This brief presents an overview of hiring and induction practices in Texas and compares those to research-based best practices. It also includes a discussion of the alignment between the state’s hiring and induction policies with other human capital functions – specifically, preparation and recruitment, development and evaluation, and retention and rewarding – and with the state’s education goals and priorities.
Like most states, hiring is primarily a district function in Texas. Generally, districts recruit applicants, prepare application processes, interview perspective teachers, hire qualified candidates, inform candidates of their acceptance, and determine school placement decisions. New teachers begin to learn about a district’s values and norms the moment they begin the hiring process. The timing and structure of the interview, the questions they are asked or not asked, and the information they are given all reveal details about the nature of the district and/or school. Districts may miss this key opportunity to use the hiring process to educate potential hires about the district’s mission, values, resources, and community without a thoughtful hiring process in place. Careful consideration of how new teachers are hired into Texas schools by state policy makers could lead to more consistent, informative statewide hiring recommendations and ultimately better matches between the new teachers hired, the positions available and the district or school’s approach.
The role of the state in hiring centers primarily on supporting districts’ implementation of effective hiring practices and assisting districts with recruitment initiatives. Following is an overview of best practices at the district and state levels around hiring as well as a description of Texas’ hiring initiatives.
Best Practices in Hiring Research
The ability to hire and retain the right people is a key characteristic of a high-performing organization. Research confirms that a good teacher is the single most important in-school factor in student learning—more important than class size, dollars spent per student or the quality of textbooks and materials. The costs of hiring the wrong candidates can be extensive in terms of supplementary training, wasted salary, adverse public reactions and lost productivity. However, models for outstanding teacher selection remain relatively scarce.
1
Effective teachers share many of the same characteristics, regardless of school resources or student population. They are fully certified, have in-depth subject and pedagogical knowledge, and several years of experience.
2 This critical information can aid policymakers to seek better ways to improve teacher quality and help districts and schools understand that regulation alone cannot replace the critical need for schools to screen prospective teachers carefully.
Knowing key traits of effective teachers is a first step in improving the quality of educators, and state should set clear standards for finding and hiring promising new teachers if they are to build and sustain cultures of excellence.
The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement suggests that districts should adhere to the following advice during the teacher-hiring season:
 Start Early: TNTP studied four large urban school districts and found that lengthy hiring processes drove away high quality candidates.
3
 A district in New York was able to place all new teachers by June by offering significant financial incentives to potential retirees if they announced their decisions by March 1; they also gave hiring committees greater responsibility in selecting teacher transfers.
 In Nevada (Clark County), principals interview new candidates after April and consider them along with teachers requesting transfers.
1 | P a g e

 Tennessee made moves to allow principals to view the qualifications of applicants and choose who they will interview prior to typical hiring waves.
Though hire-by dates are typically set at the district level, and often through collective bargaining (as they are in
Texas), states can inform districts of the importance of starting early in the hiring process by providing data reflecting potential lost opportunities and clear guidelines for streamlining hiring processes.
 Know Yourself: High achieving schools do not just look for a “good” third-grade teacher. They know the knowledge, skills, experiences, and beliefs they are looking for in teachers, and they develop ways of uncovering those qualities through the screening and interview process. The more specific a district and school can be about the vision of the teacher they are looking for, the more likely they are to realize it.
4
 A district in North Carolina requires all applicants for English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher positions to fill out a detailed, locally developed teacher practice survey.
 Allocate staff to narrow achievement gaps when a building-based hiring approach is truly in place; if you know your district has a need for deep expertise in a particular school look for teachers with specific qualifications to fill the needs.
 A study at the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin supports placing new teachers with expertise in certain areas with the lowest performing students; the study urges leaders to pay attention to this issue during the teacher hiring and deployment process.
States can support districts in this area by reporting the effectiveness of specific preparation institutions and proving guidelines on how districts can better identify content knowledge and commitment to the teaching profession.
 Recruit, Recruit, Recruit: To succeed in finding and hiring effective teachers, districts should recruit aggressively throughout the school year. Advertising, employment fairs and job banks have all shown to be effective tools in attracting teacher applicants.
5
 Florida, as well as other states including Texas, have instituted ‘grow your own’ type programs to develop local talent in high need areas; for example the Fort Worth ISD developed a program to help currently employed teacher assistants obtain certification in math, science, special education and English as a second language (ESL).
