2014 (see the end of Appendix B

for a complete survey).14

For each survey administration the sample included NC NTSP and

Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers in the evaluation sample. Both sets of teachers completed

the regular PSI-BT items. In addition, NC NTSP teachers completed items developed by the

Evaluation Team assessing the components—institutes, instructional coaching, professional

development—of the NC NTSP. Researchers at NCSU used both online and paper-based

mediums to administer the PSI-BT in spring 2013; in spring 2014 NCSU researchers

administered the survey online only.

14

Please see http://ncsu.edu/succeed/beginning-teachers/ for more information on the development and use of the

PSI-BT instrument.

http://ncsu.edu/succeed/beginning-teachers/


August 2015


For the 2012-13 school year, the left panel of Table B1 presents response rates on the PSI-BT for

the NC NTSP and Non-RttT Comparison samples overall, and for each NC NTSP region. Nearly

half of the NC NTSP teachers in the evaluation sample responded to the survey (49.26%), with

higher response rates for those in the ECU region. To encourage responses in the Non-RttT

Comparison sample, the Evaluation Team provided a $5 financial incentive to survey

completers; approximately 41% of Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers responded to the

survey. The right panel of Table B1 displays PSI-BT response rates for the 2013-14 school year.

Slightly more than half of the NC NTSP teachers in the evaluation sample responded to the

survey (51.12%), with higher response rates for the ECU region and lower response rates for the

UNC-CSLD region. As in 2012-13, the Evaluation Team offered a $5 financial incentive to Non-

RttT Comparison sample teachers to complete the survey but only 17% responded in the 2013-14

school year.

Table B1. PSI-BT Response Rates

Survey Group

2012-13 PSI-BT Administration 2013-14 PSI-BT Administration

Survey

Respondents

Administered

Surveys

Response

Rate

Survey

Respondents

Administered

Surveys

Response

Rate

NC NTSP Overall 167 339 49.26% 409 800 51.12%

ECU 47 66 71.21% 147 187 78.61%

UNC-CSLD 33 77 42.86% 78 236 33.05%

UNCC 49 118 41.53% 88 179 49.16%

UNCG 38 78 48.72% 96 198 48.48%

Non-RttT

Comparison Group 308 759 40.58% 179 1053 16.99%

Due to the possibility for bias in the respondent sample, Table B2 (following page) displays data

on participation in NC NTSP components for those NC NTSP teachers who did and did not

respond to the survey (both overall and by region). In the 2012-13 school year, NC NTSP

teachers who responded to the PSI-BT were more likely to attend an institute (66% for

respondents versus 45% for non-respondents), received more instructional coaching visits per

month (4.18 visits for respondents versus 3.33 for non-respondents), and attended more

professional development sessions (2.87 PD sessions for respondents versus 1.60 PD sessions for

non-respondents). In the 2013-14 school year, differences in program participation between PSI-

BT respondents and non-respondents were reduced in magnitude; however, respondents were

still more likely to attend an institute, to receive more instructional coaching visits, and to attend

more professional development sessions. Given these differences, it is important to carefully

interpret all survey results.


August 2015


Table B2. Participation in NC NTSP Components, by PSI-BT Response Status

Region

Institute Attendance

Average Instructional

Coaching Visits

Per Month

Number of Professional

Development Sessions

Attended

Respond

Non

Respond Respond

Non

Respond Respond

Non

Respond

2012

-13 P

SI-

BT

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

NC NTSP

Overall 66.47% 45.35% 4.18 3.33 2.87 1.60

ECU 80.85% 57.89% 6.35 5.20 2.89 1.21

UNC-CSLD 66.67% 70.45% 2.26 1.94 4.15 3.32

UNCC 67.35% 33.33% 3.53 3.31 1.86 0.67

UNCG 47.37% 32.50% 4.02 4.01 3.03 1.53

2013-1

4 P

SI-

BT

Ad

min

istr

ati

on

NC NTSP

Overall 23.47% 17.14% 2.86 1.92 0.93 0.58

ECU 27.89% 25.00% 4.11 2.80 1.17 0.45

UNC-CSLD 21.79% 17.72% 1.81 1.59 1.60 1.04

UNCC 19.32% 13.19% 2.81 2.36 0.10 0.15

UNCG 21.88% 16.67% 1.87 1.70 0.79 0.27

Administrative Data from NCDPI

To assess the impact of the NC NTSP on teacher value-added to student achievement, teacher

evaluation ratings on the North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards (NCPTS), and teacher

retention, the Evaluation Team used administrative datasets provided by NCDPI. Specifically, to

estimate teacher value-added, the Evaluation Team used student test scores and demographics,

classroom rosters, school personnel, and school characteristics files. This allows for the

connection of students to their prior scores, demographics, teachers, and classroom peers;

teachers to their characteristics; and students and teachers to the characteristics of their schools.

To examine teacher evaluation ratings, the Evaluation Team used ratings on each of the five

NCPTS that are directly assessed by school administrators. Finally, for teacher retention, the

Evaluation Team used certified salary files to determine whether individuals returned to a

teaching position—overall, within the same LEA, or within the school school—in North

Carolina public schools.


August 2015


PSI-BT Survey

Unless otherwise noted, PSI-BT items have a six-point scale: strongly disagree, disagree,

slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly agree.

Domain One: School- or LEA-Provided Mentor Support

Directions: Please respond to the survey questions below concerning the mentor provided by

your SCHOOL or SCHOOL DISTRICT.

1) In my current experience in my school, a mentoring relationship is or would be important to me.

2) Has your school or school district assigned you a mentor?

-If yes, continue answering mentoring questions

-If no, skip to colleague support

3) In what month did you first meet with your school or school district assigned mentor?

1) July, 2) August, 3) September . . . 12) June

4) How much time do you spend meeting with your school or school district provided mentor

each month?

1) 0-30 minutes, 2) 30 minutes to 1 hour, 3) 1-2 hours, 4) 2-3 hours, 5) 3-4 hours, 6) 4-5

hours, or 7) more than 5 hours

5) If you have a subject or grade-level specialty, does your school or school district assigned

mentor teach the same subject or grade-level?

1) Yes, 2) No, or 3) Not applicable

6) My school or school district assigned mentor has provided assistance with classroom

management.

7) My school or school district assigned mentor has provided assistance with instructional

concerns.

8) My school or school district assigned mentor has provided assistance related to

communication with parents or caregivers of my students.

9) My school or school district assigned mentor has provided assistance with unit or lesson

planning.

10) My school or school district assigned mentor has provided assistance with analysis of student

assessment data.

11) My school or school district assigned mentor is empathetic.

12) My school or school district assigned mentor encourages me to reflect about my teaching.


August 2015


13) Of the success you have had as a beginning teacher, what amount would you attribute to help

from your school or school district assigned mentor?

1) a great deal, 2) quite a bit, 3) some, 4) hardly any, or 5) none

14) Overall, my school or school district assigned mentor has been helpful in developing my

confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching.

Domain Two: Colleague Support

Directions: Please respond to the survey questions below concerning the support you receive

from colleagues in your school.

15) I have opportunities for meaningful conversations with other novice teachers in a setting free

of evaluation.

16) I have common planning times with other teachers at my same grade level or subject area.

17) I have opportunities to visit and observe exemplary teachers.

18) I have a colleague in my same subject area or grade level who will answer my questions.

Domain Three: Administration Support

Directions: Please respond to the survey questions below concerning the support you receive

from administrators in your school.

19) The administration at my school provides appropriate feedback for my discipline decisions.

20) The administration at my school encourages me to be an effective teacher.

21) The administration has oriented me to the school and staff.

22) I have on-going face-to-face communication with my administration.

23) The administration provides me with effective instructional leadership.

Domain Four: Classroom Management

Directions: Please respond to the survey questions below concerning your classroom

management behaviors and success.

24) I have developed clear routines and procedures for my classroom that are aligned with school

policy.

25) I have implemented consistent routines and procedures in my classroom.


August 2015


26) My routines and procedures positively impact the behavior of my students.

27) The discipline in my classroom is supportive of a good learning environment for my

students.

28) I feel in control when I am teaching.

29) My students’ behaviors are consistent with my classroom expectations.

30) I am able to use communication to diffuse disruptive student behavior.

Domain Five: Encouraging Student Success

Directions: Please respond to the survey questions below concerning your instructional

practices.

31) I am able to successfully teach students with a variety of ability levels.

32) I am able to motivate all students.

33) I am able to use a variety of teaching strategies to provide my students with instruction that is

effective for them.

34) I am able to effectively teach my students from diverse backgrounds.

35) I am able to frame my instructional decisions based on my students’ learning.

Domain Six: Curricular and Instructional Resources

Directions: Please respond to the survey questions below concerning the curricular and

instructional resources provided by your SCHOOL or SCHOOL DISTRICT.

36) I have adequate instructional supplies, such as copy paper, a functioning copier, and

pens/pencils that I need for teaching.

37) I have been provided with curriculum that aligns with the state’s objectives for my grade

level or subject area.

38) I have the curriculum materials I need to teach effectively.

39) I have been provided with the instructional technology I need to teach effectively.

40) My students have the curricular resources they need to learn effectively.


August 2015


41) How many school or school district provided professional development sessions did you

attend?

1) Zero, 2) 1-2, 3) 3-5, 4) 6-10, or 5) more than 10

42) The professional development provided by my school or school district improved my

classroom management skills.

43) The professional development provided by my school or school district improved my ability

to create rigorous, standards-aligned unit and lesson plans.


to create rigorous, standards-driven assessments.


to analyze student assessment data and adjust instruction.


to reflect on my teaching practice.

47) The professional development provided by my school or school district provided me with

instructional strategies that improved my students’ learning.

48) Overall, the professional development provided by my school or school district was helpful

in developing my confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching.

Domain Seven: Assignment and Workload

Directions: Please respond to the survey questions below concerning your current teaching

assignments and workload.

49) I think the number of preparations I have for my classes is appropriate for a novice teacher.

50) I have at least one period per day that I can devote without interruption to planning for my

classes.

51) My overall teaching workload is reasonable.

52) Novice teachers are allowed to choose whether to take on extra duties or not.

53) If this is your first year teaching, did you have a reduced teaching schedule or number of

preparations?

1) Yes, 2) No, or 3) Not my first year teaching


August 2015


Domain Eight: Assessment and Evaluation

Directions: Please respond to the survey questions below concerning how you assess and

evaluate student learning.

54) I informally assess each student on a daily basis.

55) I formally assess each student on a weekly basis.

56) I use North Carolina’s academic standards to create classroom assessments.

57) I am able to write quality unit/chapter tests for my students.

58) I am able to effectively create classroom assessments other than classroom tests.

59) I use a variety of measures to assess my students.

60) I use formative assessment in my classroom.

61) I use summative assessment in my classroom.

62) I have time to interpret my students’ assessment data.

Domain Nine: Parental Contacts

Directions: Please respond to the survey questions below concerning your contact with parents

and/or caregivers.

63) The parents or caregivers of my students are supportive of their child’s progress in school.

64) I am able to effectively communicate with my students’ parents or caregivers.

65) I have adequate guidance and support in working with parents or caregivers.

Domain Ten: Satisfaction and Commitment

Directions: Please respond to the survey questions below concerning your job satisfaction and

commitment to teaching.

66) In general, I am satisfied with my current job.

67) I consider teaching to be my ideal career.

68) I feel inspired to instruct students to the best of my ability.


August 2015


69) If someone could change any of the following items, which ones would be the most

important to improve your satisfaction with your job? Choose the THREE most important

items only.

70) I am most interested in participating in and/or learning more about?

71) Think about your intentions regarding teaching. Which response best fits your current

intentions?

Domain Eleven: Demographics

Please respond to the survey questions below concerning basic demographic information.

72) What level of teaching experience do you currently possess?

1) I am a first year teacher, 2) I am a second year teacher, 3) I am a third year teacher,

or 4) I have taught for more than 3 years

73) What is the grade-level or subject-area your primarily teach?

1) PK, 2) K, 3) 1st grade, 4) 2

nd grade, 5) 3

rd grade, 6) 4

th grade, 7) 5

th grade, 8) Middle

school math, 9) Middle school reading, 10) Middle school science, 11) Middle school

social studies, 12) High school math, 13) High school English, 14) High school

science, 15) High school social studies, 16) Exceptional children, 17) PE/Health, 18)

Art/music, or 19) Other

74) In what month of the 2012-13 school year did you begin teaching?

1) July, 2) August, 3) September . . . 12) June

75) I received my preparation to teach through:

1) Traditional four-year university program 2) Master of Arts in Teaching (MAT) 3)

Licensure or certificate program 4) Lateral or alternative entry program 5) Other

76) I received my teacher training at:

1) North Carolina public university 2) North Carolina private university 3) Out-of-state

university 4) On-line university/program 5) Teach For America 6) Other

NC NTSP-Specific Items Added to the PSI-BT

Unless otherwise noted, these items have a 6 point scale: strongly disagree, disagree, slightly

disagree, slightly agree, agree, and strongly agree.

NC NTSP Institutes

1) After the North Carolina New Teacher Support Program Institute(s) I was better prepared to

set ambitious academic goals for my students.


August 2015


2) After the North Carolina New Teacher Support Program Institute(s) I was better understood

the Common Core Standards and North Carolina Essential Standards.


plan units and lessons to reach academic goals.


track student progress and adjust instruction.


implement instructional strategies that improve student learning.


create a respectful classroom environment that encourages student achievement.

7) After the North Carolina New Teacher Support Program Institute(s) I was better prepared for

the school year.

8) Overall, the North Carolina New Teacher Support Program Institute(s) was helpful in

developing my confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching.


9) Has the North Carolina New Teacher Support Program assigned you an instructional coach?

-If yes, continue answering instructional coaching questions

-If no, skip to NC NTSP professional development questions

10) In what month did you first meet with the instructional coach provided by the North Carolina

New Teacher Support Program?

-Please provide a drop-down box of month choices, from July through June

11) How much time do you spend meeting with the instructional coach provided by the North

Carolina New Teacher Support Program each month?

-Please provide a drop-down box of the following time choices: 1) 0-30 minutes 2) 30

minutes to

1 hour 3) 1-2 hours 4) 2-3 hours 5) 3-4 hours 6) 4-5 hours 7) more than 5 hours

12) The virtual coaching provided by the North Carolina New Teacher Support Program

effectively addressed my questions and concerns.

-Responses: Strongly disagree, disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, agree, strongly

agree, AND “Did not have virtual coaching”

13) My instructional coach assigned by the North Carolina New Teacher Support Program has

provided assistance with classroom management.


August 2015



provided assistance with instructional concerns.


provided assistance related to communication with parents or caregivers of my students.


provided assistance with unit or lesson planning.


provided assistance with the Common Core State Standards and/or North Carolina Essential

Standards.


provided assistance with analysis of student assessment data.

19) My instructional coach assigned by the North Carolina New Teacher Support Program is

empathetic.

20) My instructional coach assigned by the North Carolina New Teacher Support Program

encourages me to reflect about my teaching.

21) Of the success you have had as a beginning teacher, what amount would you attribute to help

from your instructional coach assigned by the North Carolina New Teacher Support

Program?

-Please provide a drop-down box with the following choices: 1) None 2) Hardly any 3)

Some 4) Quite a bit 5) A great deal

22) Overall, my instructional coach provided by the North Carolina New Teacher Support

Program has been helpful in developing my confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching.


