TEACHER EXPERIENCE AND

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

May 2016

In the following report, Hanover Research examines the

relationship between teacher experience and student
achievement and presents data on teacher experience ratios in
selected high-achieving districts.
 Hanover Research | May 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary and Key Findings ............................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3
KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................3
Section I: Teacher Experience and Student Achievement.................................................. 5
IMPACT OF TEACHER EXPERIENCE ...................................................................................................5
Novice Teachers .................................................................................................................5
Experienced Teachers ........................................................................................................7
FACTORS THAT MEDIATE THE IMPACT OF EXPERIENCE .........................................................................9
In-school Variables.............................................................................................................9
External Variables ............................................................................................................12
Section II: Teacher Retention ......................................................................................... 15
TEACHER ATTRITION ..................................................................................................................15
Attrition of Novice Teachers ............................................................................................16
Impact of Teacher Attrition on Student Achievement ....................................................17
TEACHER RETENTION IN RURAL SCHOOLS .......................................................................................17
Section III: Teacher Experience Ratios ............................................................................ 20
NATIONAL TRENDS ....................................................................................................................20
STATE PROFILES ........................................................................................................................21
Delaware ..........................................................................................................................22
Maryland ..........................................................................................................................23
Massachusetts .................................................................................................................24
North Carolina .................................................................................................................25

© 2016 Hanover Research 2

 Hanover Research | May 2016

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION
Many education leaders believe that experienced teachers are more effective at improving
student achievement than novice teachers As a result, the Center for Analysis of
Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) notes that the high concentration of
novice teachers in high-needs schools “is commonly considered a major source of inequity
across schools and, therefore, a target for redistribution.” 1 At the same time, novice
teachers are a source of new energy and skills and therefore may contribute intangible
benefits to student learning.

This report employs multiple methodologies to investigate the optimal ratio of experience
and inexperienced teachers in a district. First, this report discusses current research into the
relationship between teacher experience (i.e., years of full-time classroom teaching
experience) and student achievement. Second, this report examines other elements of the
teaching experience that may impact student achievement, such as teacher education,
school context, and teacher retention. Finally, this report presents a benchmarking analysis
of teacher experience ratios in selected high-achieving districts (both urban/suburban and
rural) in four states.

KEY FINDINGS
 Multiple studies find that new teachers are less effective than experienced
teachers, but their performance improves rapidly during their first years of
teaching. For example, one study estimated that the performance improvement
that new teachers experience in their first year of teaching, as measured by their
students’ standardized test scores, is approximately half of the cumulative
improvement they would experience over their entire career. However, studies also
find that teachers experience a “plateau” of professional growth after their first
three to five years of teaching.
 Researching into performance growth among experienced teachers has produced
mixed results. The finding that professional growth “plateaus” after five years
indicates that the oldest, most experienced teachers may be no more effective than
their comparatively younger, less-experienced colleagues. However, research shows
that experienced teachers can and do grow professionally, albeit at slower rates that
novice teachers.
 Multiple factors shape the impact of teacher experience on student achievement,
including induction and mentoring programs, the socio-economic context of the
school in which teachers teach, and the consistency of their grade assignments. In

1
Rice, J. “The Impact of Teacher Experience: Examining the Evidence and Policy Implications.” (The Urban Institute,
August 2010). p. 1. http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/1001455-The-Impact-of-
Teacher-Experience.PDF

© 2016 Hanover Research 3

 Hanover Research | May 2016

addition, studies show that teachers who complete a pre-service preparation

program with a student teaching program are more effective as novice teachers.
Research into the relationship between certification or graduate education and
student achievement has produced null or inconclusive results.
 Younger, less-experienced teachers leave the profession at higher rates than their
older, more-experienced peers. Research indicates that young teachers are more
likely to quit teaching if they earn a salary under $40,000, receive poor
administrative support, are not assigned a mentor, and experience problems with
student discipline. High teacher turnover can have a negative impact on student
achievement, particularly among low-income and minority students.
 Rural school districts retain novice teachers at rates similar to urban/suburban
districts, according to recent results from the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study
(BTLS). However, rural areas offer fewer amenities compared to urban/suburban
areas and frequently have a smaller pool of qualified candidates from which to hire
new teachers. In addition, while teaching in rural schools may offer benefits to
teachers, such as smaller class sizes and greater autonomy, teachers in rural schools
often teach multiple grades and/or content areas, with fewer resources.
 There appear to be no notable difference in the percentage of experienced and
inexperienced teachers in rural versus urban/suburban districts examined for this
report. For example, in four large high-achieving Maryland districts, the percentage
of teachers with 1-5 years of experience ranged from 22 to 30 percent. In addition,
Hanover’s analysis of teacher experience levels in selected high-achieving districts in
four states revealed that high-achieving districts employ slightly fewer novice
teachers than their respective state averages. The analysis further revealed that
teacher experience ratios are more likely to be influenced by a district’s size than its
locale.

© 2016 Hanover Research 4

 Hanover Research | May 2016

SECTION I: TEACHER EXPERIENCE AND STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT
A growing body of literature reveals that individual teachers can have a significant impact
on student achievement. 2 Using cross-sectional and longitudinal datasets, several studies
have examined how a teacher’s performance, as measured by their students’ achievement
on standardized tests, changes over the course of their career. 3 This section first discusses
research that attempts to isolate and quantify the impact of teacher experience, typically
defined as years of full-time classroom teaching experience. Second, this section highlights
researcher examining how other variables – ranging from school context to graduate
education – may further shape the impact an individual teacher has on student
achievement.