States can help districts by implementing effective national recruiting strategies, emphasizing the benefits of teaching in their state and scripting the critical moves that a prospective teacher should take to begin the hiring process. State recruitment and incentive campaigns for non-traditional candidates, such as career switchers, help boost interest in the teaching profession. Additionally, easy-to-navigate and straightforward state websites posting the job application process and vacancies in the state go a long way in motivating prospective candidates to apply.
These research-based, district-driven directives can provide a framework for states to develop unique hiring strategies tailored to the needs of Texas districts.
Texas Hiring Practices
Hiring practices are almost exclusively under the jurisdiction of local Texas school districts. However, the state does offer policy guidance in this area. The following minimum hiring expectations exist as a framework towards identifying highquality teachers.
To be eligible for certification in Texas, prospective teachers must 6 :
 Complete a bachelor’s degree: An earned bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university is required. The only exemption from the degree requirement is for individuals seeking Career and Technical Education certification
2 | P a g e

to teach certain courses. Texas institutions do not offer a degree in education. Instead, every future teacher must select an academic major and complete educator preparation courses.
 Complete an educator preparation program: All teachers must complete educator preparation through an approved educator preparation program. These programs are offered through colleges, universities, school districts, regional service centers, community colleges and other entities. Undergraduates enroll in an approved program at the college or university they are attending. Participants with bachelor’s degrees may attend state-approved alternative certification program.
 Pass appropriate certification exam(s): All teachers must pass the appropriate teacher certification exam(s) for the subject and grade level they teach. Preparation programs determine when candidates are prepared to take the exam(s) and submit authorization for them to do so
 Submit a state application: To obtain a standard certification after passing the appropriate exam(s) and completing all program requirements all teachers must complete the application process that includes fingerprinting and a background investigation.
Texas provides firm guidance to districts that all educators must meet high standards and be well prepared to teach. The
Texas Education Agency (TEA), in collaboration with educator preparation programs, public and private schools, institutions of higher education and the community, is committed to ensuring qualified candidates who meet the needs of all learners are available for classrooms across the state.
Comparison of Texas Hiring Practices to Research-based Best Practices
Using the Right Recruitment Strategies
The following tables show Texas’ efforts at providing its districts guidance on finding the right teachers, figuring out where in the schools those teachers are needed and then hiring those teachers as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Though ultimately state support for hiring generally comes down to recruitment initiatives and guidance for districts these tables highlight researched-based best practices for districts.
7
 Prospective teachers are required to pass certification exams and complete a bachelor’s degree but depth of content knowledge is not clearly reflected in the requirements
 The state approves alternative certification programs, provides online access to assessments of the quality of such programs and offers both paid and unpaid internships to participants of alternative preparation programs
 The state makes an effort to ensure all educator preparation programs are of high quality by annually surveying campus leaders regarding alternatively certified teacher performance and this information is available to districts and may be used as a basis for hiring decisions; however, the state does not yet report annually on the effectiveness of traditional preparation institutions
 The state offers incentives for districts to develop local talent through specialized preparation programs in an effort to recruit high quality teachers in high needs schools and in high need areas
 Incentives such as sign-on bonuses are used motivate teachers to pursue certification in hard to staff subjects
3 | P a g e

8
 Offer recommended hire-by dates for districts and guidance around effective hiring processes
 Offer one-stop-shop job availability sites and databases
 Allow for flexible certification processes
 Incentivize the development of local talent for high needs school and high needs subjects
Analysis of Texas Hiring Practices
 State guidance regarding district hiring practices partially aligns with nationally accepted best practices
 Online state job database increases opportunity for good teacher-district fit
 Statewide recruitment efforts such as Teach Texas offer accelerated teacher preparation
 Simplify lengthy, cumbersome hiring processes
 Recommend firm deadline for new teacher hires
 Provide additional guidance for districts in terms of efficient teacher assignment practices
 Fund programs to develop local talent
Best Practices in Induction
Research shows that when well-planned induction is implemented, teachers learn to be effective more quickly and are more likely to stay in their schools.
9 Large proportions of new teachers leave the profession in their first three to five years.
10 Research suggests that many teachers leave because of lack of support from administrators, colleagues, students, and parents.