23) In your opinion, what factor would MOST improve attendance at North Carolina New

Teacher Support Program professional development sessions?

-Responses: 1) Providing a financial stipend 2) Holding professional development

sessions during the school day; 3) Holding professional development sessions after

school 4) Improving professional development curriculum; 5) Encouragement from

schools/principals to attend; 6) Making the NTSP professional development your only

required professional development (no longer have to attend school/district PD sessions)

24) Did you attend any North Carolina New Teacher Support Program professional development

sessions?

-If yes, proceed to NC NTSP professional development questions

-If no, skip to PSI-BT questions


August 2015


25) The professional development provided by the North Carolina New Teacher Support

Program improved my classroom management skills.


Program improved my ability to create rigorous, standards-aligned unit and lesson plans.


Program improved my ability to create rigorous, standards-driven assessments.


Program improved my ability to analyze student assessment data and adjust instruction.


Program improved my ability to reflect on my teaching practice.


Program provided me with instructional strategies that improved my students’ learning.

31) Overall, the professional development provided by the North Carolina New Teacher Support

Program was helpful in developing my confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching.


August 2015


Appendix C. To What Extent was the NC NTSP Implemented as it was Intended?

As stated in North Carolina’s RttT grant proposal, the directive of the NC NTSP is to provide

comprehensive induction services to novice teachers employed in the state’s lowest-performing

schools—schools that in the year before RttT began were either in the lowest 5% of all schools

in terms of student achievement or had graduation rates below 60%. The program started with a

limited implementation in the 2011-12 school year, serving 35 beginning teachers in 13 schools

and five LEAs. Given this small sample of teachers and the delays in program implementation15

the final evaluation report focuses on the 2012-13 and 2013-14 school years.

As shown in the left panel of Table C1 (following page), in the 2012-13 academic year the NC

NTSP scaled up to provide induction supports to 542 novice teachers in 77 schools and 19 LEAs.

Over 70% of these program participants were first-year teachers, 25% were second-year

teachers, and only a small percentage were in their third year of teaching. Ninety-four percent

(510 out of 542) of these teachers worked in RttT schools; the remaining teachers worked in non-

RttT schools who had sought out NC NTSP induction services for their beginning teachers.

Seventy-seven percent (417 out of 542) of these teachers entered the NC NTSP before January

2013. Those who entered in January 2013 or after were either late hires and/or beginning

teachers in schools that agreed to enter the NC NTSP in the spring of 2013. Finally, 7% (38 out

of 542) of these teachers were Teach for America (TFA) corps members receiving additional

induction services—mentoring and professional development—from TFA.

The right panel of Table C1 (following page) indicates that in the 2013-14 academic year the NC

NTSP scaled up again to provide induction supports to 1,108 novice teachers in 114 schools and

27 LEAs. Approximately 50% of these program participants were first-year teachers, 33% were

second-year teachers, and 15% were in their third year of teaching. Eighty-one percent (903 out

of 1,108) of these teachers worked in RttT schools; the remaining teachers worked in non-RttT

schools who had sought out NC NTSP induction services for their beginning teachers. Over 93%

(1,035 out of 1,108) of these teachers entered the NC NTSP before January 2014. Those who

entered in January 2014 or after were predominantly late hires. Finally, 4% (47 out of 1,108) of

these teachers were TFA corps members receiving additional induction services from TFA.

Overall, the NC NTSP provided comprehensive induction supports to novice teachers in 73 RttT

schools in the 2012-13 school year and 91 RttT schools in the 2013-14 school year. By the end

of the RttT funding period, this represents over three-quarters of the lowest achieving schools to

which the program was tasked to serve.

Subsequent appendices display results for the NC NTSP evaluation sample only, for the

complete sample of NC NTSP teachers (as shown in Table C1, following page), and for an

amended NC NTSP evaluation sample for all non-TFA corps members who entered the program

by December of the academic year.

15

The NC NTSP provided a summer institute in 2011 but did not provide instructional coaching and professional

development until the spring of 2012.


August 2015


Table C1. To what extent was the NC NTSP implemented as it was intended?

Characteristics 2012-13 School Year 2013-14 School Year

Teacher Count 542 1108

Teachers by Region

ECU 112 237

UNC-CSLD 157 348

UNCC 139 268

UNCG 134 255

1st Year Teacher % 71.99 50.63

2nd


3rd


Teachers in RttT Schools 510 903

Teachers Served by NC NTSP

Before January 417 1035

TFA Corps Members 38 47

School Count 77 114

Schools by Region

ECU 19 30

UNC-CSLD 22 37

UNCC 18 24

UNCG 18 23

LEA Count 19 27

LEAs by Region

ECU 6 10

UNC-CSLD 5 5

UNCC 4 7

UNCG 4 5


August 2015


Appendix D. To What Extent did the NC NTSP Reach its Target Population?

NC NTSP Institutes

In advance of the 2012-13 school year, the NC NTSP held a week-long summer institute in

Chapel Hill. Given the challenges of securing high attendance rates at a centralized institute in

advance of the school year—late hiring, conflicting LEA/school beginning teacher induction,

and professional development—the UNC-GA program implementers also offered a three-day,

make-up winter institute in December 2012. As shown in the top panel of Table D1 (following

page), 63 teachers in the NC NTSP evaluation sample attended the summer institute and 126

teachers (mutually-exclusive groups) attended the make-up winter institute. Of the 344 teachers

in the 2012-13 NC NTSP evaluation sample, nearly 55% attended an institute. Across regions,

however, there was sizable variation in attendance—more than two-thirds of the evaluation

sample teachers in the ECU and UNC-CSLD regions attended an institute while only 47% and

40% of the evaluation sample teachers from the UNCC and UNCG regions attended.

In an effort to boost institute attendance in the 2013-14 school year, the UNC-GA program

implementers offered two-day regional institutes—in the ECU, UNC-CSLD, UNCC, and UNCG

regions—in advance of the school year (late July and early August) and a three-day, statewide

institute in late September. As shown in the bottom panel of Table D1 (following page), 50

teachers in the NC NTSP evaluation sample attended a regional institute and 143 teachers (non-

mutually exclusive groups) attended the statewide institute. Of the 808 NC NTSP teachers in the

2013-14 evaluation sample, only 21% attended any institute—unlike 2012-13, institute

attendance was fairly comparable across regions.


August 2015


Table D1. Evaluation Sample Attendance at NC NTSP Institutes

Institute

Overall

Teacher

Attendance

Teacher Attendance by Region

ECU

Region

UNC-

CSLD

Region

UNCC

Region

UNCG

Region

2012

-13 S

chool

Yea

r Summer Institute

63

(18.31%)

10

(15.15%)

28

(35.00%)

10

(8.33%)

15

(19.23%)

Winter Institute 126

(36.63%)

39

(59.09%)

25

(31.25%)

46

(38.33%)

16

(20.51%)

Any

Institute

189

(54.94%)

49

(74.24%)

53

(66.25%)

56

(46.67%)

31

(39.74%)

No Institute 155

(45.06%)

17

(25.76%)

27

(33.75%)

64

(53.33%)

47

(60.26%)

Total Teachers 344 66 80 120 78

2013-2

014 S

chool

Yea

r

Regional Institute 50

(6.19%)

16

(8.47%)

12

(5.06%)

11

(6.04%)

11

(5.50%)

Statewide

Institute

143

(17.70%)

45

(23.81)

42

(17.72%)

20

(10.99%)

36

(18.00%)

Any

Institute

166

(20.54%)

52

(27.51%)

45

(18.99%)

30

(16.48%)

39

(19.50%)

No Institute 642

(79.46%)

137

(72.49%)

192

(81.01%)

152

(83.52%)

161

(80.50%)

Total Teachers 808 189 237 182 200


To assess the frequency of NC NTSP instructional coaching during the 2012-13 school year, the

UNC-GA program implementers provided the Evaluation Team with counts of in-person

coaching visits. Table D2 (third page following) displays these data by NC NTSP region and

teacher experience (BT1=first-year teacher; BT2=second-year teacher). Overall, Table D2

conveys two main points. First, NC NTSP instructional coaches made frequent visits to the

classrooms of the novice teachers they coached; however, the average number of visits varied

substantially across regions. In the UNCC and UNCG regions, NC NTSP teachers typically

averaged three to four in-person visits from their instructional coach each month—approximately

once a week. In the ECU region, teachers received more frequent instructional coaching,

particularly early in the school year and at the start of the new semester, while in the UNC-CSLD

region, NC NTSP teachers received approximately two visits per month—once every other

week. Second, across regions, first-year teachers typically received more in-person coaching

visits than their second-year peers.

For the 2013-14 school year, the UNC-GA program implementers made two changes to their

instructional coaching and data collection efforts: (1) completing virtual instructional coaching

visits with NC NTSP teachers, and (2) tracking the number of in-person and virtual contact hours

spent with NC NTSP teachers. In the tables below for the 2013-14 school year, Table D3 (third

page following) displays counts of in-person coaching visits with NC NTSP teachers, Table D4


August 2015


(third page following) displays counts of virtual instructional coaching visits with NC NTSP

teachers, and Table D5 (third page following) displays total contact hours—in-person and

virtual—between NC NTSP teachers and their instructional coaches. Each of these tables

displays data by region, overall, and by level of teacher experience. 16

In Table D3 (second page following), values for 2013-14 in-person instructional coaching visits

indicate two key results. First, as in 2012-13, there was significant variation across regions in the

average number of instructional coaching visits per teacher. On average, NC NTSP teachers in

the ECU region received approximately three to four in-person visits per month, teachers in the

UNCC region received slightly more than two visits per month, and teachers in the UNC-CSLD

and UNCG regions received less than two visits per month. Second, on average, NC NTSP

teachers received fewer in-person instructional coaching visits in 2013-14 than in 2012-13. For

example, NC NTSP teachers in the ECU region often received four or more (particularly in

August/September, October, and January) coaching visits per month in 2012-13, but in 2013-14

they averaged three to four visits per month. NC NTSP teachers in the UNCG region went from

three to four visits per month in 2012-13 to less than two visits per month in 2013-14.

Turning to virtual instructional coaching, Table D4 (third page following) shows that NC NTSP

regions did not significantly rely upon virtual coaching to address novice teacher needs—at

most, NC NTSP teachers were averaging slightly more than one virtual coaching session per

month. Similar to the in-person coaching numbers, substantial variation existed across regions.

In the ECU region, NC NTSP teachers averaged approximately one virtual coaching session per

month and in the UNCC region, NC NTSP teachers typically averaged between one-half and one

virtual coaching session per month. By contrast, NC NTSP teachers in the UNC-CSLD and

UNCG regions often averaged less than one-third or one-tenth of a virtual instructional coaching

session per month; essentially, the NC NTSP instructional coaching in those two regions was

almost entirely conducted through in-person, classroom visits.

Table D5 (third page following) displays total contact hours, both in-person and virtual, between

NC NTSP teachers and program instructional coaches in the 2013-14 school year. It should be

noted that the UNC-GA program implementers switched to a new data management system early

in the 2013-14 school year and as a result, contact hours for August and September are not

available for (and thus not included in) the contact hours shown in Table D5. Like the substantial

variation in instructional coaching visits shown in Tables D2-D4, Table D5 indicates that, on

average, NC NTSP teachers in the ECU and UNCC regions experienced significantly more

contact hours than their NC NTSP peers in the UNC-CSLD and UNCG regions. NC NTSP

teachers in the ECU region averaged more than 33 in-person hours and nearly eight virtual

contact hours throughout the 2013-14 school year; NC NTSP teachers in the UNCC region

averaged nearly 29 in-person hours and five virtual contact hours throughout the school year.

Over an eight month period from October through May this is approximately five hours of

instructional coaching per month for NC NTSP teachers in the ECU region, and four hours of

instructional coaching per month for NC NTSP teachers in the UNCC region. In contrast, NC

NTSP teachers in the UNC-CSLD and UNCG regions averaged approximately ten in-person

hours and less than one virtual contact hour throughout the school year; over an eight month

16

The UNC-GA program implementers switched to a new data management system early in the 2013-14 school

year and as a result in-person and virtual instructional coaching data is not available for August and September.


August 2015


period from October to May, this is less than one and a half hours of instructional coaching per

month. Across regions, these contact hours typically vary by level of teacher experience, with

first-year teachers receiving the most instructional coaching and third-year teachers receiving the

least amount of instructional coaching. For example, by level of experience, NC NTSP teachers

in the UNCC region averaged 32, 28, and 21 in-person instructional coaching hours,

respectively.


August 2015


Table D2. Average Number of NC NTSP Instructional Coaching Visits per Teacher (2012-13)

Month

ECU Region Visits UNC-CSLD Region Visits UNCC Region Visits UNCG Region Visits

Overall BT 1 BT 2 Overall BT 1 BT 2 Overall BT 1 BT 2 Overall BT 1 BT 2

August &

September 8.23 8.67 7.25 2.20 2.60 1.43 2.60 2.81 2.23 6.78 7.07 6.00

October 9.39 10.00 8.10 3.31 3.50 2.96 3.05 3.20 2.80 3.97 3.79 5.20

November 4.23 4.00 4.71 2.34 2.46 2.12 3.55 3.54 3.57 4.17 4.15 4.30

December 4.17 4.40 3.67 1.69 1.71 1.65 2.93 3.11 2.58 3.44 3.50 3.00

January 7.21 7.44 6.71 2.21 2.39 1.85 3.43 3.49 3.31 3.87 3.93 3.50

February 4.43 4.73 3.81 1.68 1.47 2.12 3.40 3.49 3.23 3.67 3.65 3.80

March 4.81 5.30 3.75 1.84 1.75 2.04 3.72 3.81 3.54 3.73 3.75 3.60

April 4.97 5.44 3.95 1.44 1.39 1.54 3.58 3.70 3.33 3.37 3.35 3.50

May &

June 6.54 7.30 4.90 2.22 2.14 2.40 4.35 4.32 4.38 4.78 4.96 3.60

Table D3. Average Number of NC NTSP In-Person Instructional Coaching Visits per Teacher (2013-14)

Month

ECU Region Visits UNC-CSLD Region Visits UNCC Region Visits UNCG Region Visits

Overall BT 1 BT 2 BT 3 Overall BT 1 BT 2 BT 3 Overall BT 1 BT 2 BT 3 Overall BT 1 BT 2 BT 3

October 4.61 4.98 4.37 4.13 1.91 1.91 2.05 1.70 2.68 2.95 2.16 2.98 2.87 3.00 2.81 2.15

November 3.70 3.73 4.00 2.97 1.53 1.66 1.55 1.19 2.15 1.95 2.31 2.34 1.90 2.01 1.87 1.23

December 3.13 3.20 3.60 2.00 1.39 1.46 1.40 1.22 1.91 1.74 1.89 2.39 1.34 1.37 1.32 1.23

January 3.23 3.42 3.43 2.28 1.53 1.68 1.46 1.30 2.03 2.05 2.02 2.00 1.81 1.91 1.84 0.77

February 3.88 4.14 4.09 2.69 1.49 1.68 1.46 1.09 2.31 2.59 2.06 2.06 1.93 1.89 2.13 1.00