IMPACT OF TEACHER EXPERIENCE

NOVICE TEACHERS
Researchers typically define novice teachers (also referred to as “beginning teachers” or
“inexperienced teachers”) as teachers in the first three to five years of their career. Novice
teachers, write Brown University researchers Papay and Kraft (2014), are in a
developmental phase of their career; they are “simply trying to survive in the classroom as
they build key classroom management skills, learn the curriculum, and add to their
instructional abilities.” 4

Overall, studies find that new teachers are less effective than experienced teachers, but
their performance improves rapidly during their first years of teaching. 5 For example, a
2008 study published in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management found that the year-
on-year productivity gains among novice teachers increased dramatically in their first five
years of teaching, particularly their first year. Using a longitudinal dataset from the New
York City Public Schools, which contained data on more than 450,000 students per year
between 1998-99 and 2004-05, the researchers estimated that the first year experience
gain amounted to approximately half of the cumulative experience gained over the course
of the teachers’ careers.6 In addition, as shown in Figure 1.1 on the following page, the

2
Boyd, D. et al. “The Narrowing Gap in New York City Teacher Qualifications and Its Implications for Student
Achievement in High-Poverty Schools.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27:4, 2008. p. 794.
https://www0.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jrockoff/narrowinggap.pdf
3
Harris, D. and T. Sass. “Teacher Training, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement.” (Center for Analysis of
Longitudinal Data in Education Research, March 2007). p. 5. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED509656.pdf
4
Papay, J. and M. Kraft. “Productivity Returns to Experience in the Teacher Labor Market: Methodological Challenges
and New Evidence on Long-Term Career Improvement.” (Brown University, December 2014). p. 5.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/mkraft/files/jpubec_-_returns_to_experience_manuscript_-_r2.pdf
5
Rice, Op. cit., p. 1.
6
Boyd et al., “The Narrowing Gap in New York City Teacher Qualifications and Its Implications for Student
Achievement in High-Poverty Schools,” Op. cit., p. 796.

© 2016 Hanover Research 5

 Hanover Research | May 2016

study found that the gains were more pronounced among teachers who taught students in
Grades 4-5 than teachers of Grade 6-8 students. 7

Figure 1.1: Impact of Teacher Experience on Student Achievement

8
Source: Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

The results of the New York City study reflect similar conclusions reported elsewhere in the
literature: that the impact of early-career experience is most consistent in the elementary
and middle school grades, particularly in mathematics. 9 For example, a 2007 study
published by the Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data (CALDER) examined an
administrative dataset containing student achievement and teacher experience data for all
public school students in Florida between 1999-200 and 2004-05. 10 The study found that the
productivity gains increased with experience among elementary and middle school
teachers. However, increased early-career experience had little impact on the performance
of high school teachers. 11 The study also noted an important caveat: that most elementary
students study in self-contained classrooms with a single teacher, while secondary-level
students typically have different teachers for each subject area. 12 This difference in teacher-
student configurations between elementary and secondary grades may explain the

7
Ibid., pp. 809–810.
8
Ibid., p. 810.
9
Rice, Op. cit., p. 2.
10
Harris and Sass, Op. cit., p. 15.
11
Ibid., p. 30.
12
Ibid., pp. 16–17.

© 2016 Hanover Research 6

 Hanover Research | May 2016

apparent concentration of teacher experience literature that focuses on elementary grades.

In addition, it may undermine comparisons of teacher impact estimates across grade spans.

A second common finding in the literature is that the marginal returns to each year of
experience fade rapidly after the first three to five years. 13 As shown in Figure 1.1, the
returns to teacher experience in New York City “plateaued” after the five-year mark.
Similarly, a 2015 study published by The New Teacher Project (TNTP) found that the
performance growth between a first-year teacher and a fifth-year teacher was more than
nine times the performance growth between a fifth-year teacher and a twentieth-year
teacher. 14 TNTP indicated that these mid- and later-career growth rates could increase,
noting that“[m]any teachers’ professional growth plateaus while they still have ample room
to improve.”

In a similar study, a 2009 RAND study calculated the impact on student achievement of each
five-year increase in teacher experience throughout the teacher’s career. The study, which
examined data on more than 300,000 students and 16,000 teachers in Los Angeles Unified
School District, found that the role of experience was small. Specifically, each five year
increase was associated with 0.5-0.8 percentage points of improvement on those exams.15
The study did not report the productivity gains of teachers within individual experience
bands, but noted that the small effect size “largely reflects poor outcomes for teachers
during their first year or two in the classroom.” 16

Some researchers have expressed concern that the demonstrated “plateau” in professional
growth may be influenced by high attrition rates among novice teachers.17 However, a 2012
study published in the journal Economics of Education confirmed that this finding remains
constant, even after controlling for the non-random attrition of teachers from a district.18
However, the study did reveal some factors of the novice teacher experience that may
contribute to teacher attrition, including whether they are assigned to higher performing
students and whether they make the effort to earn advanced degrees or certifications. 19

EXPERIENCED TEACHERS
Research into the performance growth among experienced teachers has produced mixed
results. For example, the finding that the benefits of teacher experience plateau after a
teacher’s first few years in the classroom indicates that performance growth among older,

13
Boyd et al., “The Narrowing Gap in New York City Teacher Qualifications and Its Implications for Student
Achievement in High-Poverty Schools,” Op. cit., p. 810.
14
The Mirage: Confronting the Hard Truth About Our Quest for Teacher Development. (The New Teacher Project,
2015). p. 2. http://tntp.org/assets/documents/TNTP-Mirage_2015.pdf
15
Buddin, R. and G. Zamarro. “Teacher Qualifications and Student Achievement in Urban Elementary Schools.” (RAND
Corporation, May 2009). p. 21. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints/2010/RAND_RP1410.pdf
16
Ibid., p. 1.
17
Papay and Kraft, Op. cit., p. 2.
18
Winters, M. Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: Credentials Unrelated to Student Achievement. (Manhattan Institute,
2011). p. 19. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/ib_10.pdf
19
Ibid., p. 31.

© 2016 Hanover Research 7

 Hanover Research | May 2016

more experienced teachers is limited. For example, a 2008 CALDER study found that
teachers with 20 years of experience, while more effective than teachers with no
experience, are no more effective than teachers who have been teaching for only five
years. 20 Some research even suggests that the most experienced teachers – those with
more than 25 years of experience – may be less effective than their less-experienced
peers. 21

On the other hand, recent studies have begun to challenge what one pair of researchers
called “the standard policy conclusion that teachers do not improve after their first three to
five years of their career.” 22 In a 2014 study, researchers at Brown University examined data
from nearly 9,000 teachers and over 100,000 students from a large, urban school district
and found that, like the results of prior studies, the teachers improved rapidly during their
first five years. Similar to prior studies, the impact of experience was greater in mathematics
than in reading. 23 However, the researchers applied alternative statistical techniques to
correct what they identified as negative biases in prior models against more experienced
teachers. As a result, one of their adjusted models found that teachers do continue to
experience productivity gains between years five and 15, but that returns over this period
amount to between 45 and 60 percent of the total gains during their first five years. 24

Despite the inconclusive results from the research, researchers at RAND argue that positive
secondary effects may result from retaining experienced teachers:
High levels of teacher experience may have important benefits for schools, even if
teacher experience is weakly related to student achievement. Longer teacher
retention saves money in recruiting and training teachers. These savings may
indirectly affect resources that are ultimately available for classroom instruction and
improved student achievement. 25