11 Public concern over alarming new teacher attrition and retention rates has helped fuel widespread interest in formal induction programs. Policymakers see induction as a possible solution to multiple problems: a way to improve teaching, raise retention rates, offer additional support and development for weaker teachers, and increase student achievement.
12
The New Teacher Center (NTC) reviewed state policies on teacher induction.
13 For each state, NTC summarized existing policies related to ten key criteria most critical to high-quality induction and mentoring support for beginning educators.
1.
Teachers Served
2.
Administrators Served
3.
Program Standards
4.
Mentor Selection
5.
Mentor Training
6.
Mentor Assignment and Caseload
7.
Program Delivery
8.
Funding
9.
Educator Accountability
10.
Program Accountability
4 | P a g e

Highlighted Best Practices across the Nation
 In high-quality induction programs, state policy creates a supportive context and establishes a strong expectation that comprehensive support will be provided to every beginning educator.
 Research suggests that comprehensive, multi-year induction programs reduce the rate of new teacher attrition, accelerate the professional growth of new teachers, provide a positive return on investment and improve student learning.
14
Efforts to improve new teacher induction, and teacher effectiveness generally, must address teacher working conditions—the critical role of school leadership, opportunities for teacher leadership and collaboration, customized professional development—that greatly impact teachers’ chances of success.
15 High-quality induction programs help to provide the specialized support needed for new teachers in challenging environments. They can also contribute to the transformation of hard-to-staff schools into strong professional communities.
Texas Induction Practices
In Texas, beginning teachers (who do not have prior teaching experience) are assigned a trained mentor teacher. New teachers must participate in teacher orientation, which may include specialized induction activities.
16 The mentoring received by new teachers must model a research-based mentoring and induction program. The Texas Beginning
Educators Support System (TxBESS) is used in several districts. School districts may use another research-based model as long as that program is comparable to – and as rigorous as – TxBESS. TxBess is not currently funded at the state level; however, certain regions offer the program at cost. TEA does recognize the Performance-based Academic Coaching
Team (PACT) as an online novice teacher support system available to educators in 2012-2013.
Overview of TxBESS 17
 New teachers are paired with mentor teacher
 Each new teacher is teamed with an experienced teacher to provide ongoing professional support. Focused support for experienced teachers addresses school culture and professional issues related to the student population, staff acclimatization, procedural details and general team building
 The principle role of the mentor is to help new teachers determine at which levels of proficiency they are accomplishing performance standards within the framework of Instructional Planning, Classroom Environment,
Instructional Experience and Educational Professionalism
 Teachers and mentors meet monthly with a TxBESS coordinator to discuss areas of concern
 Mentors meet weekly with protégées to enact aspects of the program and give the new teacher a touchstone as they transition into campus and/or professional life
 The mentor serves as an informal liaison with administration as well as other teachers in their respective departments
 The most important tool that mentors utilize with new teachers is the TxBESS Activity Profile. This document is used to help teachers self-appraise their instructional preparation and delivery. The activity profile provides evidence for the new teacher in how effective their instruction is for students in a non-threatening, yet comprehensive fashion
5 | P a g e

TxBESS Alignment to Other National Models
18
Common Components of Successful
Induction Programs
 all new teachers are required to attend an orientation Begin with an initial 4-5 day induction before school starts
Offer a continuum of professional development through systematic training over a period of 2-3 years
Provide study groups in which new teachers can network and build support, commitment, and leadership in a learning community
Incorporate a strong sense of administrative support
 teachers new to the profession are mentored for a minimum of 2 years
 experienced new teachers are mentored for a year; induction activities throughout the year are encouraged
 districts may incorporate this element into unique induction programs
 no easily accessible information regarding state guidelines for this type of teacher collaboration, though TxBESS does contain supportive teacher collaboration elements
 campus administrator’s assign mentors, train mentors, allow release time for mentors and compensate mentors
 all new teachers are assigned a mentor Integrate a mentoring component into the induction process
Present a structure for modeling effective teaching during in-services and mentoring
Provide opportunities for inductees to visit demonstration classrooms
 districts may incorporate this element into unique induction programs
 new teacher mentors expose protégées to their own and other teachers’ classroom
Nationally Recognized Texas Induction Programs
The following Texas programs emerged in a 2004 study as promising induction models 19 :
Fort Worth ISD’s Educational Career Alternative Program (ECAP) – alternative certification program that provides intensive training followed by classroom support during the internship year; support is provided by field advisors and includes direct and online contact.