March 4.62 4.92 4.42 4.19 1.87 1.99 1.90 1.54 3.14 3.45 3.00 2.59 1.47 1.30 1.73 1.23

April 3.26 3.36 3.45 2.57 1.48 1.59 1.63 0.96 2.55 2.71 2.47 2.28 1.46 1.48 1.48 1.23

May &

June 4.43 4.56 4.44 4.06 2.05 2.16 2.15 1.60 3.86 3.99 3.77 3.72 1.44 1.46 1.57 0.46


August 2015


Table D4. Average Number of NC NTSP Virtual Instructional Coaching Visits per Teacher (2013-14)

Month

ECU Region Virtual Visits UNC-CSLD Region Virtual Visits UNCC Region Virtual Visits UNCG Region Virtual Visits

Overall BT 1 BT 2 BT 3 Overall BT 1 BT 2 BT 3 Overall BT 1 BT 2 BT 3 Overall BT 1 BT 2 BT 3

October 0.97 1.10 0.63 1.31 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.07 1.11 1.48 0.98 0.32 0.10 0.09 0.14 0.00

November 1.35 1.45 1.18 1.41 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.21 0.65 0.59 0.66 0.81 0.19 0.20 0.17 0.31

December 0.80 0.75 0.94 0.69 0.24 0.20 0.36 0.13 0.53 0.49 0.53 0.61 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.00

January 1.26 1.41 1.09 1.16 0.38 0.38 0.51 0.17 0.54 0.58 0.59 0.34 0.22 0.19 0.26 0.15

February 1.19 1.10 1.23 1.38 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.20 0.67 0.80 0.53 0.63 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.00

March 1.19 0.98 1.37 1.42 0.04 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.51 0.57 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00

April 0.27 0.20 0.39 0.20 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.47 0.50 0.39 0.56 0.04 0.02 0.07 0.00

May &

June 0.80 0.88 0.72 0.74 0.09 0.15 0.04 0.04 1.20 1.32 1.13 1.03 0.20 0.14 0.30 0.00

Table D5. Average Total Contact Hours with NC NTSP Instructional Coaches (2013-14)

Region and Teacher Experience Average In-Person Hours Average Virtual Hours

ECU Overall 33.49 7.67

ECU 1st Year Teachers 36.34 7.79

ECU 2nd

Year Teachers 32.52 8.32

ECU 3rd


UNC-CSLD Overall 10.38 0.97

UNC-CSLD 1st Year Teachers 11.47 1.25

UNC-CSLD 2nd


UNC-CSLD 3rd


UNCC Overall 28.81 4.80

UNCC 1st Year Teachers 32.28 4.42

UNCC 2nd


UNCC 3rd


UNCG Overall 9.70 0.50

UNCG 1st Year Teachers 9.72 0.37

UNCG 2nd


UNCG 3rd



August 2015



For the 2012-13 school year, Table D6 presents the number of NC NTSP evaluation sample

teachers in attendance at each of the NC NTSP professional development sessions (overall and

by region). Table D7 displays the average number of professional development sessions attended

per teacher, and the percentage of teachers attending zero, one, two, three, four, five, and six

professional development sessions. Overall, Tables D6 and D7 indicate that within the NC NTSP

evaluation sample (1) attendance at professional development sessions was low, with zero

sessions attended as the modal value, and (2) significant heterogeneity existed across regions in

attendance, with NC NTSP teachers in the UNC-CSLD region attending an average of 3.59

sessions (out of six)17

and NC NTSP teachers in the UNCC region attending an average of 1.17

sessions (out of six).

Table D6. Evaluation Sample Attendance at NC NTSP by PD Session and Region (2012-13)

Region

PD

Session 1

PD

Session 2

PD

Session 3

PD

Session 4

PD

Session 5

PD

Session 6

ECU 29

(43.94%)

30

(45.45%)

26

(39.39%)

27

(40.91%)

27

(42.86%)

20

(31.75%)

UNC-CSLD 57

(79.17%)

54

(72.97%)

50

(65.79%)

49

(61.25%)

42

(54.55%)

35

(45.45%)

UNCC 10

(8.47%)

27

(22.88%)

34

(28.81%)

27

(23.08%)

19

(16.52%)

23

(20.35%)

UNCG 23

(30.67%)

25

(32.05%)

25

(32.05%)

33

(42.31%)

33

(42.31%)

37

(47.44)

Total 119

(35.95%)

136

(40.48%)

135

(39.94%)

136

(39.88%)

121

(36.34%)

115

(34.74%)

Table D7. Average Number of PD Sessions by Region for Evaluation Sample (2012-13)

NC NTSP

Overall

Region

ECU UNC-CSLD UNCC UNCG

Avg. Number of PD

Sessions Attended 2.22 2.41 3.59 1.17 2.26

Nu

mb

er o

f P

D

Ses

sion

s A

tten

ded

Zero 34.01% 25.76% 12.50% 56.67% 28.21%

One 14.24% 15.15% 8.75% 14.17% 19.23%

Two 11.63% 16.67% 13.75% 6.67% 12.82%

Three 10.76% 12.12% 13.75% 9.17% 8.97%

Four 6.40% 4.55% 6.25% 6.67% 7.69%

Five 11.63% 16.67% 13.75% 5.00% 15.38%

Six 11.34% 9.09% 31.25% 1.67% 7.69%

Teacher Count 344 66 80 120 78

17

The higher PD attendance values for the UNC-CSLD reflect the fact that several LEAs and schools in the region

required their NC NTSP teachers to attend the NC NTSP PD sessions.


August 2015


For the 2013-14 school-year, Table D8 presents the number of NC NTSP evaluation sample

teachers in attendance at each of the NC NTSP professional development sessions (by region and

overall). Table D9 displays the average number of professional development sessions attended

per teacher, and the percentage of teachers attending zero, one, two, three, four, five, and six

professional development sessions. Overall, in comparison to the 2012-13 school year,

attendance was much lower at the 2013-14 NC NTSP professional development sessions. During

the 2012-2013 school year, NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers attended (on average) 2.22

professional development sessions, while the average number of sessions attended per teacher in

2013-14 was 0.76. Likewise, in 2012-13, 34% of NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers did not

attend any program professional development sessions; in 2013-14, 71% of teachers did not

attend any program professional development sessions. As in 2012-13, there were variations in

attendance across regions, with NC NTSP teachers in the ECU and UNC-CSLD regions

attending an average of 1.03 and 1.22 sessions (out of six) and NC NTSP teachers in the UNCC

and UNCG regions attending an average of 0.14 and 0.52 sessions (out of six).

Table D8. Evaluation Sample Attendance at NC NTSP by PD Session and Region (2013-14)

Region

PD

Session 1

PD

Session 2

PD

Session 3

PD

Session 4

PD

Session 5

PD

Session 6

ECU 32

(17.78%)

29

(15.59%)

42

(22.34%)

37

(20.00%)

41

(22.16%)

13

(7.07%)

UNC-CSLD 51

(22.77%)

59

(25.54%)

54

(22.98%)

39

(16.67%)

49

(20.94%)

38

(16.31%)

UNCC 9

(4.97%)

3

(1.65%)

5

(2.75%)

6

(3.30%)

2

(1.10%)

0

(0.00%)

UNCG 24

(12.50%)

19

(9.55%)

18

(9.05%)

16

(8.04%)

6

(3.03%)

21

(10.61%)

Total 116

(14.93%)

110

(13.78%)

119

(14.80%)

98

(12.25%)

98

(12.27%)

72

(9.03%)

Table D9. Average Number of PD Sessions by Region for Evaluation Sample (2013-14)

NC NTSP

Overall

Region

ECU UNC-CSLD UNCC UNCG

Avg. Number of PD

Sessions Attended 0.76 1.03 1.22 0.14 0.52

Nu

mb

er o

f P

D

Ses

sion

s A

tten

ded

Zero 70.92% 55.56% 65.40% 87.91% 76.50%

One 10.52% 16.93% 3.80% 10.99% 12.00%

Two 5.57% 11.11% 7.17% 0.55% 3.00%

Three 4.95% 6.35% 7.17% 0.55% 5.00%

Four 3.22% 7.41% 4.64% 0.00% 0.50%

Five 2.48% 1.06% 6.75% 0.00% 1.00%

Six 2.35% 1.59% 5.06% 0.00% 2.00%

Teacher Count 808 189 237 182 200


August 2015


Appendix E. How do Teachers Perceive the Impact of the NC NTSP Components on their

Confidence, Knowledge, and Skills in Teaching?

NC NTSP Institutes

To what extent do NC NTSP teachers feel the Institutes positively impacted their teaching?

To measure attendees’ perceptions of the utility of the NC NTSP institutes, the Evaluation Team

developed a set of survey questions, aligned with the institute curriculum, asking attendees to

indicate the extent to which they felt better prepared (after the NC NTSP institute) to carry out

key teaching practices. The Evaluation Team included these items on the PSI-BT survey

administered in 2013 and 2014 (see Appendix B).

Table E1 presents the summative institute survey item, asking institute attendees the extent to

which the NC NTSP institute(s) was helpful in developing their confidence, knowledge, and

skills in teaching. Overall, the top panel of Table E1 shows that of those NC NTSP evaluation

sample teachers who attended a 2012 institute and responded to the PSI-BT, 80% agreed or

strongly agreed with the statement. This value varied from a high of 94% in the UNCC region to

a low of 59% in the UNC-CSLD region. The bottom panel of Table E1 shows that 82% of the

NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers who attended a 2013 institute and responded to the PSI-BT

agreed or strongly agreed that the institute was helpful in developing their confidence,

knowledge, and skills in teaching; this value varied from a high of 100% in the UNCG region to

a low of 65% in the UNC-CSLD region.

Table E1. NC NTSP Institute Summative Survey Item

NTSP

Instructional

Coaching Item

Response

Groups n

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Slightly

Agree Agree

Strongly

Agree

2012-13 NC NTSP Institutes

Overall, the NC

NTSP Institute(s)

was helpful in

developing my

confidence,

knowledge, and

skills in teaching.

Overall 110 2.73% 0.00% 2.73% 14.55% 42.73% 37.27%

ECU 38 0.00% 0.00% 2.63% 15.79% 44.74% 36.84%

UNC-CSLD 22 9.09% 0.00% 9.09% 22.73% 36.36% 22.73%

UNCC 33 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.06% 45.45% 48.48%

UNCG 17 5.88% 0.00% 0.00% 17.65% 41.18% 35.29%

2013-14 NC NTSP Institutes

Overall, the NC

NTSP Institute(s)

was helpful in

developing my

confidence,

knowledge, and

skills in teaching.

Overall 97 1.03% 3.09% 1.03% 12.37% 43.30% 39.18%

ECU 43 2.33% 4.65% 0.00% 9.30% 34.88% 48.84%

UNC-CSLD 17 0.00% 5.88% 5.88% 23.53% 35.29% 29.41%

UNCC 16 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 25.00% 43.75% 31.25%

UNCG 21 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 33.33%


August 2015



To what extent do NC NTSP teachers feel instructional coaching positively impacted their

teaching?

To summatively assess the perceptions of NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers regarding the

quality of NC NTSP instructional coaching, the Evaluation Team included the following items

on the 2013 and 2014 PSI-BT surveys:

1. Overall, my (A) NC NTSP instructional coach and/or (B) school assigned mentor has been

helpful in developing my confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching.

2. Of the success you have had as a beginning teacher, what amount would you attribute to help

from your (A) NC NTSP instructional coach and/or (B) school assigned mentor.

NC NTSP teachers answered both A and B items; Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers

answered B items only. Given the results shown in Appendix B, the Evaluation Team notes that

extrapolating survey results to the full sample of NC NTSP and comparison sample teachers

risks ignoring differences associated with non-response and should be done with caution.

Overall, the top panel of Table E2 (following page) shows that during the 2012-13 school year,

78% of NC NTSP evaluation sample respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their program

instructional coach was helpful in developing their confidence, knowledge, and skills in

teaching. By comparison, 60% of NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers and 53% of Non-RttT

Comparison sample teachers responded similarly regarding their school provided mentor. For the

2013-14 school year, the bottom panel of Table E2 indicates that 77% of NC NTSP evaluation

sample respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the summative instructional coaching item.

By comparison, 60% of NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers and 40% of Non-RttT Comparison

sample teachers responded similarly regarding their school provided mentor. Each of these

differences—within the NC NTSP sample and between NC NTSP and Non-RttT Comparison

sample teachers—were statistically significant.


August 2015


Table E2. Summative Instructional Coaching/Mentoring Survey Items

Survey Item

Response

Groups n

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Slightly

Agree Agree

Strongly

Agree

2012-2013 School Year

Overall, my IC

provided by the

NTSP has been

helpful in

developing my

confidence,

knowledge, and

skills in teaching.

Overall 165 5.45% 3.03% 1.21% 12.73% 33.94% 43.64%

ECU 47 4.26% 4.26% 2.13% 19.15% 38.30% 31.91%

UNC-CSLD 33 9.09% 6.06% 0.00% 12.12% 39.39% 33.33%

UNCC 48 6.25% 2.08% 2.08% 14.58% 25.00% 50.00%

UNCG 37 2.70% 0.00% 0.00% 2.70% 35.14% 59.46%

Overall, my school

or school district

assigned mentor has

been helpful in

developing my

confidence,

knowledge, and

skills in teaching.

Overall 159 7.55% 6.29% 5.66% 20.13% 32.08% 28.30%

ECU 42 11.90% 4.76% 2.38% 7.14% 38.10% 35.71%

UNC-CSLD 33 9.09% 3.03% 15.15% 27.27% 30.30% 15.15%

UNCC 47 8.51% 8.51% 2.13% 23.40% 29.79% 27.66%

UNCG 37 0.00% 8.11% 5.41% 24.32% 29.73% 32.43%

Comparison

Group 297 10.77% 7.07% 5.05% 24.24% 28.28% 24.58%

2013-14 School Year

Overall, my IC

provided by the

NTSP has been

helpful in

developing my

confidence,

knowledge, and

skills in teaching.

Overall 401 1.75% 3.24% 2.74% 15.21% 30.92% 46.13%

ECU 144 0.00% 0.69% 4.17% 13.89% 25.69% 55.56%

UNC-CSLD 74 2.70% 6.76% 2.70% 21.62% 33.78% 32.43%

UNCC 87 4.60% 3.45% 2.30% 11.49% 35.63% 42.53%

UNCG 96 1.04% 4.17% 1.04% 15.62% 32.29% 45.83%

Overall, my school

or school district

assigned mentor has

been helpful in

developing my

confidence,

knowledge, and

skills in teaching.

Overall 386 4.15% 8.29% 5.44% 22.02% 29.79% 30.31%

ECU 134 1.49% 10.45% 5.97% 28.36% 24.63% 29.10%

UNC-CSLD 73 5.48% 4.11% 5.48% 13.70% 39.73% 31.51%

UNCC 85 5.88% 10.59% 5.88% 25.88% 23.53% 28.24%

UNCG 94 5.32% 6.38% 4.26% 15.96% 35.11% 32.98%

Comparison

Group 164 6.71% 13.41% 8.54% 31.10% 24.39% 15.85%


August 2015


Table E3. Summative Instructional Coaching/Mentoring Survey Items

Survey Item

Response

Groups n

None at

All

Hardly

Any Some

Quite a

Bit

Great

Deal

2012-13 School Year

Of the success you

have had as a

beginning teacher,

what amount would

you attribute to help

from your IC

assigned by the

NTSP.