In addition, Duke University researcher Helen Ladd, who conducted the 2008 CALDER study
of teacher experience in North Carolina schools, argues that experienced teachers help
strengthen the overall educational culture of the schools in which they teach:
Our research in progress suggests that, as North Carolina middle school teachers
gain experience, they become increasingly adept at doing other important things –
like reducing student absences and encouraging students to read for recreational
purposes outside of the classroom. More experienced teachers often mentor young
teachers and help to create and maintain a strong school community. 26

20
Rice, Op. cit., p. 2.
21
Harris and Sass, Op. cit., p. 20.
22
Papay and Kraft, Op. cit., p. 34.
23
Ibid., pp. 6, 21–22.
24
Ibid., pp. 27–28.
25
Buddin and Zamarro, Op. cit., pp. 27–28.
26
Ladd, H. “Why Experienced Teachers Are Important - And What Can Be Done to Develop Them | Scholars Strategy
Network.” Scholars Strategy Network, November 2013. http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/why-
experienced-teachers-are-important-and-what-can-be-done-develop-them

© 2016 Hanover Research 8

 Hanover Research | May 2016

FACTORS THAT MEDIATE THE IMPACT OF EXPERIENCE

While many of the studies discussed here measure teacher experience only, researchers
noted that a variety of factors may contribute to teacher productivity growth during their
early career, including supportive work environments and effective colleagues. 27 Some
variables, such as mentoring and school poverty, are factors that can enhance or undermine
a teacher’s professional growth. In addition, many researchers use teacher education –
either pre-service or additional graduate education completed during a teacher’s career – as
proxy measures of the knowledge and skills that novice teachers possess when they begin
teaching, and the additional knowledge and skills they may earn at later points in their
career. 28

IN-SCHOOL VARIABLES
INDUCTION AND MENTORING
Multiple studies find that teachers who participate in induction and/or mentoring
programs during their first years of teaching have a greater impact on student
achievement. 29 A 2011 review of literature on the impact of teacher induction programs
published in the Review of Education Research found that such programs have a positive, if
varied, impact on teacher instructional practice and student achievement. 30 In the review,
researchers Ingersoll and Strong highlighted a 2004 study of induction programs for novice
teachers in California. 31 Mentoring was the central feature of the induction programs
studied; other induction supports were optional. Using teacher interviews and surveys, the
study found that teachers who participated in more elements of the induction program
performed better on nine measures of classroom practice, including asking students
questions, providing feedback, and checking for understanding. 32 A weakness of the study,
however, is the small sample size of teachers included, which was likely not representative
of the total teacher population. 33

In addition, the Ingersoll and Strong review included four studies of induction programs in
California and New York City that examined the impact of program participation on student
achievement. 34 The review cited a 2008 study by Fletcher et al. that compared the student
test scores of novice teachers in a high-intensity mentoring program to more experienced

27
Papay and Kraft, Op. cit., p. 5.
28
Darling-Hammond, L. et al. “Does Teacher Preparation Matter? Evidence about Teacher Certification, Teach for
America, and Teacher Effectiveness.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13:42, October 12, 2005. p. 20.
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/147/273
29
“Research Abstracts.” (New Teacher Center, January 2006).
http://www.ode.state.or.us/opportunities/grants/saelp/researchabstract06.pdf
30
Ingersoll, R. and M. Strong. “The Impact of Induction and Mentoring Programs for Beginning Teachers: A Critical
Review of the Research.” Review of Educational Research, 81:2, June 2011. p. 1.
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=gse_pubs
31
Thompson, M. et al. “Beginning Teachers’ Engagement with BTSA/CFASST.” (Educational Testing Service, August
2004). https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-04-30.pdf
32
Ibid., p. 29.
33
Ingersoll and Strong, Op. cit., p. 24.
34
Ibid., p. 25.

© 2016 Hanover Research 9

 Hanover Research | May 2016

teachers. 35 The study found that while the novice teachers were often assigned to
classrooms with lower-achieving students, their students demonstrated, on average,
achievement gains equal to or greater than those of the more experienced teachers. The
review noted that the mentorship programs varied from school to school (ranging from a
teacher mentor with release time and a 1:15 caseload to a “buddy” system with no release
time for the mentor teacher). Similarly, it was not possible to discern whether or not the
more experienced teachers had participated in any type of mentoring program. 36

Perhaps the largest and most rigorous study of teacher induction and mentoring programs
is a 2010 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education by Mathematica Policy
Research. 37 The study examined data for 1,009 teachers in 17 large, urban, and low-income
districts. Using a randomized control trial design, the study randomly assigned some
teachers to a treatment group that received a “comprehensive,” one to two year induction
program that included mentoring and was delivered by the Educational Testing Service (ETS)
or the New Teacher Center (NTC). 38 The remaining teachers were assigned to a control
group that did not participate in the program. The study found that teachers in the two
groups showed no difference in classroom practices at the midpoint of their first year
(teachers were not evaluated after the first year). However, the study found that by the
third year, students of teachers in the treatment group performed better on standardized
tests, equivalent to moving from the 50th to 54th percentile in reading, and to the 58th
percentile in math. 39 Ingersoll and Strong note, however, that the results of this study apply
to the two programs offered by ETS and NTC only, and that the study did not account for
any other types of support services that teachers in either the control or treatment groups
may have received during the study period. 40

STUDENT POVERTY
In addition, certain features of the school context, particularly the socio-economic status
of students, can shape a teacher’s professional growth. Researchers and policy advocates
have long noted that novice teachers and less-effective teachers are often concentrated in
high-poverty schools.41 A 2010 study of schools in North Carolina and Florida confirmed this
observation, noting that the disparity was driven primarily by the “relatively poor

35
Fletcher, S., M. Strong, and A. Villar. “An Investigation of the Effects of Variations in Mentor-Based Induction on the
Performance of Students in California.” Teachers College Record, 110:10, October 2008. As described in: Ingersoll
and Strong, Op. cit., p. 27.
36
Ingersoll and Strong, Op. cit., p. 27.
37
[1] Glazerman, S. et al. “Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction Final Results from a Randomized Controlled
Study.” (U.S. Department of Education, June 2010). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104027/pdf/20104028.pdf
[2] Ingersoll and Strong, Op. cit., p. 29.
38
Glazerman, Op. cit., p. ix.
39
[1] Ibid., p. vii.
[2] Ingersoll and Strong, Op. cit., pp. 30–31.
40
Ingersoll and Strong, Op. cit., pp. 31–32.
41
Rice, Op. cit., p. 3.