Dallas Public School’s New Teacher Initiative- instructional facilitators act as an emergency 911 squad of 12 well-trained teachers who respond in less than 72 hours with a house call to the teacher that needs help; the facilitator works with building administration, department chairs and other teachers to help the teacher in need.
Comparison of Texas Induction Practices to Research-based Best Practices
20
Teachers served
Administrators served
Program
Standards
State policy should require that all teachers receive induction support during their first two years in the profession.
State policy should require that all school administrators receive induction support during their first two years in the profession.
The state should have formal program standards that govern the design and operation of local teacher induction programs.
The state does not require new teachers to receive induction support. State policy provides that each school district may assign a mentor teacher to each classroom teacher who has less than two years of experience.
21
The state does not require new school administrators to receive induction support.
The state does not have formal induction program standards though TxBESS offers standards for new teacher mentoring.
6 | P a g e

Mentor
Selection
Mentor
Training
State policy should require a rigorous mentor selection process.
State policy should require foundational training and ongoing professional development for mentors.
Mentor
Assignment and Caseload
Program
Delivery
Funding
Educator
Accountability
Program
Accountability
State policy should address how mentors are assigned to beginning teachers, allow for manageable mentor caseloads, and encourage programs to provide release time for mentors.
State policy should identify key induction program elements, including a minimum amount of mentor-new-teacher contact time, formative assessment of teaching practice, and classroom observation.
The state should provide dedicated funding to support local educator induction programs.
The state should require participation in and/or completion of an induction program to advance from an initial to a professional teaching license.
The state should assess or monitor program quality through accreditation, program evaluations, surveys, site visits, self-reports, and other relevant tools and strategies.
Analysis of Texas Induction Practices
State policy requires that a mentor teacher must have at least three complete years of teaching experience with a superior record of assisting students.
State policy requires that mentor teacher complete a research-based mentor and induction-training program approved by the state education commissioner and complete a mentor-training program provided by the district.
State policy requires that a mentor teacher must teach in the same school and to the extent practicable teach the same subject/grade level. Release time was incentivized through the Beginning Teacher Induction Program (BTIM).
Programs funded through BTIM must be a research-based mentoring program that has demonstrated success through external evaluation; TxBESS is used in several regions.
The state formerly supported an annual grant program- the Beginning Teacher Induction Program.
The state does not require new teachers to participate in an induction program to advance to a professional teaching license.
The BTIM program required grantees to submit progress reports to the commissioner.
 Defined mentor selection process
 Required mentor training
 Manageable mentor caseloads
 Allocated release time for mentors
 Articulated induction program parameters
 Monitored induction programs continuously improved through annual evaluations
 Mandating induction for all teachers new to the profession
 Offering induction programs for new administrators
 Formalizing induction program standards
 Requiring completion of induction programs for professional licensing
 Incentivize districts to develop strong beginning teacher induction programs
7 | P a g e

Horizontal alignment refers to the degree to which one element of the human capital continuum aligns with other elements of the continuum.
PREPARATION
•Does research around induction feed state requirments that improve up-front preparation?
RECRUITMENT
Development and
Evaluation
•Do hiring practices allow early offers to high performers in proven programs?
•Do required monitoring and induction programs support teachers well enough to result in successful early-career evaluations?
Retention and Rewards
•Are new teachers given appropriate placements and support systems?
PREPARATION
Does research around induction feed state requirements that improve up-front preparation?
Texas offers a model program for districts to use, the Texas Beginning Educators Support System (TxBESS); districts may opt for a program comparable in rigor. TxBESS aligns with nationally accepted models for inducting teachers; however, there does appear to be room for improvement as noted (see Opportunities to Improve Texas Induction Practices).
RECRUITMENT
Do hiring practices allow early offers to high performers in proven programs?
The state advertises open teaching positions for all districts. It appears the hiring process occurs throughout the year with spring to summer being the most typical time for filling vacancies. The present process should allow for early offers to high performers; however, stronger guidance from the state may further encourage districts to utilize this incentive.
