The 2008-2009 school year marked the second year of the 4-year pilot of the AISD REACH program. The following report is the second in a series of reports documenting the progress of AISD REACH toward key program goals.
The present report documents the pilot’s influence on teachers’ job satisfaction; attachment to the teaching profession, their school, and the district; data use practices; teaching efficacy; collegial experiences; and requests for transfer.
Overall 2011 retention rates for REACH teachers were not significantly higher than that of similar non-REACH peers. However, data suggest that the intensive mentoring program is making a greater impact on novice teacher retention each year.
Data collected from REACH program staff and participants indicate three factors predict high campus implementation and program impact: 1. principals support, 2. attitudes toward SLOs, 3. teacher self-efficacy. Read the report for more information.
This report describes feedback from teachers at the six EEIP schools. EEIP includes implementation of a new teacher appraisal system, student learning objectives, professional learning communities, novice teacher mentoring, and targeted peer observation.
High-quality intensive mentoring for novice teachers is one of the most critical support elements of REACH. This report illustrates activities mentors conducted in 2009-2010, novice teacher retention results, and mentoring program ratings.
This report summarizes REACH participants' attitudes toward key program elements and activities in Fall 2009 and Fall 2010. Participants' opinions were stable over time.
Results of the evaluation suggest the SLO process is related to some positive outcomes for teachers and students. However, evidence indicates a need for program refinements to address discrepancies in SLO performance by staff role and school.
In 2012-13, 87% of educators at 38 REACH schools earned a stipend for meeting at least one Student Learning Objective (SLO) designed to address students’ needs. Relationships between SLOs, instructional practices, and student outcomes are described.
Longitudinal teacher retention rates are presented for all REACH teachers versus comparison school teachers and for three cohorts of novice teachers versus comparison novice teachers.