Overall 165 0.61% 6.67% 30.30% 34.55% 27.88%

ECU 47 0.00% 10.64% 36.17% 29.79% 23.40%

UNC-CSLD 33 0.00% 6.06% 48.48% 33.33% 12.12%

UNCC 48 2.08% 8.33% 22.92% 43.75% 22.92%

UNCG 37 0.00% 0.00% 16.22% 29.73% 54.05%

Of the success you

have had as a

beginning teacher,

what amount would


from your school or

school district

assigned mentor.

Overall 159 8.81% 22.01% 23.27% 26.42% 19.50%

ECU 42 11.90% 11.90% 21.43% 28.57% 26.19%

UNC-CSLD 33 18.18% 30.30% 24.24% 21.21% 6.06%

UNCC 47 4.26% 25.53% 21.28% 25.53% 23.40%

UNCG 37 2.70% 21.62% 27.03% 29.73% 18.92%

Comparison

Group 298 10.74% 19.13% 27.52% 28.19% 14.43%

2013-14 School Year

Of the success you

have had as a

beginning teacher,

what amount would


from your IC

assigned by the

NTSP.

Overall 401 3.99% 8.48% 29.43% 30.67% 27.43%

ECU 144 1.39% 6.94% 25.69% 29.17% 36.81%

UNC-CSLD 74 8.11% 14.86% 24.32% 35.14% 17.57%

UNCC 87 5.75% 8.05% 33.33% 29.89% 22.99%

UNCG 96 3.12% 6.25% 35.42% 30.21% 25.00%

Of the success you

have had as a

beginning teacher,

what amount would


from your school or

school district

assigned mentor.

Overall 387 5.68% 13.44% 31.78% 25.32% 23.77%

ECU 134 2.99% 16.42% 34.33% 24.63% 21.64%

UNC-CSLD 72 8.33% 6.94% 31.94% 27.78% 25.00%

UNCC 87 8.05% 17.24% 29.89% 20.69% 24.14%

UNCG 94 5.32% 10.64% 29.79% 28.72% 25.53%

Comparison

Group 164 12.20% 23.17% 35.37% 20.12% 9.15%

The top panel of Table E3 indicates that in the 2012-13 school year, 62% of NC NTSP

evaluation sample respondents attributed “quite a bit” or a “great deal” of their teaching success

to help from their NC NTSP instructional coaches. By comparison, 46% of NC NTSP evaluation


August 2015


sample teachers and 43% of Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers responded similarly

regarding their school provided mentor. For the 2013-14 school year, the bottom panel of Table

E3 (previous page) shows that 58% of NC NTSP evaluation sample respondents attributed “quite

a bit” or a “great deal” of their teaching success to help from their NC NTSP instructional

coaches. By comparison, 49% of NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers and 29% of Non-RttT

Comparison sample teachers responded similarly regarding their school provided mentor. Each

of these differences—within the NC NTSP sample and between NC NTSP and Non-RttT

Comparison sample teachers—were statistically significant.


To what extent do NC NTSP teachers feel the professional development positively impacted their

teaching?

To summatively assess the perceptions of NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers regarding the

quality of NC NTSP professional development sessions, the Evaluation Team included the

following item on the 2013 and 2014 PSI-BT surveys: Overall, the professional development

provided by (A) the NC NTSP and/or (B) my school or school district has been helpful in

developing my confidence, knowledge, and skills in teaching. NC NTSP teachers answered both

A and B items; Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers answered the B item only. Unfortunately,

a problem with the 2013-14 administration of the PSI-BT survey—responses for “agree” and

“disagree” took on the same response value—prevents the Evaluation Team from presenting the

2013-14 results. Given the results shown in Appendix B, the Evaluation Team notes that

extrapolating survey results to the full sample of NC NTSP and comparison sample teachers

risks ignoring differences associated with non-response and should be done with caution.

Overall, the top panel of Table E4 (following page) shows that in the 2012-13 school year 87%

of NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers who attended NC NTSP professional development

sessions and responded to the PSI-BT agreed or strongly agreed with the survey item. By

comparison, 66% of NC NTSP evaluation sample respondents answered similarly for their

school provided professional development; 60% of Non-RttT Comparison sample respondents

answered similarly for their school provided professional development. Each of these

differences—within the NC NTSP sample and between NC NTSP and Non-RttT Comparison

sample teachers—were statistically significant.


August 2015


Table E4. Summative Professional Development Survey Item

Survey Item

Response

Groups n

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Slightly

Agree Agree

Strongly

Agree

Overall, the PD

provided by the

NC NTSP was

helpful in

developing my

confidence,

knowledge, and

skills in

teaching.

Overall 132 0.76% 0.00% 1.52% 10.61% 45.45% 41.67%

ECU 39 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.82% 53.85% 33.33%

UNC-CSLD 26 3.85% 0.00% 0.00% 15.38% 50.00% 30.77%

UNCC 32 0.00% 0.00% 3.12% 9.38% 50.00% 37.50%

UNCG 35 0.00% 0.00% 2.86% 5.71% 28.57% 62.86%

Overall, the PD

provided by my

school or

school district

was helpful in

developing my

confidence,

knowledge, and

skills in

teaching.

Overall 164 4.27% 0.00% 6.71% 23.17% 50.61% 15.24%

ECU 47 0.00% 0.00% 8.51% 19.15% 59.57% 12.77%

UNC-CSLD 32 15.62% 0.00% 3.12% 25.00% 34.38% 21.88%

UNCC 48 2.08% 0.00% 8.33% 31.25% 47.92% 10.42%

UNCG 37 2.70% 0.00% 5.41% 16.22% 56.76% 18.92%

Comparison

Group 305 5.25% 0.00% 7.54% 27.21% 46.23% 13.77%


August 2015


Appendix F. How do Teachers Perceive the Impact of the NC NTSP on their Self-Efficacy

and Job Satisfaction?

To measure perceptions of self-efficacy and job satisfaction for NC NTSP and Non-RttT

Comparison sample teachers, the Evaluation Team relied on a set of pre-existing items on the

PSI-BT survey. Table F1 (following page) displays these results for the 2012-13 school year and

Table F2 (second page following) presents these results for the 2013-14 school year. Like the

survey responses presented earlier, due to potential non-response bias these results should be

interpreted with caution.

In terms of self-efficacy for the 2012-13 school year, 79% of NC NTSP evaluation sample

respondents (versus 73% of Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample respondents) agreed or

strongly agreed with the statement that they can successfully instruct students with a variety of

ability levels; 60% of NC NTSP evaluation sample respondents (versus 54% of Non-RttT

Comparison evaluation sample respondents) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that

they can motivate all students; and 84% of NC NTSP evaluation sample respondents (versus

78% of Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample respondents) agreed or strongly agreed with the

statement that they feel inspired to instruct students to the best of their ability. For the third self-

efficacy item (“I feel inspired to instruct students to the best of my ability”), the difference

between NC NTSP and Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers was statistically significant.

Regarding job satisfaction, 59% of NC NTSP evaluation sample respondents (versus 55% of

Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample respondents) agreed or strongly agreed with the

statement that they were satisfied with their current job, and 71% of NC NTSP evaluation sample

respondents (versus 67% of Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample respondents) agreed or

strongly agreed with the statement that they considered teaching to be their ideal career.


August 2015


Table F1. Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction Questions (2012-13)

Efficacy and

Job

Satisfaction

Items

Response

Groups n

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Slightly

Agree Agree

Strongly

Agree

I am able to

successfully

teach students

with a variety

of ability

levels.

Overall 166 0.00% 1.81% 2.41% 16.87% 62.05% 16.87%

ECU 47 0.00% 2.13% 2.13% 17.02% 63.83% 14.89%

UNC-CSLD 33 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 27.27% 60.61% 12.12%

UNCC 49 0.00% 2.04% 4.08% 12.24% 65.31% 16.33%

UNCG 37 0.00% 2.70% 2.70% 13.51% 56.76% 24.32%

Comp. Group 307 0.33% 1.63% 2.28% 23.13% 55.05% 17.59%

I am able to

motivate all

students.

Overall 166 0.00% 6.02% 7.83% 25.90% 47.59% 12.65%

ECU 47 0.00% 4.26% 0.00% 29.79% 55.32% 10.64%

UNC-CSLD 33 0.00% 6.06% 15.15% 18.18% 45.45% 15.15%

UNCC 49 0.00% 8.16% 10.20% 28.57% 44.90% 8.16%

UNCG 37 0.00% 5.41% 8.11% 24.32% 43.24% 18.92%

Comp. Group 307 1.95% 4.89% 11.73% 27.36% 41.37% 12.70%

I feel inspired

to instruct

students to the

best of my

ability.

Overall 164 3.05% 1.83% 4.88% 6.10% 36.59% 47.56%

ECU 46 2.17% 4.35% 6.52% 8.70% 36.96% 41.30%

UNC-CSLD 32 3.12% 0.00% 6.25% 3.12% 40.62% 46.88%

UNCC 49 4.08% 2.04% 2.04% 2.04% 36.73% 53.06%

UNCG 37 2.70% 0.00% 5.41% 10.81% 32.43% 48.65%

Comp. Group 308 0.97% 1.62% 6.17% 13.31% 34.74% 43.18%

In general, I

am satisfied

with my

current job.

Overall 164 7.93% 5.49% 7.93% 19.51% 34.15% 25.00%

ECU 46 6.52% 6.52% 2.17% 19.57% 36.96% 28.26%

UNC-CSLD 32 9.38% 9.38% 15.62% 25.00% 21.88% 18.75%

UNCC 49 8.16% 6.12% 0.00% 22.45% 34.69% 28.57%

UNCG 37 8.11% 0.00% 18.92% 10.81% 40.54% 21.62%

Comp. Group 308 6.82% 7.79% 10.71% 20.13% 36.69% 17.86%

I consider

teaching to be

my ideal

career.

Overall 164 4.27% 3.66% 4.27% 17.07% 40.24% 30.49%

ECU 46 2.17% 4.35% 4.35% 26.09% 32.61% 30.43%

UNC-CSLD 32 6.25% 0.00% 6.25% 9.38% 43.75% 34.38%

UNCC 49 6.12% 4.08% 2.04% 14.29% 42.86% 30.61%

UNCG 37 2.70% 5.41% 5.41% 16.22% 43.24% 27.03%

Comp. Group 308 3.57% 5.84% 5.84% 17.53% 32.14% 35.06%

Turning to the 2013-14 school year (Table F2, following page), responses to the same three self-

efficacy survey items indicate that 84%, 69%, and 82% of NC NTSP evaluation sample

respondents (versus 74%, 55%, and 75% of Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample

respondents) agreed or strongly agreed with the survey items. Regarding job satisfaction,

responses to the same two survey items show that 57% and 68% of NC NTSP evaluation sample

respondents (versus 48% and 61% of Non-RttT Comparison evaluation sample respondents)

agreed or strongly agreed with the survey items. For all five of these self-efficacy and job

satisfaction items, the differences between NC NTSP and Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers


August 2015


were statistically significant. These differences must be interpreted carefully, however, due to

non-response bias and the low response rate for the Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers.

Table F2. Self-Efficacy and Job Satisfaction Questions (2013-14)

Survey Items

Response

Groups n

Strongly

Disagree Disagree

Slightly

Disagree

Slightly

Agree Agree

Strongly

Agree

I am able to

successfully

teach students

with a variety

of ability

levels.

Overall 408 0.00% 0.49% 1.72% 13.73% 57.11% 26.96%

ECU 147 0.00% 0.68% 1.36% 14.97% 57.14% 25.85%

UNC-CSLD 77 0.00% 1.30% 1.30% 15.58% 54.55% 27.27%

UNCC 88 0.00% 0.00% 3.41% 12.50% 52.27% 31.82%

UNCG 96 0.00% 0.00% 1.04% 11.46% 63.54% 23.96%

Comp. Group 178 0.56% 1.69% 3.93% 19.66% 52.81% 21.35%

I am able to

motivate all

students.

Overall 408 1.23% 3.68% 6.37% 19.85% 45.59% 23.28%

ECU 147 0.68% 3.40% 6.80% 15.65% 50.34% 23.13%

UNC-CSLD 77 1.30% 6.49% 11.69% 14.29% 40.26% 25.97%

UNCC 88 2.27% 4.55% 6.82% 30.68% 37.50% 18.18%

UNCG 96 1.04% 1.04% 1.04% 20.83% 50.00% 26.04%

Comp. Group 178 2.81% 2.81% 11.80% 28.09% 39.89% 14.61%

I feel inspired

to instruct

students to the

best of my

ability.

Overall 406 1.48% 1.97% 1.97% 13.05% 35.71% 45.81%

ECU 146 2.05% 2.05% 1.37% 11.64% 37.67% 45.21%

UNC-CSLD 78 2.56% 2.56% 1.28% 10.26% 35.90% 47.44%

UNCC 87 1.15% 3.45% 3.45% 16.09% 37.93% 37.93%

UNCG 95 0.00% 0.00% 2.11% 14.74% 30.53% 52.63%

Comp. Group 177 2.26% 4.52% 2.82% 15.25% 31.07% 44.07%

In general, I

am satisfied

with my

current job.

Overall 407 7.13% 8.35% 6.63% 21.13% 35.38% 21.38%

ECU 147 4.76% 6.80% 6.80% 24.49% 34.69% 22.45%

UNC-CSLD 78 11.54% 10.26% 6.41% 19.23% 35.90% 16.67%

UNCC 87 8.05% 12.64% 6.90% 22.99% 32.18% 17.24%

UNCG 95 6.32% 5.26% 6.32% 15.79% 38.95% 27.37%

Comp. Group 178 12.36% 10.11% 11.80% 17.98% 35.39% 12.36%

I consider

teaching to be

my ideal

career.

Overall 404 3.47% 5.69% 4.46% 18.32% 32.67% 35.40%

ECU 146 3.42% 4.79% 4.79% 18.49% 30.82% 37.67%

UNC-CSLD 78 3.85% 5.13% 5.13% 20.51% 23.08% 42.31%

UNCC 85 4.71% 7.06% 1.18% 20.00% 42.35% 24.71%

UNCG 95 2.11% 6.32% 6.32% 14.74% 34.74% 35.79%

Comp. Group 178 4.49% 8.43% 6.74% 19.66% 27.53% 33.15%


August 2015


Appendix G. To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact Teacher Effectiveness as

Measured by Teacher Value-Added to Student Achievement?

EVAAS Results

For analyses of teacher value-added to student achievement, the Evaluation Team presents four

sets of results: (1) overall NC NTSP results for the 2012-13 school year, the 2013-14 school

year, and the two years combined; (2) regional NC NTSP results (separate results for teachers in

the ECU, UNC-CSLD, UNCC, and UNCG regions) for the 2012-13 school year, the 2013-14

school year, and the two years combined; (3) cohort NC NTSP results (separate results for

Cohort 1 teachers—entering the program in the 2012-13 school year—and Cohort 2 teachers—

entering the program in 2013-14) for the 2012-13 school year, the 2013-14 school year, and the

two years combined;18

and (4) first-year teacher NC NTSP results, which focus on first-year

teachers in the 2012-13 school year, the 2013-14 school year, and the two years combined.19

Taken together, this set of analyses presents evidence regarding the overall effectiveness of the

program and how that effectiveness may have differed by NC NTSP region, NC NTSP cohort,

and for first-year teachers. These sub-analyses are particularly important given the differences in

NC NTSP treatment components across regions and cohorts and the hypothesis of stronger

program effects for first-year teachers.