Development and Evaluation
Do required mentoring and induction programs support teachers well enough to result in successful early-career evaluations?
Despite the fact TxBESS is offered as a model induction program across the state, districts do have the option to choose a different induction model for their teachers. This limits the ability to compare results across the state. Definitive results regarding the impact of the induction programs on new teacher evaluations are also limited. Newer research suggests firmer state guidance around program expectations and anticipated outcomes could improve teacher efficacy and ultimately student academic achievement. For the 2012-2013 school year, districts may opt to use the Performancebased Academic Coaching Team (PACT) as an online novice teacher support system available to educators.
Retention and Rewards
Are new teachers given appropriate placements and support systems?
Teacher assignment is largely a job function of campus-level administrators in Texas. The state does mandate all new teachers receive a mentor and participate in orientation that may include other induction activities throughout the year.
Teachers new to the profession are typically mentored for two years and experienced new teachers are mentored for at least a year. District induction practices may vary based on unique needs and circumstances.
8 | P a g e

Vertical alignment refers to the degree to which each element of the human capital continuum aligns to the instructional goals and defined teacher performance competencies of the district and/or state.
Summary of Horizontal and Vertical Alignment between
Goals
Hiring and Induction and the following:
Preparation •Aligned
Recruitment •Partly Aligned
Development and
Evaluation
•Partly Aligned
HIRING and
INDUCTION
PRACTICES
Retention and •Partly Aligned
Rewards
 New teachers in Texas are prepared in accordance to teacher goals and expectations
 Educator preparation programs align with PDAS, as do outcomes of cited induction programs – specifically TxBESS
 Less alignment occurs with recruitment, development, evaluation, retention and rewards
 There doesn’t appear to be a uniform statewide recruitment strategy in Texas; districts control local hiring practices and only minimum guidance such as ‘certification requirements’ are offered at the state level
 One state-endorsed induction model, TxBESS utilizes a tool (TAP) which aligns with PDAS, however, district participation in TxBESS is not required
 Local districts may show greater alignment to teacher goals and expectations; however, annual evaluations are only required from state funded induction program (such as those formerly funded through BTIM)
 There are competitive grants such as BTIM which promote performance based compensation systems; districts have the flexibility to utilize PDAS or other comparable measures to reward effective teachers and leaders
 Districts may create unique evaluative tools to collect teacher and leader data
 Inconsistency in measurement and lack of statewide comparability limits feasible judgments of program efficacy
Texas hiring policies align with nationally recognized best practices. Research supports critical elements of statewide strategies to find and hire the best teachers. Creating additional guidance in terms of hiring timelines and teacher assignment could increase the chances of hiring the best candidates for districts. Texas’ induction practices model research-based programs; however, consistency across districts could aid in improving teacher quality statewide.
9 | P a g e

22
ADVANCED
DEGREES
EDUCATION
COURSES
EXPERIENCE
SELECTIVITY
OF COLLEGE
 Evidence is conclusive that master’s degrees do not make teachers more effective.
23
 Some studies have shown master’s degrees have a slightly negative impact on student achievement.
24
 The type of master’s degree may make a difference- math in particular; similar effects were not seen with master’s degrees in other subject areas 25
 No effect was seen in a study which looked at the impact of elementary teachers earning master’s degrees 26
 Massive study by Bradford Chaney looked at the test performance of 24,000 eighth graders to determine if students did better in math and science if their teachers had a degree in education; the study found the education degree had no impact on student scores 27
 Another study by Dan Goldhaber and Dominic Brewer found that student actually did worse on science achievement tests if their teacher had a degree in education 28
 Richard Monk found students did better on math test if their teacher had taken courses in math education as opposed to pure mathematics; Monk found the reverse to be true in science where teachers who took pure physical science courses as opposed to science education courses were more effective 29
 Some experience does have an impact on student achievement; experience has less impact on student achievement than other measurable teacher attributes 30
 The preponderance of research has found that the benefits of experience are realized after only a couple of years in the classroom 31
 Recent study found teacher effectiveness continues to improve for closer to four or five years 32
 Little evidence that teachers become more effective each year they are in the classroom 33
 Black and low-income students posted high gains in a study that compared the academic performance of hundreds of middle school and high school students in Philadelphia whose teachers had attended higher rated colleges 34
 A massive study of 30,000 high school students found strong positive relationship between the selectivity of teachers’ college and student academic gains 35
 A study of roughly 800 middle school teachers in California found that when a school had a larger percentage of teachers who graduated from one of the top 100 rated institutions in the nations, student achievement was higher 36
Channeling public resources to teachers’ pursuits of advanced degrees does not appear to improve teachers’ effectiveness.
