• PSUs primarily utilize Advanced Teachers in elementary schools and vary in size, salary supplements, and program staffing. During the 2024-25 school year, 26 PSUs had ATR programs
  in 400 schools. Combined, these PSUs employed 1,494 Advanced Teachers and supported 3,949 classroom teachers. Fifty-six percent of ATR schools were elementary schools. The number of
  Advanced Teachers within a PSU ranged from three to 848, and salary supplements ranged from $1,000 to $21,000. The median salary supplement for Adult Leadership positions was $12,500,
  while the median supplement for Classroom Excellence positions was $4,500. PSUs differed in how they prioritized and assigned responsibilities for advanced teaching roles.
• Advanced Teachers working with early grades tend to provide broad subject support, while those working with later grades tend to provide subject-specific support. Half (50 percent) of elementary classroom teachers supported by Advanced Teachers received support in multiple core subject areas. In middle and high schools, classroom teachers received support from Advanced Teachers almost exclusively in individual subject areas, with math (40 percent) and English (30 percent) the most frequent. These findings are consistent with those in the November 2024 report.
• District leaders reported varying levels of focus on supporting Beginning Teachers. While they acknowledged that ATR does serve Beginning Teachers, the program is not intended to serve those teachers exclusively. Each supported classroom teacher is expected to receive support tailored to their specific needs. Teams of supported classroom teachers are typically organized by grade level and/or content area rather than the individual characteristics of the teacher(s). District leaders added that they are working to better integrate ATR with existing district-level support(s) for Beginning Teachers.

District leaders reported varying levels of focus on supporting Beginning Teachers. While they acknowledged that ATR does serve Beginning Teachers, the program is not intended to serve
those teachers exclusively. Each supported classroom teacher is expected to receive support tailored to their specific needs. Teams of supported classroom teachers are typically organized by grade level and/or content area rather than the individual characteristics of the teacher(s). District leaders added that they are working to better integrate ATR with existing district-level support(s) for
Beginning Teachers. Collectively, the evaluation found that:

• Opportunity Culture in Guilford County Schools (GCS) enhanced the district’s existing Beginning Teacher support by providing flexible, targeted assistance through the strategic use of Adult
  Leadership teachers and Classroom Excellence teachers. GCS’ Opportunity Culture model included Multi-Classroom Leaders (MCLs) and Expanded Impact Teachers (EITs) which enhanced its existing BT support system. This model provided flexible, targeted assistance and hands-on, day-to-day coaching that is distinct from traditional, principal-led support. MCLs and EITs provided “more intentional” support, focusing on small, actionable instructional
  improvements and creating a non-evaluative coaching relationship that helped new teachers build confidence.
• The evolution of the ATR program in Nash County reflected a growing commitment to strategically leverage Advanced Teaching Roles by embedding Adult Leadership Teachers in
  mentoring opportunities that help build a sustainable Beginning Teacher pipeline. Nash County Public Schools (NCPS) leveraged its ATR program to strategically build a pipeline of teachers by
  mentoring Instructional Assistants (IAs) and long-term substitutes into full-time teaching roles. The district’s effort to consolidate BT mentoring and MCL responsibilities made the process more
  streamlined and effective.
• McDowell County Schools’ ATR program provided ongoing, responsive support that fostered collaborative relationships to help BTs succeed. McDowell County Schools (MCS) designed its
  ATR program to exclusively focus on responsive and relational support for BTs, which is uniquely tailored to the needs of its rural district and the high number of teachers entering through residency licensure or placed in high-need areas (i.e., Exceptional Children).

The findings highlighted below summarize quantitative estimates of school-level impacts for ATR schools compared to non-ATR schools that share similar characteristics. To estimate these school wide
effects, analyses compared the differences in outcomes for schools in the years prior to and after they implemented ATR, with corresponding differences for similar non-ATR schools. State-mandated end-of-grade (EOG) and end-of-course (EOC) exams were used to measure student achievement. For teacher effectiveness, analyses primarily focus on the SAS Education Value-Added Assessment System (EVAAS) and NC Educator Effectiveness System (NCEES). Collectively, the findings suggest that:

• Overall, ATR schools produced positive effects on students’ math and science test scores and positive but not significant results in ELA. In math, the effects are statistically significant and positive, comparable to a gain of about 1.04 months of learning between 3rd and 4th grade. This effect is driven primarily by the cohort of ATR schools that began implementing ATR in 2018-19. In science, the effect is also significant and similar in magnitude. In ELA, the findings suggest that ATR is having a potential positive effect, but the overall result is not statistically significant
• The ATR effect tends to grow over time, especially in math and science. The effects in math tend to grow in the first six years of ATR implementation but are much smaller in magnitude and
  not significant by year seven. In science, there were positive and significant ATR effects starting in the fifth year after schools begin implementing ATR, but the estimates take longer to manifest
  and tend to be less precise than results in math. Results in ELA are statistically significant in years 3 and 6 after ATR implementation began but not in other years.
• Overall, the characteristics of teachers in ATR schools have remained stable when compared to last year’s data set. Teachers hired into ATR schools tend to have higher average EVAAS scores,
  driven mostly by EVAAS scores in math, relative to teachers hired into comparison schools. There was no evidence of differences in teacher turnover rates between ATR and comparison schools.
  Furthermore, teachers who exit ATR schools are not significantly different from teachers who exit comparison schools.
• There was moderate evidence of positive ATR effects on teacher effectiveness in math. The average effect on math teachers’ EVAAS scores were statistically significantly higher in ATR
  schools than in non-ATR comparison schools. This effect includes EVAAS scores from all math teachers in ATR schools. However, there were no significant effects on ELA or science teachers’
  EVAAS scores. Also, there are no significant effects on teacher NCEES scores between ATR and comparison schools.
• ATR has had a positive effect on teachers’ perception of how much time they have available to do their work. Statewide survey data were analyzed to measure teachers’ perceptions of their
  school culture and working conditions. Teachers in ATR schools reported having more time available to do their work than teachers in non-ATR, comparison schools. Also, there is suggestive, but not significant, evidence of positive associations between ATR and teachers’ perceptions of the quality of PD in their school.

The findings highlighted below compare outcomes for students taught by Advanced Teachers (ATs) and the teachers they support (which we call supported teachers or STs), relative to students taught by teachers in the same school who are not part of ATR. For this second analysis, data identifying ATs and STs are available only for the 2023-24 school year. Although these data can identify ATs and STs statewide, the one year of administrative data limits our ability to make causal claims about the effect of ATs.

• Students taught by Advanced Teachers have average math test scores that are higher than students taught by non-ATR teachers. The relationship is positive in ELA and science but not robust across different statistical models. When pooling together students directly taught by any advanced teacher (in either adult leadership or classroom excellence roles), data show that students taught by advanced teachers have higher test scores than students taught by other teachers in the school who are not part of ATR (i.e., teachers who are neither ATs nor STs). These results help confirm that school and district leaders are indeed selecting highly effective teachers into advanced roles.
• Our analysis does not find evidence of positive gains in test scores when comparing students taught by Supported Teachers to students taught by non-ATR teachers. These correlational
  results suggest that while Supported Teachers may have benefitted from collaboration with Advanced Teachers, these benefits have not directly translated into detectable improvements on student test scores in ELA, math, or science. With additional years of data, we will be able to more fully assess whether these effects emerge over time. Future data collection will also allow us to investigate whether the effect may vary depending on what type of support the Supported Teacher receives from Advanced Teachers (e.g., co-teaching, instructional coaching, observations).
• Advanced Teachers are less likely to leave their school, relative to non-ATR teachers. However, STs are no more or less likely to leave their school than non-ATR teachers. Lower turnover
  among Advanced Teachers aligns with prior research in other settings, suggesting that teachers with more experience are less likely to turnover than less experienced teachers. Nevertheless,
  these results also provide suggestive evidence that the ATR program may be helping schools to retain more effective teachers in advanced roles. In contrast, we find no evidence that ATR impacts retention among Supported Teachers.
• There were no significant results on turnover among Beginning Teachers who received support from an Advanced Teacher, relative to Beginning Teachers who are not supported by an
  advanced teacher. While our qualitative findings suggest that Beginning Teachers often value Advanced Teachers’ mentorship, we find no evidence that these positive perceptions increased BT retention when compared to BTs in the same school that are not supported by an AT. With additional years of data, we plan to examine whether multi-year support from Advanced Teachers
  can improve retention among BTs.