I just began receiving the Teacher Quality Bulletin and it is a great addition to the education information menu: it is dedicated exclusively to the critical issue of teacher quality, covers the research, covers the political developments, and has an informed, insightful, and clear point of view.

That said, I did want to let you know, with all due respect, that I think the take in the February 28 TQ Bulletin on the Consortium report on Chicago induction (which the Joyce Foundation funded) was off base.

Most importantly, it is definitely not a "costly induction program" that "doesn't work." It's an underfunded, barebones program that doesn't work. The district only spends about $800 per teacher on its program, while, as you know, effective programs cost between $3,500-$6,000 per year for two years. Chicago Public Schools is trying to overhaul this program and is looking at scaling up more intensive induction models, such as one run by the Chicago New Teacher Center (affiliated with The New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz) that serves about 200 teachers here and has shown great results. As they evaluate options, we do hope they take your point about targeting available resources to the high-need schools, and focus on principal readiness to lead good induction programs, as the New Teacher Center does.

In addition, the summary didsn't mention one of the Consortium report's central findings, which is that the handful of teachers who do manage to get high quality induction in Chicago through boutique programs like the Chicago New Teacher Center's are wildly more likely to report satisfaction with teaching and are two-to-three times more likely to say they'll stay in the classroom the next year. For example, only 23% of new high school teachers who received weak levels of support said they planned to continue teaching in their school the next year, in contrast to 73% of rookies who received high levels of support. This makes the very point that you do: that quality of induction programs is critical, and that it just won't do to underfund induction or be inattentive to the elements of high quality programs. In total, it reinforces the need for greater (albeit careful) investment in induction programs, but your summary could leave readers thinking that investing in induction is a waste. To the contrary, experience and research (this study included) show it's one of the better bets that policymakers can make.

Gretchen Crosby Sims

The Joyce Foundation