Pre-service education courses may help some aspiring teachers to be more effective than they may have been otherwise, but there is no evidence to support policies that bar individuals from the profession because they lack such coursework.
Policies based on a simple linear growth over time in teacher effectiveness should be reexamined. If student achievement gains are a school district’s primary focus, little evidence supports compensation packages that raise salaries equally for each year of service without regard to other considerations.
Teachers with strong academic credentials are more likely to produce greater student learning gains. However, districts that purposely recruit candidates with higher academic credits may need to prepare for higher turnover rates, unless they also address those factors that cause teachers who have the most options to leave the classroom.
10 | P a g e

SUBJECT AREA
KNOWLEDGE
TEACHER
LEVEL OF
LITERACY
TEACHER’S
RACE
TRADITIONAL
CERTIFICATION
 Many studies found that strong preparation in mathematics makes high school math teachers more effective 37
 Similar results are found for high school science teachers who are well-prepped in their field 38
 Some limited evidence suggests there may be a ceiling effect from the impact of coursework; positive achievement did not increase after four and six college level courses were taken 39
 Two recent reviews of the research found that a teacher’s level of literacy, as measured by vocabulary and other standardized tests affects student achievement more than any other measurable teacher attribute, including certification status, experience, and the amount of professional development that a teacher receives 40
 Teachers level of literacy is a strong predictor of student achievement 41
 Teachers who are highly literate improved student achievement .2 to .4 grade levels more than teachers who were the least literate 42
 National Board certified teachers produce relatively higher gains in student achievement; board-certified teachers have significantly higher scores on standardized tests such as licensing exams and the SAT and GRE.
43
 One study in the late 1980s found that having a black teacher did not affect the scores of black 7 th and 8 th grade students
 A study using longitudinal data of 8 th , 9 th and 10 th graders
44 across the United States found no effect of the teacher’s race for whites, blacks or Hispanics 45
 A recent study found that both black and white elementary students in Tennessee benefited significantly from being assigned a teacher of their own race 46
 A study of California’s class size reduction program using data on all public elementary schools in the state found that teacher’s certification status had very little impact on student achievement 47
 One study found that 41 teachers who were all part of the same alternative certification program were just as effective as
41 teachers who were all traditionally trained and certified 48
 A recent study from Mathematic Policy Research found that first and second year Teach for America teachers produced slightly higher math gains and equivalent 49 reading gains as more experienced, traditionally certified teachers in the same schools
The growing call for more subject matter training appears justified. While less is known about the optimum subject matter training for elementary teachers, broad training across many subjects would appear to be a judicious requirement.
A prospective teacher’s level of literacy, however measured, should be a primary consideration of the hiring process.
States and districts seeking to increase the number of minority teachers in order to match teacher and student race should do so prudently. There is insufficient evidence to support hiring policies that give a teacher’s race primary consideration.
States should ensure that their certification systems are sufficiently flexible to accommodate capable nontraditional candidates.
11 | P a g e

1 National Council on Teacher Quality, Increasing the Odds: How Good Policies Can Yield Better Teachers (2004), accessed on August 1, 2012. http://www.nctq.org/images/nctq_io.pdf.
2 Jennifer King Rice, Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effectiveness of Teacher Attributes (Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 2003).
3 Jessica Levin and Meredith Quinn, Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers out of Urban Schools (New York: The New Teacher
Project, 2003).
4 Center for Comprehensive School Reform, “Things to Remember During the Teacher Hiring Season,” (2010), accessed August 4, 2012, http://www.education.com/print/Ref_Things_Remember/ .
5 Illa Towery, Kenneth Salim, and Victoria Hom, Hiring (and Keeping) Urban Teachers (2009), accessed August 1, 2012, www.bpe.org/files/NewTeacherSupport.pdf
.
6 Texas Education Agency, “Becoming a Classroom Teacher in Texas,” accessed August 3, 2012, http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=5352&menu_id=865&menu_id2=794 .