© 2016 Hanover Research 10

 Hanover Research | May 2016

performance of the least effective teachers in high poverty schools.” 42 The study, published
by CALDER, found that among highly-effective teachers, those who taught in high-poverty
schools were as effective as their peers in low-poverty schools. However, as Figure 1.2
illustrates below, the study also found that teachers in high-poverty schools also
experienced lower productivity gains compared to their peers in low-poverty schools.43
According to the study, the results indicate that “the effect of experience on teacher
productivity depends on the setting in which the experience is acquired.” 44

Figure 1.2: Impact of Teacher Experience and Poverty in North Carolina

45
Source: CALDER

GRADE ASSIGNMENTS
Additionally, research indicates that teachers improve more rapidly when they continue to
teach the same grade. In a 2009 study, Cornell University professor Ben Ost examined
whether there is a difference between the impact of general experience in the classroom
and experience teaching a specific grade or subject. Ost’s study used longitudinal data from
North Carolina, and specifically examined student standardized test scores in Grades 3
through 8 between years 1995 and 2007. The analysis revealed that students of teachers
who teach the same grade for the first five years of their career show 39 percent greater
improvement in student math scores when compared to students who teach different

42
Sass, T. et al. “Value Added of Teachers in High-Poverty Schools and Lower-Poverty Schools.” (Center for Analysis of
Longitudinal Data in Education Research, November 2010). p. 22.
http://www.caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/1001469-calder-working-paper-52.pdf
43
Ibid., p. iii.
44
Ibid., p. 22.
45
Image copied from: Rice, Op. cit., p. 5., describing the results of Sass et al., Op. cit.

© 2016 Hanover Research 11

 Hanover Research | May 2016

grades every year. 46 Similarly, a 2008 study published in the journal Educational
Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability used a smaller sample size and produced
comparable results. 47

EXTERNAL VARIABLES
PRE-SERVICE PREPARATION
Research demonstrates that novice teachers have a greater impact on student
achievement if they attend a teacher preparation program with a student teaching
component. In particular, a 2008 NBER working paper, later published in the journal
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, found that first-year teachers who had the
opportunity to participate in a well-supervised student teaching program had a greater
impact on their students’ math and ELA standardized test scores than teachers who did not
have prior student teaching experience.48

Some researchers have used novice teachers’ performance on state licensure/certification

tests as a measure of the knowledge and skills the teachers possess at the start of their
career. For example, the 2007 CALDER study examined the relationship between the scores
novice teachers received on elementary education and content tests and their students’
performance on elementary math tests. The analysis revealed that teachers who scored
higher on these tests were associated with improved student achievement. Specifically,
teacher scores that were two or more standard deviations above average were associated
with student gains of 0.068 standard deviations more than an average-scoring teacher.49
However, the 2009 RAND study of student and teacher data from Los Angeles Unified
School District found that teacher licensure test scores had no impact on student test
scores. 50

CERTIFICATION
Research conclusions regarding the impact of teacher certification status on student
achievement have been inconsistent. 51 Certification/licensing exams for new teachers are
often viewed as a “minimum screen” for entry into the teaching profession. 52 For example,

46
Ost, B. “How Do Teachers Improve? The Relative Importance of Specific and General Human Capital.” (Cornell
University, November 2009). p. 14.
http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1134&context=workingpapers
47
Huang, F. and T. Moon. “Is Experience the Best Teacher? A Multilevel Analysis of Teacher Characteristics and
Student Achievement in Low Performing Schools.” Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 21:3,
2009. p. 209. http://christyhiett.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/Is+experience+the+best+teacher.pdf
48
Boyd, D. et al. “Teacher Preparation and Student Achievement.” (National Bureau of Economic Research,
September 2008). p. 26. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14314.pdf
49
Clotfelter, C., H. Ladd, and J. Vigdor. “How and Why Do Teacher Credentials Matter for Student Achievement?”
(Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, March 2007). pp. 35–36.
http://www.caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/1001058_Teacher_Credentials.pdf
50
Buddin and Zamarro, Op. cit., p. 22.
51
Huang and Moon, Op. cit., p. 212.
52
Sawchuk, S. “Analysis Raises Questions About Rigor of Teacher Tests - Education Week.” Education Week, February
1, 2012. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/02/01/19hea.h31.html

© 2016 Hanover Research 12

 Hanover Research | May 2016

2005 study published in the journal Education Policy and Analysis Archives found that
certified teachers “consistently produce stronger student achievement gains than do
uncertified teachers,” including uncertified teachers recruited through the Teach for
America Program. 53 Using longitudinal data from 212,000 Grade 4 and Grade 5 students and
their teachers in Houston Independent School District, including their performance on six
reading and math assessments, the study reported that uncertified teachers slowed student
progress by half of one month to one full month per year. 54

However, a 2006 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
estimated the impact of more than 10,000 novice teachers in New York City, including
uncertified teachers hired through the New York Teaching Fellows and Teach for America
programs. 55 The study found that the teachers’ certification status had little impact on their
students’ Grade 4 and Grade 8 reading and mathematics test scores, and was therefore not
a reliable indicator of the teachers’ future effectiveness. 56 A smaller study involving
students and teachers in a single Tennessee school district also found that a teacher’s
certification status had no significant relationship with their students’ performance on
standardized tests, with the exception of teachers who taught secondary-level math. 57

Similarly, a 2007 CALDER study found that teachers with National Board Certification are no
more effective than teachers without the credential. Specifically, the study noted, National
Board certification “appears to identify effective teachers but does not make them more
effective.” 58

GRADUATE EDUCATION
Data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) show that nearly two-
thirds of teachers in the United States receive a graduate degree at some point in their
career. (The data do not discern when the teacher earned the degree, or whether the
degree is in a field related to the subject they teach). As shown in Figure 1.3 on the
following page, teachers in South Carolina earn graduate degrees at a rate slightly higher
than the national average.

53
Darling-Hammond et al., Op. cit., p. 2.
54
Ibid., pp. 5, 18.
55
Ibid., p. 2.
56
[1] Kane, T., J. Rockoff, and D. Staiger. “What Does Certification Tell Us About Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from
New York City.” (National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2006). p. 1.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w12155.pdf
[2] See also the similar results of: Huang and Moon, Op. cit., p. 224.
57
Piro, J., T. Shutt, and G. Stewart. “Value Added Student Achievement in Alternative and Traditional Teacher
Preparation Pathways.” Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 6:2, Fall 2010. pp. 5–6.
58
Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor, Op. cit., p. 38.