To assess the contributions of NC NTSP teachers to student achievement, the Evaluation Team

analyzed EVAAS teacher effectiveness estimates generated by the SAS Institute. The state uses

these estimates for assessing teacher effectiveness for Standard 6 of the North Carolina Educator

Evaluation System. For these models, the Evaluation Team made teacher EVAAS estimates the

outcome variable and regressed this value-added measure on a set of school characteristics and,

when applicable, teacher experience indicators and year fixed effects. The Evaluation Team

chose to control for these variables due to the significant differences in school characteristics

between NC NTSP and comparison sample schools and because these contextual variables are

not accounted for in EVAAS models. The Evaluation Team clustered standard errors at the

school level to account for dependence in the data. Results from these models express the

adjusted-average differences in student achievement—in normal curve equivalency units—

between students taught by NC NTSP teachers and students taught by Non-RttT Comparison or

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. Like the value-added models in the main body

of the report, the Evaluation Team combined EVAAS data from elementary and middle grades

and ran separate models for mathematics, reading, and science (End-of-Grade (EOG) science

exams in grades five and eight). Additionally, the Evaluation Team combined EVAAS data for

End-of-Course (EOC) exams (Biology, English II, and Math I) and ran a single EOC model.

Tables G1 (third page following) and G2 (fourth page following) display overall and regional

NC NTSP EVAAS results for elementary and middle grades and EOC exams. Overall, the top

panel of Table G1 shows that in elementary and middle grades mathematics, students taught by

18

Cohort 1 NC NTSP teachers (evaluation sample) include first- and second-year teachers. Cohort 2 NC NTSP

teachers (evaluation sample) include first-, second-, and third-year teachers. 19

There are a small number of NC NTSP teachers who have zero years of experience in both the 2012-13 and 2013-

14 school years. When estimating these first-year teacher models, the Evaluation Team removed these teachers from

the NC NTSP first-year teacher sample in 2013-14.


August 2015


NC NTSP teachers made significantly larger achievement gains than students taught by Non-RttT

Comparison and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers in the 2012-13 school year.

There were no significant mathematics differences in 2013-14 or using two years of pooled data.

Like mathematics, in elementary and middle grades reading, students taught by NC NTSP

teachers made significantly larger achievement gains than students taught by Non-RttT

Comparison and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers in 2012-13. NC NTSP teachers

were less effective than NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers in 2013-14 and there

were no statistically significant differences with two years of pooled data. For fifth and eighth

grade science, students taught by NC NTSP teachers made significantly larger achievement gains

than students taught by Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers in 2013-14 and with two years of

pooled data. Examining these overall results by NC NTSP region, the middle and bottom panels

of Table G1 indicate that students taught by NC NTSP teachers in the ECU region made larger

achievement gains, across subjects (mathematics, reading, and science), than students taught by

teachers in either comparison group. NC NTSP teachers in the UNC-CSLD and UNCC regions

were more effective in mathematics and reading than teachers in either comparison group in the

2012-13 school year; NC NTSP teachers in the UNC-CSLD region were less effective than NC

NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers in reading in the 2013-14 school year. NC NTSP

teachers in the UNCG region were less effective than NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample

teachers in reading in 2013-14 and less effective than both comparison groups in fifth and eighth

grade science.

The top panel of Table G2 shows that for EOC exams in 2013-14, students taught by NC NTSP

teachers made significantly smaller achievement gains than students taught by NC NTSP Eligible

Comparison sample teachers. Examining the EVAAS EOC results by NC NTSP region, the

middle and bottom panels of Table G2 indicate NC NTSP teachers from the ECU region were

less effective than both comparison groups in 2013-14 and with two years of pooled data. NC

NTSP teachers from the UNC-CSLD and UNCC regions were less effective than NC NTSP

Eligible Comparison sample teachers in 2013-14. NC NTSP teachers in the UNCG region were

more effective than both comparison groups in 2012-13 and more effective than the Non-RttT

Comparison sample with two years of pooled data.

To determine how these EVAAS estimates may differ by NC NTSP cohort, Tables G3 (fourth

page following) and G4 (fourth page following) present results for elementary and middle grades

and EOC exams. For the 2012-13 school year, results in the top and bottom panels of Table G3

repeat results from Table G1: Cohort 1 NC NTSP teachers were more effective in mathematics

and reading. Examining the 2013-14 school year scores, where data are available for both Cohort

1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers, results show that Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers were less

effective than NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers in reading; furthermore, NC

NTSP teachers in both cohorts were more effective than Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers

in fifth and eighth grade science. With two years of pooled data, Cohort 1 NC NTSP teachers

were more effective than Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers in mathematics and reading. For

EOC exams (shown in Table G4), NC NTSP cohort results in 2012-13 match the overall results

in Table G2. Results in 2013-14 show that NC NTSP teachers in both cohorts were less effective

than NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers; there were no significant differences with

two years of pooled data.


August 2015


Finally, Tables G5 (fourth page following) and G6 (fourth page following) present EVAAS

results for first-year teachers only. For the 2012-13 school year, Table G5 shows that students

taught by first-year NC NTSP teachers made significantly larger achievement gains in

mathematics and reading than students taught by both sets of comparison sample teachers; Table

G6 indicates that first-year NC NTSP teachers were more effective than first-year Non-RttT

Comparison sample teachers on EOC exams. In 2013-14, there were no significant differences

for first-year teachers in mathematics, reading, or fifth and eighth grade science, but NC NTSP

teachers were less effective than first-year NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers on

EOC exams. Using two years of pooled data, first-year NC NTSP teachers were more effective

than both comparison groups in elementary and middle grades mathematics, more effective than

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers in elementary and middle grades reading, and

more effective than Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers in fifth and eighth grade science.

Overall, these EVAAS results are comparable to the student-level value-added results presented

later in this appendix. Evidence indicates that NC NTSP teachers were more effective than

comparison sample teachers in elementary and middle grades. These results were concentrated in

2012-13 (Cohort 1 NC NTSP teachers) and did not extend (outside of fifth and eighth grade

science) into the 2013-14 school year. Conversely, in the 2013-14 school year, NC NTSP

teachers were less effective in multiple comparisons with NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample

teachers.


August 2015


Table G1. Overall and Regional EVAAS Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group

Elementary & Middle Grades Math Elementary & Middle Grades Reading 5th

& 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14

NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison 3.054

** 0.155 0.828 1.670** 0.015 0.259 0.971 1.239

* 1.011

+

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

3.923** -1.152 1.294 2.012

** -0.917

** 0.229 0.665 -0.043 0.498

NC NTSP Regions vs Non-RttT Comparison

ECU Region 5.623** 1.401 2.219

** 2.582

** 0.774

* 1.116

** 4.047

* 2.992

+ 2.772

*

UNC-CSLD

Region 4.465

* -1.165 -0.007 2.443** -0.733 -0.161 1.892 0.833 1.052

UNCC Region 3.041* 1.727 1.915+

1.130+ 0.090 0.236 -0.868 1.412 0.234

UNCG Region -0.923 -0.915 -1.033 0.295 -0.266 -0.336 -1.578+ 0.221 -0.051

NC NTSP Regions vs NC NTSP Eligible Comparison

ECU Region 6.140** 0.068 2.623

* 2.872

** -0.160 1.055 3.477+ 1.357 2.053

UNC-CSLD

Region 4.982

* -2.499 0.396 2.733**

-1.668** -0.221 1.322 -0.802 0.334

UNCC Region 3.558* 0.393 2.318

+ 1.420

+ -0.845 0.175 -1.438 -0.222 -0.485

UNCG Region -0.407 -2.248 -0.629 0.585 -1.200* -0.397 -2.148

+ -1.414

+ -0.769

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average EVAAS estimates for NC NTSP teachers and Non-RttT Comparison and NC NTSP

Eligible Comparison sample teachers. The second panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average EVAAS estimates for NC NTSP teachers, by

region, and the reference group of Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average EVAAS

estimates for NC NTSP teachers, by region, and the reference group of NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically

significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Table G2. Overall and Regional EVAAS Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group EOC Exams 2012-13 EOC Exams 2013-14 EOC Exams 2012-13 & 2013-14

NC NTSP vs. Non-RttT

Comparison 0.693 -0.106 0.083

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison 0.455 -1.812

** -0.464


ECU Region 0.300 -1.361**

-0.652*

UNC-CSLD Region --- -0.843 -0.727

UNCC Region -0.469 -0.444 -0.370

UNCG Region 1.919* 1.112 1.214

*


ECU Region 0.120 -2.727**

-1.047**

UNC-CSLD Region --- -2.208+ -1.122

UNCC Region -0.649 -1.809* -0.765

UNCG Region 1.739+ -0.253 0.819

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average EVAAS estimates for NC NTSP teachers and Non-RttT

Comparison and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. The second panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average

EVAAS estimates for NC NTSP teachers, by region, and the reference group of Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel

of this table displays differences in adjusted-average EVAAS estimates for NC NTSP teachers, by region, and the reference group of NC

NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels,

respectively.


August 2015


Table G3. Cohort NC NTSP EVAAS Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group

Elementary and Middle Grades Math Elementary and Middle Grades Reading 5th

and 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14

NC NTSP Cohorts vs Non-RttT Comparison

NC NTSP

Cohort 1 3.054

** 0.639 1.483

+ 1.670

** 0.307 0.759

* 0.971 1.208

+ 1.127

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- -0.189 -0.011 --- -0.183 -0.273 --- 1.261

+ 0.862

NC NTSP Cohorts vs NC NTSP Eligible Comparison

NC NTSP

Cohort 1 3.923

** -0.675 1.860 2.012

** -0.617 0.679 0.665 -0.071 0.581

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- -1.503 0.366 --- -1.107

** -0.353 --- -0.018 0.316

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average EVAAS estimates between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers and Non-RttT

Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average EVAAS estimates between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC

NTSP teachers and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels,

respectively.

Table G4. Cohort NC NTSP EVAAS Results (Evaluation Sample)

Cohort 2012-13 EOC Exams 2013-14 EOC Exams 2012-13 & 2013-14 EOC Exams


NC NTSP Cohort 1 0.693 -0.088 0.029

NC NTSP Cohort 2 --- -0.122 0.202


NC NTSP Cohort 1 0.455 -1.790*

-0.530

NC NTSP Cohort 2 --- -1.823*

-0.356

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average EVAAS estimates between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers and

Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average EVAAS estimates between Cohort 1

and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the

0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Table G5. First-Year NC NTSP EVAAS Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group


and 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14

NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison 2.985

* 0.161 1.442+

1.331** -0.341 0.115 1.211 1.183 1.442

+

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

5.974** -1.172 3.472

* 2.389

** -0.425 0.943+ 1.741 -0.070 1.430

Note: This table displays differences in adjusted-average EVAAS estimates between first-year NC NTSP teachers and first-year Non-RttT Comparison and NC

NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Table G6. First-Year NC NTSP EVAAS Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group 2012-13 EOC Exams 2013-14 EOC Exams 2012-13 & 2013-14 EOC Exams


Comparison 1.304

* -0.047 0.596

NC NTSP vs.


** -0.341

Note: This table displays differences in adjusted-average EVAAS estimates between first-year NC NTSP teachers and first-year Non-RttT

Comparison and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01

levels, respectively.


August 2015


Student-Level Value-Added Results

As an alternative way to assess the contributions of NC NTSP teachers to student achievement,

the Evaluation Team estimated ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models with students’

standardized test scores (standardized within subject, grade, and year for End-of-Grade exams

and subject and year for End-of-Course exams) as the outcome variable, an extensive set of

student, classroom, teacher, and school characteristics to help isolate the impact of the NC NTSP

on adjusted-average student achievement gains, and standard errors clustered at the school level

to account for dependence in the data. Results from these models express the adjusted-average

differences in student achievement—expressed in standard deviations of student achievement—

between students taught by NC NTSP teachers and students taught by Non-RttT Comparison or

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. Given the relatively small sample of teachers

from the NC NTSP and the comparison groups who taught a tested grade/subject, the Evaluation

Team combined data from elementary and middle grades (four to eight) and ran separate models

for mathematics, reading, and science (EOG science exams in grades five and eight).

Additionally, the Evaluation Team combined data for the three high school (grades nine through

twelve) EOC exams (Biology, English II, and Math I) and ran a single high school EOC model.

In this appendix, the Evaluation Team displays results for the evaluation sample and for (1) the

complete sample of teachers served by the NC NTSP and in the comparison groups, and (2) an

amended evaluation sample that includes NC NTSP teachers who worked in non-RttT schools—

still excluding TFA corps members and those entering the NC NTSP in January or later.

Tables G7 (second page following) and G8 (third page following) display overall and regional

NC NTSP value-added results for elementary and middle grades and high school. Overall, the

top panel of Table G7 shows that in elementary and middle grades mathematics, students taught

by NC NTSP teachers made significantly larger achievement gains than students taught by Non-

RttT Comparison and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers in the 2012-13 school

year. There were no significant mathematics differences in 2013-14; using two years of pooled

data, NC NTSP teachers were more effective than Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers. Like

mathematics, in elementary and middle grades reading, students taught by NC NTSP teachers

made significantly larger achievement gains than students taught by Non-RttT Comparison and

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers during the 2012-13 school year. For fifth and

eighth grade science, students taught by NC NTSP teachers made significantly larger

achievement gains than students taught by NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers in

2012-13, Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers in 2013-14, and both comparison groups using


Examining these overall results by NC NTSP region, the middle and bottom panels of Table G7

indicate that students taught by NC NTSP teachers in the ECU region made larger achievement

gains across subjects (mathematics, reading, and science), than students taught by teachers in

either comparison group. NC NTSP teachers in the UNC-CSLD region were more effective in

mathematics and reading than teachers in either comparison group in the 2012-13 school year but

less effective in the 2013-14 school year. NC NTSP teachers in the UNCC region were more

effective in mathematics (particularly in 2012-13) and in fifth and eighth grade science; NC

NTSP teachers from the UNCG region were less effective than teachers from both comparison

groups in mathematics in the 2013-14 school year and less effective than Non-RttT Comparison

sample teachers in fifth and eighth grade science in 2012-13.


August 2015


The top panel of Table G8 (second page following) shows that for high school grades (nine

through twelve) EOC exams in 2013-14 and with two years of pooled data, students taught by

NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers made significantly smaller achievement gains than

students taught by Non-RttT Comparison and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers.