7 National Council on Teacher Quality, Increasing the Odds: How Good Policies Can Yield Better Teachers (2004), http://www.nctq.org/images/nctq_io.pdf.
8 Illa Towery, Kenneth Salim, Victoria Hom, Hiring (and Keeping) Urban Teachers (2009), accessed August 1, 2012, www.bpe.org/files/NewTeacherSupport.pdf
9 The Mandel Center Teacher Learning Project: Transforming Professional Culture through Induction accessed August 1, 2012, http://www.teacherlearningproject.com/module/introduction_hiring_is_first_step_of_induction .
10 Linda Darling-Hammond: Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence (2000), accessed August 1, 2012, www.epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/download/392/515 .
11 Richard Ingersoll, Teacher Turnover and, Teacher Shortage: An Organizational Analysis (2011), accessed August 1, 2012, http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/94
12 Elizabeth F. Fielder and David Haselkorn. Learning the Ropes: Teacher Induction Programs and Practices in the United States, (Belmont, Ma.: New
Teacher Inc., 1999); Leslie Huling-Austin, “Teacher Induction Programs and Internships” in Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, ed. W. R.
Houston (Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators, 1990): 535-548.
13 Liam Goldrick, David Osta, Dara Barlin, and Jennifer Burn, Review of State Policies on Teacher Induction (2012), accessed August 1, 2012, www.newteachercenter.org.
14 Steven Glazerman, et al., Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Final Results from a Randomized Controlled Study (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, June 2010).
15 The New Teacher Center, Teaching and Learning Conditions Survey Key Findings, accessed January 31, 2012, http://www.newteachercenter.org/teaching-learning-conidtions-survey/key-findings .
16 Texas Administrative Code, Title 19, Part 7, Chapter 230, Subchapter V, Rule 230.610 (2009).
17 Vijay Harrell, "Texas Beginning Educator Support System" Blue Ribbon School Zone: Education Best Practices, 2010, www.slideshare.net/vmharrel/texas-beginning-educator-support-system, last accessed on 8/3/12.
18 Harry K. Wong, “Induction Programs That Keep New Teachers Teaching and Improving,” NASSP Bulletin 88, no. 638 (2004): 48.
19 Ibid, 43.
20 New Teacher Center, State Policy Review: Teacher Induction (Texas), (2012), accessed on August 1, 2012, www.newteachercenter.org.
21 Texas Education Code Annotated § 21.458 (2006).
22 National Council on Teacher Quality, Increasing the Odds: How Good Policies Can Yield Better Teachers (2004), accessed on August 1, 2012. http://www.nctq.org/images/nctq_io.pdf.
23 Eric Hanushek, “The Economics of Schooling Production and Efficiency in the Public Schools,” Journal of Economic Literature XXIV (1986): 1141-
1178; Eric Hanushek, “The Trade-off between Child Quantity and Quality,” Journal of Political Economy 100 (1992): 84-117; Eric Hanushek, John
Kain, and Steven Rivkin, revised Political Economy 2002 (1998).
24 Richard Ehrenberg and Dominic Brewer, “Do School and Teacher Characteristics Matter? Evidence from High and Beyond,” Economics of
Education Review 14 (1994): 1-23.
25 Dan Goldhaber and Dominic Brewer, “Evaluating the Effect of Teacher Degree Level on Educational Performance,” in Developments in School
Finance, ed. W. Fowler (Washington, D.D.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1997): 199-210; Goldhaber and
Brewer (1998).
26 Brian Rowan, Richard Correnti, and Robert J. Miller, “What Large Scale Research Tells us About Teacher Effects on Student Achievement: Insights
From a Prospects Study on Elementary Schools. Teachers College Record 104 (2002): 1525-1567. Accessed January 25, 2008, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/22 .
27 Branford Chaney, “Legislating Achievement: Graduation Requirements, Course Taking, and Achievement in Mathematics and Science.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
28 Dan Goldhaber and Dominic Brewer, “Why Should We Reward Degrees for Teachers.” Phi Delta Kappan (October 1998): 134-138.
12 | P a g e

29 David H. Monk, “Subject Area Preparation of Secondary Mathematics and Science Teachers and Student Achievement,” Economics of Education
Review, 13 (1994): 125-145.