© 2016 Hanover Research 13

 Hanover Research | May 2016

Figure 1.3: Teacher Education Levels in the United States and South Carolina (2011-12)

United States South Carolina

80%
57.9%
60%
47.7%
39.9%
40% 28.8%

20%
8.7% 10.3%
3.8% 3.0%
0%
Less than bachelor's Bachelor's Master's Higher than Master's
59
Source: NCES

However, research indicates that a teacher’s possession of a graduate degree does not
impact student achievement. For example, the 2007 CALDER study found that overall,
possession of a graduate degree had a small or negative impact on teacher performance.
Possession of a master’s degree had a greater impact if the teacher earned the degree five
or more years after they began teaching. 60 Similarly, a 2014 study published in the AASA
Journal of Scholarship and Practice produced comparable results. The study examined the
TAKS standardized reading assessment scores of students in 1,026 Texas school districts,
and found that graduate education had a “limited positive impact” on students’ reading
achievement. However, the study did not distinguish between different types of graduate
degrees, the setting of the graduate training, or the experience level at which the teacher
earned the degree.61 The study’s authors emphasized that further research is necessary,
noting:
It is possible that teachers with graduate degrees are differentially assigned
responsibilities that include working with students who already perform at higher
academic levels. Teachers new to the profession are often assigned responsibilities
that include teaching in some of the most challenging situations. 62

59
Ibid.
60
Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor, Op. cit., pp. 32–37.
61
Badgett, K. “The Influence of Teacher Graduate Degrees on Student Reading Achievement.” AASA Journal of
Scholarship and Practice, 11:1, Spring 2014. Accessed via Ebsco.
62
Ibid.

© 2016 Hanover Research 14

 Hanover Research | May 2016

SECTION II: TEACHER RETENTION

Education leaders identify teacher retention – of both novice and experienced teachers – as
a key challenge facing school districts. 63 As one report from the National Education
Association explains, “[h]igh teacher turnover requires schools to spend costly time on
recruiting, mentoring, socializing, and training newcomers – only to see the trained teachers
move on.” 64 This section presents a brief overview of research examining teacher retention
at different experience levels and presents special considerations for rural school districts.

TEACHER ATTRITION
Younger, less-experienced teachers are more likely to leave the profession than older
teachers. Using data from the more than 200,000 teachers surveyed by the nationally
representative Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), researcher Richard Ingersoll estimated
that the between 40 and 50 percent of new teachers leave their position within the first five
years on the job. 65 Ingersoll’s 2003 study of teacher retention rates found that the most
common reasons given by teachers (of all experience levels) who left the profession were: 66
 Poor Salary (61 percent)
 Poor Administrative Support (32 percent)
 Student Discipline Problems (24 percent)
 Poor Student Motivation (18 percent)
 Lack of Faculty Influence and Autonomy (15 percent)

More recent data from the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (BLTS) indicate that the
novice teacher attrition rate may in fact be lower than Ingersoll’s estimate of 40 to 50
percent. The BLTS followed a nationally representative cohort of approximately 156,000
beginning public school teachers starting in 2007-08. 67 The study found that during the first
four years of teaching, 15.5 percent of teachers under age 30 left the profession, whereas
21.9 percent of new teachers over age 30 quit teaching. By comparison, the average
attrition rate for all beginning teachers was 17.3 percent. In addition, data from the BLTS
show that teachers are more likely to leave the profession within four years if they are male,
earn less than $40,000 per year, hold a master’s degree, and were not assigned a mentor.

63
“Research Spotlight on Recruiting & Retaining Highly Qualified Teachers.” National Education Association,
http://www.nea.org/tools/17054.htm
64
Ladd, Op. cit.
65
[1] Ingersoll, R. “Beginning Teacher Induction: What the Data Tell Us.” Phi Delta Kappan, May 16, 2012.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/05/16/kappan_ingersoll.h31.html
[2] Ingersoll, R. “Is There Really a Teacher Shortage?” (Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy/University of
Washington, September 2003). pp. 6, 14. https://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Shortage-RI-09-2003.pdf
66
Bulleted text adapted from: Ingersoll, “Is There Really a Teacher Shortage?,” Op. cit., p. 16.
67
Gray, L., S. Taie, and I. O’Rear. “Public School Teacher Attrition and Mobility in the First Five Years.” (Institute of
Education Sciences, April 2015). p. B–2, 6. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015337.pdf

© 2016 Hanover Research 15

 Hanover Research | May 2016

Notably, there is no difference in attrition rates between urban/suburban and rural/town

teachers. 68 Figure 2.1, below, presents additional results from the BLTS survey.

Figure 2.1: Teacher Attrition After Four Years by Characteristic

30 y.o. or older 21.9%

Age

Less than 30 y.o. 15.5%

Female 15.7%
Gen.

Male 21.9%
All other races/ethnicities 19.3%
Base Race/
Locale Level Mentor Cert. Highest Degree Salary Eth.

White, non-Hispanic 16.7%

$40,000 or more 11.3%
Less than $40,000 19.6%
Higher than a master's degree 42.8%
Master's degree 14.2%
Bachelor's degree 17.2%
Less than a bachelor's degree 38.5%
Regular 16.9%
Alternative 20.8%
Yes 14.5%
No 28.6%
Elementary 13.6%
Grade

Secondary 27.2%
Town/rural 17.5%
City/suburban 17.2%
All beginning teachers 17.3%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

69
Source: Institute of Education Sciences

ATTRITION OF NOVICE TEACHERS

Research indicates that the quality of support that teachers receive in their first few years
of teaching may shape their decision to stay in the profession. Specifically, research into
the impact of induction programs has found that participation in such programs increases
participant teachers’ satisfaction, commitment to teaching, and retention. 70 However, the
2011 Mathematica study on teacher induction programs found that participation in the
programs had no statistical impact on teacher retention during the first four years. 71

68
Ibid., pp. 7-9.
69
Figure content adapted from: Ibid., pp. 7–9.
70
Ingersoll and Strong, Op. cit., p. 12.
71
Glazerman, Op. cit., p. viii.

© 2016 Hanover Research 16

 Hanover Research | May 2016

In addition, a 2015 Mathematica report on Teach for America (TFA) found that most of the
highly-educated young teachers recruited through the program do not intend to remain in
the profession. The report included results of a limited survey of 135 teachers who were
completing their first year of teaching in 2012-13. The survey revealed that 87.5 percent of
the TFA teachers planned to leave the profession, most within two years, compared to 26.3
percent on non-TFA teachers. 72 Figure 2.2, below, displays further results of the
Mathematica report’s survey.