Examining these results by NC NTSP region, the middle and bottom panels of Table G8 indicate

that NC NTSP teachers from the UNC-CSLD and UNCG regions were more effective than

comparison sample teachers in the 2012-13 school year. NC NTSP teachers in the ECU region

were less effective in 2013-14—the coefficients for NC NTSP in the other regions were negative

but not significant—and with two years of pooled data; NC NTSP teachers in the UNC-CSLD

and UNCC regions were less effective than NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers with


To examine how these value-added estimates may differ by NC NTSP cohort, Tables G9 and

G10 (third page following) present results for elementary and middle grades and high school. For

the 2012-13 school year, results in the top and bottom panels of Table G9 repeat results from

Table G7: Cohort 1 NC NTSP teachers were more effective in mathematics, reading, and fifth

and eighth grade science. Examining the 2013-14 school year, where data is available for both

Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers, results show that (1) there were no significant

differences for Cohort 1 teachers in mathematics or reading; (2) Cohort 2 teachers were less

effective in mathematics than NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers; and (3) Cohort 1

and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers were more effective than Non-RttT Comparison sample

teachers in fifth and eighth grade science. With two years of pooled data, Cohort 1 NC NTSP

teachers were more effective than both comparison groups in mathematics and fifth and eighth

grade science and more effective than Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers in reading. For

high school EOCs, NC NTSP cohort results in 2012-13 match the overall results reported in

Table G8. Results for both NC NTSP cohorts in 2013-14 and with two years of pooled data

indicate that Cohort 1 teachers were less effective than Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers

and that both NC NTSP cohorts were less effective than NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample

teachers.

Finally, Tables G11 and G12 (fourth page following) present value-added results for first-year

teachers only. For the 2012-13 school year, Table G11 shows that students taught by first-year

NC NTSP teachers made significantly larger achievement gains in mathematics, reading, and

fifth and eighth grade science than students taught by both sets of comparison sample teachers.

First-year NC NTSP teachers were also more effective in 2013-14 in fifth and eighth grade

science and with two years of pooled data in mathematics and fifth and eighth grade science.

High school grades EOC results in Table G12 show that in the 2012-13 school year students

taught by first-year NC NTSP teachers made significantly larger achievement gains than students

taught by first-year Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers; the opposite was true in 2013-14, as

first-year NC NTSP teachers were significantly less effective than first-year Non-RttT

Comparison sample teachers.

Overall, evidence from elementary and middle grades indicates that NC NTSP teachers were

more effective than comparison sample teachers. These results were concentrated in 2012-13

(Cohort 1 NC NTSP teachers) and did not extend (outside of fifth and eighth grade science) into

the 2013-14 school year. Conversely, in the 2013-14 school year, NC NTSP teachers (overall

and by cohort) were less effective than comparison group teachers in high school grades EOCs.


August 2015


Table G7. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group


and 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14

NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison 0.194

** 0.013 0.056+

0.122** 0.000 0.025 0.108 0.128

* 0.122

*

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

0.266** -0.101 0.087 0.121

* -0.025 0.035 0.189+ 0.102 0.178

*


ECU Region 0.289**

0.086+

0.125**

0.176**

0.084**

0.111**

0.256+

0.210+

0.198+

UNC-CSLD

Region 0.197

* -0.051 -0.006 0.166**

-0.068+ -0.000 0.076 0.082 0.073

UNCC Region 0.206** 0.064 0.111

** 0.084

+ -0.026 -0.007 0.113 0.199*

0.189*

UNCG Region -0.058 -0.096+ -0.089 -0.038 -0.030 -0.033 -0.193

* -0.040 -0.072


ECU Region 0.353** -0.034 0.151

* 0.172

* 0.064 0.123*

0.333* 0.190 0.256

*

UNC-CSLD

Region 0.261

** -0.170

* 0.020 0.162**

-0.088+ 0.011 0.152 0.063 0.131

UNCC Region 0.269** -0.056 0.138

* 0.080 -0.046 0.004 0.190 0.179 0.247*

UNCG Region 0.006 -0.215* -0.063 -0.042 -0.050 -0.021 -0.116 -0.059 -0.014

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between NC NTSP teachers and Non-RttT Comparison and NC

NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. The second panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between teachers from

each NC NTSP region and the reference group of Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average

student achievement between teachers from each NC NTSP region and the reference group of NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and **

indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Table G8. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Evaluation Sample)

2012-13 EOC Exams 2013-14 EOC Exams 2012-13 & 2013-14 EOC Exams


Comparison 0.068 -0.099

* -0.057

+

NC NTSP vs.


* -0.100

**


ECU Region 0.045 -0.264**

-0.147**

UNC-CSLD Region 0.218+ -0.064 -0.058

UNCC Region -0.027 -0.077 -0.066

UNCG Region 0.254** -0.067 0.025


ECU Region -0.012 -0.292**

-0.180**

UNC-CSLD Region 0.161 -0.092 -0.091*

UNCC Region -0.084 -0.105 -0.099+

UNCG Region 0.197* -0.095 -0.008

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between NC NTSP teachers and Non-RttT Comparison

and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. The second panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement

between teachers from each NC NTSP region and the reference group of Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel of this table

displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between teachers from each NC NTSP region and the reference group of NC NTSP

Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Table G9. Cohort NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group


and 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14


NC NTSP

Cohort 1 0.194

** 0.045 0.102**

0.122** 0.031 0.064

** 0.108 0.123*

0.131*

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- -0.014 -0.004 --- -0.018 -0.022 --- 0.132

+ 0.106


NC NTSP

Cohort 1 0.265

** -0.070 0.122*

0.121* 0.007 0.069 0.189

+ 0.097 0.185*

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- -0.130

+ 0.016 --- -0.043 -0.017 --- 0.106 0.160+

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers and Non-RttT

Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC


respectively.

Table G10. Cohort NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Evaluation Sample)




-0.064+

NC NTSP Cohort 2 --- -0.079 -0.044



-0.109**

NC NTSP Cohort 2 --- -0.133+

-0.089+

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers and

Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between Cohort 1

and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the

0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Table G11. First-Year NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group


and 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14

NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison 0.205

** 0.006 0.099**

0.088* -0.017 0.014 0.271

** 0.202

* 0.192

**

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

0.330** -0.128 0.176

* 0.118

* 0.038 0.076 0.235*

0.757**

0.286*

Note: This table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between first-year NC NTSP teachers and first-year Non-RttT Comparison and NC


Table G12. First-Year NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group 2012-13 EOC Exams 2013-14 EOC Exams 2012-13 & 2013-14 EOC Exams


Comparison 0.176

** -0.181

+ 0.014

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP Eligible

Comparison

0.037 -0.180 -0.074




August 2015


Student-Level Value-Added Results: Complete and Amended Evaluation Samples

Table G13. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Complete Sample)

Group


and 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14

NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison

0.049 0.014 0.026 0.094** -0.004 0.020 -0.029 0.118

* 0.062

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

0.159** -0.108 0.051 0.085

+ -0.029 0.030 0.082 0.056 0.104


ECU Region 0.159*

0.073+

0.096*

0.119**

0.078**

0.099** -0.022 0.159 0.096

UNC-CSLD

Region 0.050 -0.016 -0.001 0.132

** -0.072

** -0.006 0.005 0.078 0.028

UNCC Region 0.144* 0.033 0.063

+ 0.073 -0.024 -0.015 0.076 0.202**

0.147+

UNCG Region -0.187** -0.073 -0.113

* -0.049 -0.011 -0.018 -0.314** -0.043 -0.130

*


ECU Region 0.252** -0.054 0.115

+ 0.108

+ 0.057 0.109* 0.086 0.095 0.144

UNC-CSLD

Region 0.143

* -0.144

+ 0.017 0.121*

-0.092* 0.004 0.113 0.014 0.076

UNCC Region 0.237** -0.095 0.082 0.062 -0.044 -0.005 0.184 0.138 0.195

+

UNCG Region -0.094 -0.201* -0.094 -0.060 -0.031 -0.008 -0.205

+ -0.098 -0.082







August 2015


Table G14. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)

Group


and 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14

NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison 0.189

** 0.017 0.051+

0.121** -0.003 0.021 0.093 0.117

* 0.107

*

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

0.260** -0.090 0.084 0.119

* -0.025 0.030 0.174+ 0.079 0.162

*


ECU Region 0.288** 0.066 0.109

** 0.176

** 0.082

** 0.105

** 0.238

+ 0.178 0.182+

UNC-CSLD

Region 0.182

* -0.006 0.014 0.164**

-0.070** -0.009 0.033 0.048 0.029

UNCC Region 0.204** 0.049 0.091

* 0.083

+ -0.026 -0.007 0.114 0.220**

0.191*

UNCG Region -0.058 -0.075 -0.082 -0.037 -0.015 -0.022 -0.219* -0.037 -0.075


ECU Region 0.351** -0.046 0.138

* 0.172

* 0.063 0.115*

0.320* 0.139 0.245

*

UNC-CSLD

Region 0.245

** -0.119 0.042 0.160**

-0.089+ 0.001 0.115 0.009 0.092

UNCC Region 0.267** -0.063 0.119

+ 0.079 -0.044 0.003 0.196 0.181 0.254*

UNCG Region 0.005 -0.187* -0.054 -0.041 -0.034 -0.012 -0.137 -0.076 -0.012







August 2015


Table G15. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Complete Sample)



Comparison -0.025 -0.085

* -0.069

+

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison -0.024 -0.096

+ -0.079

**


ECU Region -0.053 -0.311**

-0.202**

UNC-CSLD Region 0.081 -0.070 -0.047

UNCC Region -0.122* -0.071 -0.077

+

UNCG Region 0.090 -0.061 -0.008


ECU Region -0.048 -0.308**

-0.205**

UNC-CSLD Region 0.085 -0.067 -0.050

UNCC Region -0.118 -0.068 -0.080+

UNCG Region 0.094 -0.059 -0.012

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between NC NTSP teachers and Non-RttT Comparison and

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. The second panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between

teachers from each NC NTSP region and the reference group of Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel of this table displays differences

in adjusted-average student achievement between teachers from each NC NTSP region and the reference group of NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample

teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Table G16. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)



Comparison 0.079

+ -0.060 -0.018

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison 0.014 -0.083 -0.059

+


ECU Region 0.055 -0.292**

-0.170**

UNC-CSLD Region 0.174 -0.047 -0.025

UNCC Region -0.030 -0.041 -0.011

UNCG Region 0.232** -0.043 0.053


ECU Region -0.005 -0.300**

-0.196**

UNC-CSLD Region 0.114 -0.056 -0.051

UNCC Region -0.090 -0.050 -0.037

UNCG Region 0.172* -0.052 0.027

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between NC NTSP teachers and Non-RttT Comparison and

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. The second panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between

teachers from each NC NTSP region and the reference group of Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel of this table displays differences

in adjusted-average student achievement between teachers from each NC NTSP region and the reference group of NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample

teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Table G17. Cohort NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Complete Sample)

Group


and 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14


NC NTSP

Cohort 1 0.049 0.030 0.043 0.094

** 0.014 0.050* -0.029 0.168

** 0.075

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- 0.004 0.002 --- -0.012 -0.013 --- 0.086 0.042


NC NTSP

Cohort 1 0.159

** -0.093 0.066 0.085+ -0.011 0.055 0.082 0.105 0.115

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- -0.119 0.024 --- -0.038 -0.007 --- 0.023 0.082




respectively.

Table G18. Cohort NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)

Group


and 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14


NC NTSP

Cohort 1 0.189

** 0.039 0.095**

0.121** 0.035 0.066

** 0.093 0.165**

0.146*

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- 0.003 0.006 --- -0.020 -0.021 --- 0.088 0.059


NC NTSP

Cohort 1 0.260

** -0.067 0.121*

0.119* 0.013 0.071 0.174

+ 0.122 0.190*

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- -0.104 0.032 --- -0.042 -0.017 --- 0.044 0.103




respectively.


August 2015


Table G19. Cohort NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Complete Sample)



NC NTSP Cohort 1 -0.025 -0.102*

-0.084*

NC NTSP Cohort 2 --- -0.076+ -0.054


NC NTSP Cohort 1 -0.024 -0.116 -0.095*

NC NTSP Cohort 2 --- -0.091+

-0.065+

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers and

Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between Cohort 1

and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10,

0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Table G20. Cohort NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)



NC NTSP Cohort 1 0.079+

-0.090+ -0.038

NC NTSP Cohort 2 --- -0.042 0.004


NC NTSP Cohort 1 0.014 -0.119 -0.083*

NC NTSP Cohort 2 --- -0.071 -0.040

Note: The top panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers and Non-

RttT Comparison sample teachers. The bottom panel of this table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between Cohort 1 and

Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05,

and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Table G21. First-Year NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Complete Sample)

Group


and 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14

NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison 0.094

+ 0.018 0.067 0.079* 0.001 0.024 0.079 0.156

* 0.131

*

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

0.265** -0.145 0.129

* 0.101

+ 0.026 0.075 0.167 0.115 0.177+



Table G22. First-Year NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)

Group


and 8th

Grade Science

2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14 2012-13 2013-14

2012-13 &

2013-14

NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison 0.205

** 0.007 0.094**

0.088* -0.016 0.011 0.271

** 0.203

** 0.198

**

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

0.330** -0.127 0.170

* 0.118

* 0.033 0.073 0.235*

0.756**

0.288*




August 2015


Table G23. First-Year NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Complete Sample)



Comparison -0.009 -0.175

* -0.090

+

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison -0.049 -0.121

+ -0.118

*

Note: This table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between first-year NC NTSP teachers and first-year Non-RttT Comparison

and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels,

respectively.

Table G24. First-Year NC NTSP Value-Added Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)



Comparison 0.146

** -0.165

* -0.004

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison 0.037 -0.073 -0.056

Note: This table displays differences in adjusted-average student achievement between first-year NC NTSP teachers and first-year Non-RttT Comparison

and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels,

respectively.


August 2015


Appendix H. To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact Teacher Effectiveness as

Measured by the North Carolina Educator Evaluation System (NCEES) Teacher

Evaluation Ratings?

For analyses of teacher evaluation ratings, the Evaluation Team presents four sets of results: (1)

overall NC NTSP results for the 2012-13 school year, the 2013-14 school year, and the two years

combined; (2) regional NC NTSP results (separate results for teachers in the ECU, UNC-CSLD,

UNCC, and UNCG regions) for the 2012-13 school year, the 2013-14 school year, and the two

years combined; (3) cohort NC NTSP results (separate results for Cohort 1 teachers—entering

the program in the 2012-13 year—and Cohort 2 teachers—entering the program in 2013-14) for

the 2012-13 school year, the 2013-14 school year, and the two years combined;20

and (4) first-

year teacher NC NTSP results, which focus on first-year teachers in the 2012-13 school year, the

2013-14 school year, and the two years combined.21

Taken together, this set of analyses presents

evidence regarding the overall effectiveness of the program and how that effectiveness may have

differed by NC NTSP region, NC NTSP cohort, and for first-year teachers. These sub-analyses

are particularly important given the differences in NC NTSP treatment components across

regions and cohorts and the hypothesis of stronger program effects for first-year teachers.