30 Eric Hanushek, 1971; 1986; 1992; Eric Hanushek, “A more complete picture of school resource policies,” Review of Educational Research 66
(1996): 397-409; Brian Rowan, Richard Correnti, and Robert J Miller, “What Large Scale Research Tells us About Teacher Effects on Student
Achievement: Insights From a Prospects Study on Elementary Schools,” 1525-1567.
31 Hanushek, Rivkin and Kain 1998; Steven Rivkin and Eric A. Hanushek, “How to improve the supply of high quality teachers,” in Brookings Papers
on Educational Policy, ed. Diane Ravitch ( Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2004).
32 Jonah Rockoff, “The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data,” American Economic Review, 94 (2004):
247-252.
33 Richard J. Murnane, The Input of School Resources on the Learning of Inner-City Children, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger (1975).
34 Anita A. Summers and Barbara L. Wolfe, “Do Schools Make a Difference?,” American Economic Review 67(4) (1977): 639-652.
35 Ehrenberg and Brewer 1994.
36 Donald Winkler, “Educational Achievement and School Peer Composition,” Journal of Human Resources 10 (1975): 189-204.
37 Branford Chaney, “Student Outcomes and the Professional Preparation of Eighth Grade Teachers,” (1995). David Goldhaber and Dominic Brewer,
“Why don’t schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity?,” Journal of Human
Resources 32 (2000): 503-23. ERIC: ED400237; Goldhaber and Brewer, “Does teacher certification matter? High school certification status and student achievement,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22 (2000): 129-145.
38 Chaney 1995; Goldhaber and Brewer 1998; Monk 1994; Arthur I. Rothman, “Teacher characteristics and student learning,” Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 6 (1969): 340-348; Wenglinsky 2000.
39 David H. Monk, “Subject Area Preparation of Secondary Mathematics and Science Teachers and Student Achievement,” Economics of Education
Review 13 (1994): 125-145.
40 Andrew J. Wayne and Peter Youngs, “Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement Gains: A Review,” Review of Educational Research 3, no.
1 (2003): 89-122; Grover J. Whitehurst, Scientifically Based Research on Teacher Quality: Research on Teacher Preparation and Professional
Development, paper presented at the White House Conference on Preparing Teachers (2002).
41 Ronald Ferguson and Helen Ladd, “How and why money matters: An analysis of Alabama schools,” in Holding Schools Accountable, ed. Helen
Ladd (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1996): 265-298. Eric Hanushek, “Teacher Characteristics and gains in student achievement:
Estimation using micro-data,” The American Economic Review 61, no. 2 (1971): 280-288. Milbrey W. McLaughlin and David D. Marsh, “Staff development and school change,” Teachers College Record 80, no. 1 (1978): 69-94.
42 Hanushek 1971.
43 Dan Goldhaber and Emily Anthony, Can Teacher Quality Be Effectively Assessed? (University of Washington, Center for Reinventing Public
Education, 2004), http://www.crpe.org/workingpapers/pdf/NBPTSquality_report.pdf.
44 George Farkas, Robert Grobe, Daniel Sheehan, and Yuan Shuan, “Cultural Resources and School Success: Gender, Ethnicity, and Poverty Groups within an Urban District,” American Sociological Review 55, no. 1 (1990): 27-42.
45 Murnan, The Input of School Resources.
46 Thomas Dee, “Teachers, Race and Student Achievement in a Randomized Experiment,” The Review of Economics and Statistics 861, no. 1
(February 2004): 195-210, http://www.swarthmore.edu/socsci/tdeel/Research/restat04.pdf.
47 Christopher Jepsen and Steven Rivkin, “Class Size Reduction and Student Achievement: The Potential Tradeoff Between Teacher Quality and
Class Size”, Journal of Human Resources 44, no. 1 (2009), 223-250.
48 John Miller, Michael McKenna and Beverly McKenna, “A Comparison of Alternatively and Traditionally Prepared Teachers,” Journal of Teacher
Education 49, no. 3 (1998): 165-176.
49 Paul Decker, Daniel Mayer and Steven Glazerman, “The Effects of Teach for America on Students: Findings from a National Evaluation,”
(Princeton, N.J.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., 2004), http://www.teachforamerica.org/documents/mathematica_results_6.9.04.pdf.
13 | P a g e