Figure 2.2: Teacher Attrition Among TFA and non-TFA Teachers

TFA TEACHERS COMPARISON TEACHERS
N=59 N=76
Do not plan to spend the rest of career as a classroom
87.5% 26.3%
teacher
For those who plan to leave the teaching profession:
Number of years plan to teach after the 2012-13 school
1.5 2.5
year (average)
0 years 25.0% 6.7%
1 to 2 years 50.0% 46.7%
3 to 5 years 14.3% 26.7%
6 or more years 0.0% 6.7%
Unsure 10.7% 13.3%
73
Source: Mathematica Policy Research

IMPACT OF TEACHER ATTRITION ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Research indicates that high teacher turnover can have a negative impact on student
achievement. 74 For example, a 2013 study involving 850,000 students in New York City
public schools found that students in grades with high levels of teacher turnover showed
poorer performance in English Language Arts and math when compared to students in
grades with lower turnover. In particular, student math scores fell by 8.2 to 10.2 percent of
a standard deviation in years when a grade experienced 100 percent turnover compared to
years with no turnover. The study, published in the American Educational Research Journal,
found the effect was particularly pronounced in schools with high concentrations of low-
income and minority students. The effect sizes were slightly larger in math than in English
Language Arts. 75

TEACHER RETENTION IN RURAL SCHOOLS

Most of the available empirical research on the impact of teacher experience and education
on student achievement was conducted in large, urban school districts. This is likely due to

72
Clark, M. et al. “Impacts of the Teach for America Investing in Innovation Scale-Up.” (Mathematica Policy Research,
March 4, 2015). p. 44. http://mathematica-
mpr.com/~/media/publications/pdfs/education/tfa_investing_innovation.pdf
73
Ibid.
74
Ronfeldt, R., S. Loeb, and J. Wycoff. “How Teacher Turnover Harms Student Achievement.” American Educational
Research Journal, 50:1, February 2013. p. 5. http://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/4.full_.pdf
75
Ibid., p. 18.

© 2016 Hanover Research 17

 Hanover Research | May 2016

the comprehensive and large scale of the datasets that these districts can provide to
researchers. Those studies that use statewide datasets, such as the CALDER study of North
Carolina data discussed above, do not make any distinction between the different locales in
which schools and districts may be situated.

However, rural school districts have distinct characteristics that may impact their ability to
recruit and retain teachers, particularly teachers from outside their region. In a 2012 report
on rural teacher recruitment, researcher Luke Miller of University of Virginia’s Center on
Education Policy and Workforce Competitiveness noted that many rural school
administrators cited the comparatively poor amenities in rural communities as a reason why
they struggle to attract qualified teacher candidates. In particular, teachers may not be
attracted to rural communities with weak local economies that lack access to housing,
medical care, and shopping. 76 Similarly, a 2005 study published in the Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management found that prospective teachers tend to limit their job search to
small areas close to their hometowns. 77 Because a lower percentage of the population
attends college in rural areas than in urban or suburban areas, this trend may contribute to
the shortage of qualified teacher applicants in rural areas. 78

In addition, factors specific to the rural teaching environment may mediate the impact
teachers have on their students, regardless of experience. For example, a review of
effective rural teacher preparation programs by REL-Midwest outlined several ways in which
teaching in rural schools may differ from more urban and suburban settings, including: 79
 Teaching with limited resources;
 Teaching two or more content areas; and
 Teaching two or more grade levels in the same room.

Additional factors, such as social and collegial isolation, low salaries, and greater
responsibility to support students’ socio-emotional development may make rural teaching
more challenging and make it harder to attract teachers to teach in rural schools. 80

At the same time, a study of rural teaching using data from four administrations of the NCES
Schools and Staffing Survey from 1999-2011 finds that teachers in rural schools report more
personal influence in their schools and autonomy in their classrooms than teachers in urban

76
Miller, L.C. Understanding rural teacher recruitment and the role of community amenities. (Center on Education
Policy and Workforce Competitiveness, University of Virginia, 2012). pp. 1–2.
http://curry.virginia.edu/uploads/resourceLibrary/2_Miller_CEPWC_Rural_Recruitment.pdf
77
Boyd, D. et al. “The Draw of Home: How Teachers’ Preferences for Proximity Disadvantage Urban Schools.” Journal
of Policy Analysis and Management, 24:1, 2005. pp. 113–114.
https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/DrawHome.pdf
78
Player, D. “The Supply and Demand for Rural Teachers.” Rural Opportunities Consortium of Idaho, March 2015. p. 5.
http://www.rociidaho.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ROCI_2015_RuralTeachers_FINAL.pdf
79
Bulleted text adapted from: Barley, Z. and N. Brigham. “Preparing Teachers to Teach in Rural Schools.” (REL-
Midwest, July 2008). p. 14. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502145.pdf
80
Ibid., p. iii.

© 2016 Hanover Research 18

 Hanover Research | May 2016

or suburban schools. 81 In addition, some research suggests that rural classrooms tend to
have lower student to teacher ratios and fewer disciplinary problems than urban or
suburban schools. 82

Compared to urban and suburban schools, rural schools experience distinctive types of
poverty and mobility. For example, a 2007 article on rural schools in the journal The Future
of Children reported that schools in rural areas with heavily agricultural economies may
serve large numbers of children from migrant farm families. These students may change
schools often, have higher absence rates, and experience malnutrition and substandard
housing. In addition, rural schools may struggle to integrate migrant students into their
academic program and school culture. Schools in areas with industries that rely heavily on
immigrant labor may experience increased enrollment of low-income English Language
Learners (ELLs), which may be particularly challenging for teachers with no prior experience
teaching ELLs. 83

81
Player, Op. cit., p. 21.
82
Monk, D. “Recruiting and Retaining High-Quality Teachers in Rural Areas.” The Future of Children, 17:1, Spring 2007.
p. 160. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ795884.pdf
83
Ibid., p. 166.

© 2016 Hanover Research 19

 Hanover Research | May 2016

SECTION III: TEACHER EXPERIENCE RATIOS

This section presents data on teacher experience levels in the U.S. and across selected
school districts. In particular, the state- and district-level benchmarking analysis provides
insight into how teacher experience ratios – as measured by years of teaching experience or
age – may compare across urban/suburban and rural districts, and among districts of
average and above-average achievement.