Since only a minority of educators teach in tested grade/subjects and many important aspects of

teaching will not be fully captured by teachers’ value-added to student achievement, the

Evaluation Team analyzed teachers’ observation-based evaluation ratings on the North Carolina

Professional Teaching Standards (NCPTS). There are five Standards directly assessed by school

principals—Demonstrating Leadership (Standard 1), Establishing a Respectful Classroom

Environment (Standard 2), Content Knowledge (Standard 3), Facilitating Student Learning

(Standard 4), and Reflecting on Practice (Standard 5)—and for each Standard school principals

rate teachers at one of five levels—Not Demonstrated, Developing, Proficient, Accomplished,

and Distinguished. For these analyses the Evaluation Team estimated ordered logistic regression

models where the outcome variable was a teacher’s evaluation rating on the one to five scale

(where one was Not Demonstrated and five was Distinguished). These models controlled for

teacher experience and school characteristics to help isolate the impact of the NC NTSP on

teachers’ ratings, and clustered standard errors at the school level to account for dependence in

the data. Results from these models express the odds of NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers

receiving higher evaluation ratings than their Non-RttT Comparison and NC NTSP Eligible

Comparison sample peers. Statistically significant odds ratios greater than one indicate higher

evaluation ratings; statistically significant odds ratios less than one indicate lower evaluation

ratings. In this appendix, the Evaluation Team presents results for the evaluation sample and for

(1) the complete sample of teachers served by the NC NTSP and in the comparison groups, and

(2) an amended evaluation sample that includes NC NTSP teachers who worked in non-RttT

schools—still excluding TFA corps members and those entering the NC NTSP in January or

later.

20







August 2015


Table H1 (following page) displays overall and regional NC NTSP evaluation rating results. The

top panel of Table H1 indicates that there are no statistically significant differences in evaluation

ratings between NC NTSP teachers and teachers in either comparison group. Despite the

presence of a common, statewide teacher evaluation rubric, examining these evaluation rating

results by NC NTSP region must be done with caution since evaluation ratings may differ across

distinct regions of the state due to factors unassociated with the NC NTSP. Nonetheless, results

in 2013-14 and with two years of pooled data show that NC NTSP teachers in the UNCC region

have significantly higher evaluation ratings than their Non-RttT Comparison sample peers—for

Standard 1 (Demonstrating Leadership), Standard 4 (Facilitating Student Learning), and

Standard 5 (Reflecting on Practice)—and significantly higher evaluation ratings than their NC

NTSP Eligible Comparison sample peers with two years of pooled data—for Standard 2

(Establishing a Respectful Classroom Environment), Standard 4 (Facilitating Student Learning),

and Standard 5 (Reflecting on Practice). NC NTSP teachers in the remaining regions—ECU,

UNC-CSLD, and UNCG—are generally rated no differently than their comparison sample peers.

To determine whether these evaluation rating results differ by NC NTSP cohort, Table H2

(second page following) presents separate evaluation rating results for Cohort 1 (first served by

the NC NTSP in 2012-13) and Cohort 2 (first served by the NC NTSP in 2013-14) NC NTSP

teachers. In reference to Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers, the top panel of Table H2

indicates that in the 2013-14 school year NC NTSP Cohort 1 teachers had significantly higher

evaluation ratings for Standard 1, Standard 3, Standard 4, and Standard 5; NC NTSP Cohort 2

teachers had significantly lower evaluation ratings for Standard 2 in 2013-14 and with two years

of pooled data. The bottom panel of Table H2 shows that there were no statistically significant

differences in evaluation ratings between NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers and

NC NTSP teachers in either cohort.

Finally, Table H3 (second page following) presents evaluation rating results for first-year

teachers only. The odds ratios indicate that first-year NC NTSP teachers are generally rated no

differently than their first-year comparison sample peers—only one result, comparing NC NTSP

and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers for Standard 5 in 2012-13 is statistically

significant. Across models, results in Tables H1-H3 suggest that, outside of NC NTSP teachers

in the UNCC region and Cohort 1 NC NTSP teachers in 2013-14, there was generally no

difference in evaluation ratings between NC NTSP and comparison sample teachers.


August 2015


Table H1. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Evaluation Rating Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group

2012-13 School Year 2013-14 School Year 2012-13 & 2013-14 School Years

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5

NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison

1.077 1.114 0.998 0.814 0.981 1.097 0.902 1.006 1.079 1.036 1.072 0.960 0.993 0.975 0.996

NC NTSP vs

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

1.267 1.381 1.275 1.096 1.384 0.785 0.767 0.842 0.965 0.811 1.023 1.064 1.033 1.001 1.107


ECU 0.755 1.372 0.413 0.485+ 0.900 1.018 0.828 0.879 0.820 1.022 0.878 0.921 0.666 0.655 0.941

UNC-CSLD 1.188 0.793 1.408 0.995 1.097 0.809 0.776 0.866 1.018 0.934 0.834 0.719 0.906 0.896 0.886

UNCC 1.563 1.388 1.450 1.169 1.386 1.972+ 1.650 1.713 1.849

+ 1.947

+ 1.822

+ 1.601 1.613 1.588 1.735+

UNCG 0.854 0.878 1.068 0.811 0.658 0.950 0.697 0.820 0.933 0.672 0.928 0.771 0.931 0.913 0.675

NC NTSP Regions vs NC NTSP Eligible Comparison ECU 0.989 2.017 0.598 0.662 1.530 0.809 0.783 0.802 0.776 0.881 0.891 1.085 0.736 0.713 1.118

UNC-CSLD 1.557 1.166 2.037+ 1.357 1.864 0.643 0.734 0.789 0.964 0.805 0.846 0.847 1.002 0.975 1.052

UNCC 2.048 2.040 2.099 1.595 2.354+ 1.568 1.561 1.562 1.750 1.678 1.848 1.886

+ 1.783 1.728+

2.061*

UNCG 1.119 1.290 1.546 1.108 1.119 0.755 0.659 0.748 0.883 0.579 0.941 0.908 1.029 0.994 0.803

Note: The top panel of this table displays odds ratios for earning higher evaluation ratings for NC NTSP teachers in reference to Non-RttT Comparison and NC

NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. The second panel of this table displays odds ratios for each NC NTSP region in comparison to the Non-RttT

Comparison group; the bottom panel of this table displays odds ratios for each NC NTSP region in comparison to the NC NTSP Eligible Comparison group.

Values above 1 indicate greater odds of a higher evaluation rating; values below 1 indicate reduced odds of a higher evaluation rating. S1=Leadership;

S2=Classroom Environment; S3=Content Knowledge; S4=Facilitating Student Learning; and S5=Reflecting on Practice. +, *, and ** indicate statistically



August 2015


Table H2. Cohort NC NTSP Evaluation Rating Results (Evaluation Sample)

Cohort

2012-13 School Year 2013-14 School Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 School Years



NC NTSP

Cohort 1 1.082 1.128 0.997 0.842 0.980 1.722

* 1.388 1.709+

1.844*

1.572+ 1.376 1.267 1.323 1.203 1.257

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- --- --- --- --- 0.845 0.700

+ 0.748 0.811 0.801 0.779 0.658* 0.694 0.752 0.730

NC NTSP Cohorts vs. NC NTSP Eligible Comparison

NC NTSP

Cohort 1 1.364 1.615 1.378 1.106 1.621 1.270 1.228 1.448 1.628 1.265 1.294 1.391 1.359 1.220 1.399

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- --- --- --- --- 0.623 0.619 0.634 0.715 0.645 0.732 0.722 0.713 0.763 0.812

Note: The top panel of this table displays odds ratios for earning higher evaluation ratings for Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers in comparison to the

Non-RttT Comparison group; the bottom panel of this table displays odds ratios for earning higher evaluation ratings for Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP

teachers in comparison to the NC NTSP Eligible Comparison group. Values above 1 indicate greater odds of a higher evaluation rating; values below 1 indicate

reduced odds of a higher evaluation rating. S1=Leadership; S2=Classroom Environment; S3=Content Knowledge; S4=Facilitating Student Learning; and

S5=Reflecting on Practice. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Table H3. First-Year NC NTSP Evaluation Rating Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group



BT1 NC

NTSP vs

Non-RttT

Comparison

1.175 1.149 1.121 0.961 1.108 0.840 0.892 1.006 1.029 0.823 1.044 1.054 1.070 1.023 0.948

BT1 NC

NTSP vs NC

NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

1.338 1.356 1.111 0.830 1.455+ 0.832 0.494 0.576 0.697 0.925 1.166 1.067 0.902 0.753 1.213

Note: This table displays odds ratios for earning higher evaluation ratings for first-year NC NTSP teachers in reference to first-year Non-RttT Comparison and

NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. Values above 1 indicate greater odds of a higher evaluation rating; values below 1 indicate reduced odds of a

higher evaluation rating. S1=Leadership; S2=Classroom Environment; S3=Content Knowledge; S4=Facilitating Student Learning; and S5=Reflecting on

Practice. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Teacher Evaluation Rating Results: Complete and Amended Evaluation Samples

Table H4. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Evaluation Rating Results (Complete Sample)



NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison

0.835 0.920 0.965 0.849 0.821 1.071 1.067 1.171 1.133 1.031 0.988 1.011 1.091 1.024 0.945

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

1.054 1.208 1.192 1.088 1.285 0.823 0.922 1.044 0.980 0.875 0.941 1.061 1.096 1.002 1.087


ECU 0.534+ 0.886 0.416

+ 0.483

* 0.733 0.917 0.763 0.825 0.713 0.823 0.751 0.790 0.623 0.594* 0.766

UNC-CSLD 0.927 0.766 1.672+ 1.157 1.101 0.858 0.931 0.941 0.988 0.967 0.836 0.835 1.094 0.974 0.963

UNCC 1.390 1.444 1.368 1.164 1.263 1.687 2.147*

2.489**

2.238**

1.765* 1.593 1.922

* 2.014

* 1.824

* 1.559

+

UNCG 0.778 0.764 0.973 0.889 0.578* 0.955 0.801 0.967 0.996 0.750 0.884 0.782 0.975 0.943 0.677

+


ECU 0.691 1.262 0.544 0.626 1.233 0.766 0.714 0.786 0.660 0.750 0.762 0.893 0.669 0.622+ 0.929

UNC-CSLD 1.200 1.090 2.188* 1.500 1.853

* 0.717 0.870 0.896 0.914 0.882 0.849 0.945 1.174 1.020 1.167

UNCC 1.799 2.056 1.790 1.509 2.125 1.410 2.007+

2.370*

2.070+ 1.609 1.616 2.174

* 2.162

* 1.910

* 1.889

*

UNCG 1.008 1.087 1.274 1.152 0.972 0.798 0.749 0.920 0.921 0.684 0.897 0.884 1.046 0.988 0.820



Comparison group; the bottom panel of this table displays odds ratios for each NC NTSP region in comparison to the NC NTSP Eligible Comparison group.

Values above 1 indicate greater odds of a higher evaluation rating; values below 1 indicate reduced odds of a higher evaluation rating. S1=Leadership;

S2=Classroom Environment; S3=Content Knowledge; S4=Facilitating Student Learning; and S5=Reflecting on Practice. +, *, and ** indicate statistically



August 2015


Table H5. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Evaluation Rating Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)

Group



NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison

1.011 1.031 0.965 0.783 0.927 1.099 1.073 1.218 1.163 1.079 1.047 1.035 1.135 1.031 1.012

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

1.225 1.336 1.266 1.081 1.356 0.831 0.967 1.096 1.075 0.890 1.002 1.125 1.161 1.048 1.119


ECU 0.745 1.338 0.402 0.482+ 0.893 0.901 0.738 0.830 0.734 0.862 0.805 0.819 0.643 0.606 0.823

UNC-CSLD 1.066 0.732 1.363 0.929 1.023 0.850 0.891 0.977 0.997 0.949 0.818 0.777 0.973 0.869 0.887

UNCC 1.563 1.396 1.459 1.177 1.372 1.750 2.187*

2.752**

2.332**

1.895* 1.694 1.936

* 2.250

** 1.876

** 1.714

*

UNCG 0.763 0.741 0.965 0.774 0.630 1.033 0.848 1.026 1.041 0.815 0.939 0.818 1.032 0.951 0.751


ECU 0.989 2.010 0.594 0.665 1.523 0.740 0.721 0.796 0.727 0.764 0.819 0.974 0.722 0.668 0.980

UNC-CSLD 1.416 1.100 2.011+ 1.281 1.745 0.698 0.871 0.936 0.987 0.840 0.833 0.923 1.092 0.958 1.057

UNCC 2.076 2.096 2.153+ 1.623 2.340

+ 1.437 2.137+

2.639*

2.308* 1.679 1.726 2.301

* 2.525

** 2.067

* 2.042

*

UNCG 1.013 1.113 1.424 1.067 1.074 0.848 0.828 0.984 1.030 0.722 0.957 0.971 1.158 1.048 0.895



Comparison group; the bottom panel of this table displays odds ratios for each NC NTSP region in comparison to the NC NTSP Eligible Comparison group. Values

above 1 indicate greater odds of a higher evaluation rating; values below 1 indicate reduced odds of a higher evaluation rating. S1=Leadership; S2=Classroom

Environment; S3=Content Knowledge; S4=Facilitating Student Learning; and S5=Reflecting on Practice. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at

the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Table H6. Cohort NC NTSP Evaluation Rating Results (Complete Sample)

Cohort

2012-13 School Year 2013-14 School Year 2012-13 and 2013-14 School Years



NC NTSP

Cohort 1 0.858 0.925 0.965 0.868 0.847 1.464 1.322 1.570

+ 1.652

* 1.413 1.112 1.106 1.224 1.125 1.084

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- --- --- --- --- 0.927 0.968 1.071 0.985 0.885 0.850 0.899 0.966 0.913 0.798


NC NTSP

Cohort 1 1.056 1.261 1.237 1.096 1.398 1.151 1.142 1.356 1.398 1.213 1.056 1.160 1.223 1.094 1.243

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- --- --- --- --- 0.729 0.837 0.925 0.834 0.760 0.807 0.942 0.965 0.889 0.916






Table H7. Cohort NC NTSP Evaluation Rating Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)

Cohort




NC NTSP

Cohort 1 1.010 1.030 0.965 0.821 0.931 1.493 1.311 1.601

+ 1.713

* 1.477 1.226 1.170 1.286 1.144 1.197

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- --- --- --- --- 0.959 0.981 1.154 1.017 0.934 0.885 0.905 1.033 0.925 0.842


NC NTSP

Cohort 1 1.289 1.505 1.361 1.087 1.550 1.151 1.176 1.382 1.548 1.223 1.164 1.284 1.320 1.159 1.333

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- --- --- --- --- 0.739 0.879 0.996 0.919 0.773 0.839 0.992 1.060 0.937 0.938







August 2015


Table H8. First-Year Teacher NC NTSP Evaluation Rating Results (Complete Sample)

Group



NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison

0.889 0.937 0.882 0.940 0.813 0.813 0.994 1.155 1.133 0.811 0.866 0.962 1.046 1.049 0.798

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

1.118 1.167 0.886 0.745 1.328 0.901 0.622 0.826 0.739 1.011 1.021 0.938 0.875 0.724 1.168

Note: This table displays odds ratios for earning higher evaluation ratings for first-year NC NTSP teachers in reference to first-year Non-RttT Comparison and NC

NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. Values above 1 indicate greater odds of a higher evaluation rating; values below 1 indicate reduced odds of a higher

evaluation rating. S1=Leadership; S2=Classroom Environment; S3=Content Knowledge; S4=Facilitating Student Learning; and S5=Reflecting on Practice. +, *,

and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Table H9. First-Year Teacher NC NTSP Evaluation Rating Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)

Group



NC NTSP vs.

Non-RttT

Comparison

1.105 1.066 1.035 0.948 1.030 0.828 1.031 1.201 1.142 0.924 0.955 1.027 1.138 1.053 0.942

NC NTSP vs.

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

1.303 1.315 1.066 0.830 1.412 0.905 0.717 0.916 0.897 1.052 1.109 1.047 0.995 0.810 1.213

Note: This table displays odds ratios for earning higher evaluation ratings for first-year NC NTSP teachers in reference to first-year Non-RttT Comparison and NC

NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. Values above 1 indicate greater odds of a higher evaluation rating; values below 1 indicate reduced odds of a higher

evaluation rating. S1=Leadership; S2=Classroom Environment; S3=Content Knowledge; S4=Facilitating Student Learning; and S5=Reflecting on Practice. +, *,

and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Appendix I. To What Extent does the NC NTSP Impact the Retention of Novice Teachers

to the Same School, LEA, and the State?

For analyses of teacher retention, the Evaluation Team presents four sets of results: (1) overall

NC NTSP results for the 2012-13 school year, the 2013-14 school year, and the two years

combined; (2) regional NC NTSP results (separate results for teachers in the ECU, UNC-CSLD,

UNCC, and UNCG regions) for the 2012-13 school year, the 2013-14 school year, and the two

years combined; (3) cohort NC NTSP results (separate results for Cohort 1 teachers—entering

the program in the 2012-13 school year—and Cohort 2 teachers—entering the program in 2013-

14) for the 2012-13 school year, the 2013-14 school year, and the two years combined;22

and (4)

first-year teacher NC NTSP results, which focus on first-year teachers in the 2012-13 school

year, the 2013-14 school year, and the two years combined.23

Taken together, this set of analyses

presents evidence regarding the overall effectiveness of the program and how that effectiveness

may have differed by NC NTSP region, NC NTSP cohort, and for first-year teachers. These sub-

analyses are particularly important given the differences in NC NTSP treatment components

across regions and cohorts and the hypothesis of stronger program effects for first-year teachers.

To determine whether NC NTSP evaluation sample teachers were more likely to remain in

teaching than their Non-RttT Comparison and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample peers, the

Evaluation Team estimated the probability that NC NTSP teachers and teachers from each of the

comparison groups would return to teaching in the state. Specifically, the Evaluation Team

estimated models for three types of retention: (1) returning to any North Carolina public school

in the following school year (2013-14 and 2014-15); (2) returning to the same LEA in the

following school year; and (3) returning to the same school in the following school year. For

these analyses the Evaluation Team estimated logistic regression models, where the outcome

variable was a ‘1’ if the teacher returned in the following school year and a ‘0’ if the teacher did

not. In these models the Evaluation Team controlled for teacher experience and school

characteristics, to help isolate the impact of the NC NTSP on teacher retention, and clustered

standard errors at the school level to account for dependence in the data. Post-estimation, the

Evaluation Team converted the odds ratios to predicted retention probabilities to facilitate easier

interpretation of the results. In this appendix, the Evaluation Team displays results for the

evaluation sample and for (1) the complete sample of teachers served by the NC NTSP and in the

comparison groups, and (2) an amended evaluation sample that includes NC NTSP teachers who

worked in non-RttT schools—still excluding TFA corps members and those entering the NC

NTSP in January or later.

Table I1 (second page following) presents overall and regional NC NTSP retention results.

Pooling data over both evaluation years—2013-14 and 2014-15—the top panel of Table I1

shows that NC NTSP teachers were significantly more likely to return to NCPS than their Non-

RttT Comparison sample peers. Regarding LEA retention, NC NTSP teachers were significantly

more likely to return to the same LEA than NC NTSP Eligible Comparison teachers in 2013-14

22







August 2015


and Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers with two years of pooled data. The strongest NC

NTSP retention results concerned returning to the same low-performing school—NC NTSP

teachers were significantly more likely to return to the same school than Non-RttT Comparison

sample teachers in 2013-14, 2014-15, and in both years, combined, and more likely to return

than NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers with two years of pooled data. Examining

these results by NC NTSP region reduces statistical power to detect effects and must be done

with caution since rates of teacher persistence differ across the distinct regions of the state due to

factors unassociated with the NC NTSP. Nonetheless, results show the strongest retention

results, particularly school-level retention, for NC NTSP teachers in the ECU region. NC NTSP

teachers from the UNC-CSLD, UNCC, and UNCG regions also have significantly higher school

retention rates than Non-RttT Comparison sample teachers.

To understand how these retention results may differ according to the year of NC NTSP entry,

Table I2 (second page following) presents separate retention results for Cohort 1 (first served by

the NC NTSP in 2012-13) and Cohort 2 (first served by the NC NTSP in 2013-14) NC NTSP

teachers. The top panel of Table I2 indicates that Cohort 1 teachers were significantly more

likely than their Non-RttT Comparison sample peers to return to NCPS, the same LEA, and the

same school. Significant retention results for Cohort 2 were limited to school-level retention. The

bottom panel of Table I2 displays fewer significant differences between NC NTSP teachers by

cohort and NC NTSP Eligible Comparison sample teachers. Cohort 1 NC NTSP teachers were

more likely to return to the same LEA in the 2013-14 school year and the same low-performing

school in 2014-15 and with two years of pooled data; Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers were more

likely to return to the same low-performing school with two years of pooled data.

Finally, Table I3 (second page following) displays retention results for first-year teachers only.

These results are significant for first-year NC NTSP teachers (in 2012-13) returning in the 2013-

14 school year—NC NTSP first-year teachers were more likely than Non-RttT Comparison

sample teachers to return to NCPS and more likely than both comparison groups to return to the

same LEA and the same school—but there are no significant differences for first-year NC NTSP

teachers (in 2013-14) returning in 2014-15. Coupled with the values in Tables I1 and I2, results

suggest that the NC NTSP had its strongest retention impacts on teachers returning to the same

low-performing school and for Cohort 1 NC NTSP teachers.


August 2015


Table I1. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Retention Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group

Returns to NCPS Returns to the Same LEA Returns to the Same School

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

NC NTSP 87.66 84.99 85.74

79.61 76.67 77.47

74.11

72.72

73.04

Non-RttT

Comparison 84.36 82.53 83.09

+ 74.37 73.94 73.98+

67.14+

64.95**

65.75**

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

86.11 87.65 86.76 72.11+ 76.81 74.49 65.66 66.44 65.99

*

NC NTSP Region Results vs. Non-RttT Comparison Group

ECU Region 90.14 86.31 87.62+ 83.80 79.26 80.49

+ 81.39

* 75.25

* 77.26

**

UNC-CSLD

Region 86.16 83.70 83.88 72.71 74.49 73.26 66.21 73.15

* 70.22

UNCC Region 86.15 84.02 84.85 77.84 74.66 76.32 72.67 71.71 72.66+

UNCG Region 88.67 86.05 86.99 83.29 78.39 79.91* 74.89 70.80 72.35

+

Non-RttT

Comparison 84.39 82.54 83.11 74.51 73.91 74.07 67.31 64.91 65.78

NC NTSP Region Results vs. NC NTSP Eligible Comparison Group

ECU Region 90.14 86.31 87.62 83.80+ 79.26 80.49 81.39

* 75.25

+ 77.26

**

UNC-CSLD

Region 86.16 83.70 83.88 72.71 74.49 73.26 66.21 73.15 70.22

UNCC Region 86.15 84.02 84.85 77.84 74.66 76.32 72.67 71.71 72.66

UNCG Region 88.67 86.05 86.99 83.29 78.39 79.91+ 74.89 70.80 72.35

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

86.24 87.67 86.77 72.19 77.12 74.51 65.81 66.61 66.02

Note: The top panel of this table displays predicted probabilities of retention for NC NTSP teachers and teachers in each comparison group. The second panel of

this table displays results for each NC NTSP region in comparison to the Non-RttT Comparison group; the bottom panel of this table displays results for each NC

NTSP region in comparison to the NC NTSP Eligible Comparison group. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01



August 2015


Table I2. Cohort NC NTSP Retention Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group


Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

NC NTSP

Cohort 1 87.66 87.87

** 86.87

+ 79.61 79.59+

79.08+

74.11+

75.76**

74.18**

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- 83.54 84.45 --- 75.28 75.61 --- 71.12

* 71.67

*

Non-RttT

Comparison 84.36 82.48 83.07 74.37 73.82 73.95 67.14 64.92 65.74

NC NTSP

Cohort 1 87.66 87.87 86.87 79.61

+ 79.59 79.08 74.11 75.76+

74.18*

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- 83.54 84.45 --- 75.28 75.61 --- 71.12 71.67

+

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

86.11 87.65 86.80 72.11 76.97 74.68 65.66 66.47 66.05

Note: The top panel of this table displays predicted probabilities of retention for Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers in comparison to the Non-RttT

Comparison group; the bottom panel of this table displays results for Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 NC NTSP teachers in comparison to the NC NTSP Eligible

Comparison group. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.

Table I3. First-Year Teacher NC NTSP Retention Results (Evaluation Sample)

Group


Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

NC NTSP BT1 87.29 81.79 84.04 80.22 72.82 75.70 77.42 67.99 71.72

Non-RttT

Comparison 81.03

* 81.81 81.18 71.35* 74.21 72.42 65.43

** 66.37 65.58*

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

83.51 86.46 83.87 68.62* 74.21 70.11 61.04

** 67.47 63.11*

Note: This table displays predicted probabilities of retention for first-year NC NTSP teachers and first-year teachers in the Non-RttT Comparison and NC NTSP

Eligible Comparison groups. +, *, and ** indicate statistically significant differences at the 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 levels, respectively.


August 2015


Teacher Retention Results: Complete and Amended Evaluation Samples

Table I4. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Retention Results (Complete Sample)

Group


Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

NC NTSP 85.46 84.21 84.60

77.27 75.52 76.04

69.66 71.88

71.24

Non-RttT

Comparison 82.85 81.23 81.72

+ 72.56 72.81 72.63+ 65.65 62.71

** 63.81

**

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

83.41 88.03 85.72 68.87* 77.23 72.93 62.41 63.61

* 62.99

**


ECU Region 85.67 83.33 84.64 76.56 73.37 74.85 67.53 69.49+

69.37+

UNC-CSLD

Region 81.71 82.73 82.01 70.90 74.16 72.72 64.72 72.61

** 69.74

+

UNCC Region 86.02 83.91 84.74 77.56 76.32 76.89 69.71 74.08*

73.14**

UNCG Region 88.17 86.97*

87.26*

83.37*

78.28+

79.91**

75.65*

70.92+

72.59**

Non-RttT

Comparison 82.95 81.31 81.81 72.71 72.86 72.72 65.81 62.71 63.88


ECU Region 85.67 83.33 84.64 76.56 73.37 74.85 67.53 69.49 69.37+

UNC-CSLD

Region 81.71 82.73 82.01 70.90 74.16 72.72 64.72 72.61

+ 69.74

+

UNCC Region 86.02 83.91 84.74 77.56+ 76.32 76.89 69.71 74.08

+ 73.14

*

UNCG Region 88.17 86.97

87.26 83.37** 78.28

79.91

* 75.65

* 70.92 72.59*

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

83.14 87.94 85.53 68.50 77.06 72.66 62.11 63.39 62.72






August 2015


Table I5. Overall and Regional NC NTSP Retention Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)

Group


Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

NC NTSP 86.95 84.99 85.48

78.71 76.46 77.08

72.82 72.93

72.97

Non-RttT

Comparison 84.21 82.37 82.91

+ 74.23 73.74 73.75+ 67.12 64.83

** 65.57

**

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

86.02 87.55 86.78 72.09 76.57 74.33 65.62 66.43+

66.02*


ECU Region 90.04 85.09 86.80 83.73 76.20 78.29 81.25*

72.64*

75.16*

UNC-CSLD

Region 84.03 84.35 83.70 70.36 74.75 73.05 63.70 73.52

** 70.25

UNCC Region 85.78 84.05 84.75 77.30 76.60 77.39 72.14 73.58+

74.01*

UNCG Region 88.01 86.55 87.05+ 81.95 78.49 79.63

* 72.84 71.89 72.67*

Non-RttT

Comparison 84.28 82.39 82.95 74.41 73.75 73.87 67.31 64.82 65.62


ECU Region 90.04 85.09 86.80 83.73+ 76.20 78.29 81.25

* 72.64 75.16*

UNC-CSLD

Region 84.03 84.35 83.70 70.36 74.75 73.05 63.70 73.52

+ 70.25

UNCC Region 85.78 84.05 84.75 77.30 76.60 77.39 72.14 73.58 74.01+

UNCG Region 88.01 86.55 87.05 81.95 78.49 79.63+ 72.84 71.89 72.67

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

86.07 87.56 86.75 72.06 76.58 74.15 65.70 66.40 65.87






August 2015


Table I6. Cohort NC NTSP Retention Results (Complete Sample)

Group


Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

NC NTSP

Cohort 1 85.46 86.51

+ 85.05

+ 77.27 76.45 76.59 69.66 73.63**

70.72**

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- 83.29 84.08 --- 75.11 75.42 --- 71.18

** 71.82

**

Non-RttT

Comparison 82.85 81.22 81.72 72.56 72.82 72.62 65.65 62.70 63.81

NC NTSP

Cohort 1 85.46 86.51 85.05 77.27

* 76.45 76.59 69.66 73.63*

70.72*

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- 83.29 84.08 --- 75.11 75.42 --- 71.18

+ 71.82

**

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

83.41 88.03 85.74 68.87 77.21 73.01 62.41 63.63 62.95





August 2015


Table I7. Cohort NC NTSP Retention Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)

Group


Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

NC NTSP

Cohort 1 86.95 87.76

* 86.30

+ 78.71 77.91 77.80 72.82 74.78*

73.11**

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- 83.86 84.71 --- 75.90 76.41 --- 72.15

** 72.82

**

Non-RttT

Comparison 84.21 82.32 82.90 74.23 73.66 73.75 67.12 64.82 65.57

NC NTSP

Cohort 1 86.95 87.76 86.30 78.71 77.91 77.80 72.82 74.78

+ 73.11

+

NC NTSP

Cohort 2 --- 83.86 84.71 --- 75.90 76.41 --- 72.15 72.82

*

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

86.02 87.51 86.81 72.09 76.63 74.44 65.62 66.43 66.02




Table I8. First-Year Teacher NC NTSP Retention Results (Complete Sample)

Group


Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

NC NTSP BT1 86.28 81.37 83.55 78.65 71.94 74.84 72.11 67.49 69.54

Non-RttT

Comparison 81.92

+ 82.54 82.00 71.63* 74.41 72.77 65.83

+ 65.26 65.35

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison 80.63

+ 86.70 82.24 65.08** 75.56 68.11

+ 57.43

** 63.82 59.15**




August 2015


Table I9. First-Year Teacher NC NTSP Retention Results (Amended Evaluation Sample)

Group


Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

Returns in

2013-14

Returns in

2014-15

Overall:

2013-14 &

2014-15

NC NTSP BT1 87.16 82.07 84.00 79.58 72.90 75.36 76.62 68.24 71.35

Non-RttT

Comparison 80.80

* 81.79 81.07 71.11* 74.29 72.34 65.17

** 66.51 65.50*

NC NTSP

Eligible

Comparison

83.41 85.69 83.75 68.64* 73.10 69.88 60.98

** 66.84 63.07*



Contact Information:

Please direct all inquiries to Kevin Bastian

[email protected]

© 2015 Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation–North Carolina

mailto:[email protected]