NATIONAL TRENDS
Most U.S. public school teachers have between three and 20 years of full-time teaching
experience. Data from the U.S. Department of Education, shown below in Figure 3.1, reveal
that approximately 9 percent of school teachers are novice teachers with fewer than three
years of full-time experience. 84 The data show that, compared to the U.S. average and
neighboring states, South Carolina has a similar percentage of novice teachers, but a higher
percentage of very experienced teachers with more than 20 years of classroom experience.
Furthermore, the data demonstrate that teacher experience ratios in public schools are
similar across genders and grade levels. By comparison, private schools are twice as likely to
employ teachers with fewer than three years of full-time teaching experience.85

Figure 3.1: Teacher Experience in U.S. Schools (2011-12)

All U.S. Schools South Carolina Georgia North Carolina Tennessee All Private Schools

50%

40%
40% 36% 36%
33% 34% 34% 35%34%
31% 32%
31%
28% 29%
30%
21% 21%21%
20% 20%21%
20%

9% 8% 11%
8%
10% 6%

0%
Less than 3 Years 3 to 9 Years 10 to 20 Years Over 20 Years
86
Source: NCES

84
“Highest Degree Earned, Years of Full-Time Teaching Experience, and Average Class Size for Teachers in Public
Elementary and Secondary Schools, by State: 2011-12,” Op. cit.
85
[1] Ibid.
[2] “Number, highest degree, and years of full-time teaching experience of teachers in public and private
elementary and secondary schools, by selected teacher characteristics.” National Center for Education Statistics.
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_209.20.asp
86
Ibid.

© 2016 Hanover Research 20

 Hanover Research | May 2016

STATE PROFILES
State- and district-level datasets provide insight into how teacher experience ratios may
vary between average and high-achieving districts, and between districts located in
different locales (i.e., urban, suburban, and rural). Four states – Delaware, Maryland,
Massachusetts, and North Carolina – publish current data on teacher experience levels at
the district level. Hanover examined student standardized assessment scores and selected
high-achieving school districts (i.e. districts that score above the state average) that are
situated in both urban/suburban and rural locales. The following benchmarking analysis of
these districts compares the teacher experience ratios in these districts to state averages.
Figure 3.2 through Figure 3.9 present descriptive data about the selected districts, and
comparative charts that display teacher experience ratios for each district.

There is no notable variation in teacher experience levels between rural and

urban/suburban districts in the comparison group. While the data for districts in some
states, particularly Delaware and Massachusetts, reveals wide disparities in teacher
experience levels within the state, these difference may be attributed, in part, to the small
size of the districts examined (Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.7). In Maryland and North Carolina,
which have comparatively larger enrollments and FTE teaching staff, the variation amounts
to no more than a few percentage points (Figure 3.5 and Figure 3.9).

High-achieving districts employ slightly fewer novice teachers than their respective state
averages. This trend is particularly evident in Maryland, where the district percentages of
teachers with one to five years of experience are between 5 and 8 percentage points below
the state average (Figure 3.5). This trend may reflect the ability of high-achieving districts to
attract and retain mid-career and late-career teachers to work in their district. However, it is
also important to note that in all but one of the states profiled (excluding Massachusetts),
the overall percentage of teachers in the most novice experience group is much higher than
the national average of 9 percent of teachers with fewer than three years of teaching
experience (Figure 3.1).

© 2016 Hanover Research 21

 Hanover Research | May 2016

DELAWARE
Figure 3.2: Delaware Comparison Districts
% PROFICIENT (SBAC 2015)
FTE
DISTRICT LOCALE ENROLLMENT Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 8
TEACHERS
Math ELA Math ELA
Caesar Rodney
Suburban 7,606 500 62.8% 69.9% 44.7% 63.2%
School District
Brandywine
Suburban 10,799 744 50.9% 54.0% 35.0% 52.0%
School District
Cape Henlopen
Urban 5,034 379 63.3% 65.1% 57.1% 66.0%
School District
Delmar School
Rural 1,329 76 -- -- 45.2% 56.8%
District
State Average -- 131,514 8,947 38.0% 46.1% 35.4% 47.2%
87
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Delaware Department of Education

Figure 3.3: Delaware – Teacher Experience Levels in High-Achieving Districts

Caesar Rodney (suburban) Brandywine (suburban) Cape Henlopen (rural)

Delmar (rural) State Average
35%
29%
30%
24% 25% 24%
25% 22% 22%
21% 21% 20%
19% 19% 20%
20% 18%
17%16%
16%16%
15%
14% 14% 13%14%
12% 12%
9% 9%
10% 6% 8%
6% 6%
5% 6%5%5%
5% 3% 3%

0%
4 years or Less 5-9 Years 10-14 Years 15-19 Years 20-24 Years 25-29 Years 30 Years or
More
88
Source: Delaware Department of Education

87
[1] District enrollment and teacher data from the 2013-14 school year. “School District Search.” National Center for
Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/
[2] “DSARA-Public.” Delaware Department of Education.
https://pubapps.doe.k12.de.us/DSARA_Public/GeneralSummary.aspx?m=o
[3] State enrollment and teacher data from 2014. “State of Delaware.” Delaware Department of Education.
http://profiles.doe.k12.de.us/SchoolProfiles/State/
88
Experience level data from the 2013-14 school year. “Number of Full-Time Teachers by Years of Experience 2013-
14.” Delaware Department of Education. http://dedoe.schoolwires.net/Page/1490

© 2016 Hanover Research 22

 Hanover Research | May 2016

MARYLAND
Figure 3.4: Maryland Comparison Districts
% PROFICIENT (PARCC 2015)
FTE
DISTRICT LOCALE ENROLLMENT Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade Grade 8
TEACHERS
Math ELA 8 Math ELA
Montgomery County
Suburban 151,295 10,541 38.4% 46.9% 36.4% 51.0%
Public Schools
Howard County Public
Suburban 52,806 4,148 49.8% 56.1% 47.9% 53.4%
Schools
St. Mary's County
Rural 17,841 1,061 37.4% 39.6% 34.8% 42.9%
Public Schools
Queen Anne's County
Rural 7,716 518 39.3% 41.7% 23.5% 49.5%
Public Schools
State Average -- 843,724 60,053 30.6% 40.1% 23.2% 40.4%
89
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Maryland Department of Education

Figure 3.5: Maryland – Teacher Experience in High-Achieving Districts

Montgomery Co. (suburban) Howard Co. (suburban) St. Mary's Co. (rural)
Queen Anne's Co. (suburban) State Average

35%
30%
30%
24%25% 25% 24%
25% 22% 23%23% 22%
20% 20%20%20%
20% 18%18%
16% 15%
15% 15%
15% 13%
9% 9% 9%
10% 7% 8%
6%7%6% 6% 6% 5%
5% 5% 4% 4%
5%
0%
1-5 yrs 6-10 yrs 11-15 yrs 16-20 yrs 21-25 yrs 26-30 yrs 30+ yrs
90
Source: Maryland Department of Education

89
[1] District enrollment data from the 2013-14 school year. “School District Search,” Op. cit.
[2] Proficiency on the PARCC exam refers to the percent of students who met expectations (Level 4) or exceeded
expectations (Level 5). Note that in some districts, the percentage for students at Level 5 was listed as “less than 5
percent;” in those cases, this figure reflects a percentage of five percent. “2015 Maryland Report Card.” Maryland
Department of Education. http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/rcounty.aspx?WDATA=Local+School+System
[3] Data for FTE Teachers from October 2015. “Professional Staff by Type of Degree and Years of Experience.”
Maryland Department of Education, 2015. p. 20.
http://marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/divisions/planningresultstest/doc/20152016Staff/2016_Prof_Staff_by_D
egree.pdf
[4] State total enrollment from 2014. “Summary of Historical and Projected Total Public School Enrollment for
Maryland’s Jurisdictions.” Maryland Department of Education.
http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/School_Enrollment/Table2.pdf

© 2016 Hanover Research 23

 Hanover Research | May 2016

MASSACHUSETTS
Figure 3.6: Massachusetts Comparison Districts
% PROFICIENT (PARCC 2015)
FTE
DISTRICT LOCALE ENROLLMENT Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade 8
TEACHERS
Math ELA Math ELA
Newton
Suburban 12,601 2,141.0 72% 77% 80% 85%
School District
Shrewsbury
Suburban 6,011 782.8 79% 86% 69% 79%
School District
Richmond
Rural 150 29.0 92% 100% 90% 90%
School District
Douglas
Rural 1,596 185.4 54% 69% 42% 50%
School District
State Average -- 955,739 128,751.3 55% 57% 53% 64%
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
91
Education

Figure 3.7: Massachusetts – Teacher Experience (by Age) in High-Achieving Districts

Newton (suburban) Shrewsbury (suburban) Richmond (rural) Douglas (rural) State Average
39%
40%

30% 25%
26%
23% 24%
21% 22% 22% 21%
21% 20%
19% 18% 18% 19%
20%
16% 16%
13% 14% 14%
11% 11%
11% 11% 9%10%
10% 8%
5% 6%
3%
2% 1% 1%3%
0%
0%
<26 yrs 26-32 yrs 33-40 yrs 41-48 yrs 49-56 yrs 57-64 yrs Over 64 yrs
92
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

90
Data for FTE teachers from October 2015. “Professional Staff by Type of Degree and Years of Experience,” Op. cit.,
p. 20.
91
[1] District enrollment data from the 2013-14 school year. “School District Search,” Op. cit.
[2] Proficiency on the PARCC exam refers to the percent of students who met expectations (Level 4) or exceeded
expectations (Level 5). “2015 Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) Results.”
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/parcc/results.html
[3] 2013-14 state enrollment data from: “2013-14 Enrollment By Grade Report (District).” Massachusetts
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/enrollmentbygrade.aspx?mode=district&year=2014&Continue.x=1&C
ontinue.y=0

© 2016 Hanover Research 24

 Hanover Research | May 2016

NORTH CAROLINA
Figure 3.8: North Carolina Comparison Districts
% PROFICIENT (EOG EXAMS 2013)
FTE
DISTRICT LOCALE ENROLLMENT Grade 4 Grade 4 Grade 8 Grade
TEACHERS
Math ELA Math 8 ELA
New Hanover County
Urban 25,398 1,716.70 55.9% 52.5% 44.2% 46.2%
Public Schools
Chapel-Hill-Carrboro
Suburban 12,166 937.3 69.7% 67.1% 60.4% 67.1%
City Schools
Wake County Public
Suburban 153,534 9,868 59.2% 53.9% 42.0% 50.2%
Schools
Alexander County
Rural 5,290 340 53.6% 49.4% 26.9% 32.8%
Public Schools
Union County Public
Rural 41,074 2,560 64.8% 56.7% 55.5% 56.9%
Schools
Stokes County Public
Rural 6,486 471.3 47.0% 41.4% 32.3% 45.1%
Schools
State Average -- 1,459,852 99,573 47.6% 43.7% 34.2% 41.0%
93
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Figure 3.9: North Carolina – Teacher Experience in High-Achieving Districts

New Hanover Co. (urban) Chapel-Hill-Carrboro (suburban)
Wake Co. (suburban) Alexander Co. (rural)
Union Co. (Rural) Stokes Co. (rural)
State Average
60% 55% 56%
51% 51% 51% 49% 51%
50%
40% 33% 31% 33% 31%
30%
30% 27% 29%
22%
18% 18% 20%
20% 15% 15%
13%
10%
0%
0-3 Years 4-10 Years 10+ Years
94
Source: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

92
Data from the 2014-15 school year. “2014-15 Staffing Age Report (DISTRICT) by Full-Time Equivalents.”
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/agestaffing.aspx
93
[1] District enrollment and teacher data from the 2013-14 school year. “School District Search,” Op. cit.
[2] Teacher FTE and EOG assessment data from the 2012-13 school year. Figure shows percent of students who
passed the EOG exam. “North Carolina School Report Cards.” North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.
http://www.ncschoolreportcard.org/src/
94
Data from the 2012-13 school year. The NC DOE district report cards present teacher experience levels for
elementary, middle, and high schools separately; this figure presents the average percent of the three grade
spans for each experience range. “North Carolina School Report Cards,” Op. cit.

© 2016 Hanover Research 25

 PROJECT EVALUATION FORM
Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds client
expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our
reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we
tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this
report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire.

http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

CAVEAT
The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher
and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or
completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of
fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties that extend beyond the
descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by
representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and
completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not
guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies
contained herein may not be suitable for every client. Neither the publisher nor the authors
shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not
limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover
Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.
Clients requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.

4401 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400

Arlington, VA 22203
P 202.559.0500 F 866.808.6585
www.hanoverresearch.com

© 2016 Hanover Research 26