Teacher Induction Programs: Trends and Opportunities
State-level policy support for teacher induction programs can help teachers realize their full potential, keep them in the profession, promote
greater student learning, and save money. Higher education institutions and school districts must work together to provide high-quality and well-designed
induction programs.
Context
The traditional “sink-or-swim” model for beginning teachers has not worked very well. Facing challenging work conditions and insufficient
support, nearly half of new teachers leave the classroom within the first five years. Among those who stay, it can take years to develop the skills
they need to be most effective in the classroom. These factors have a negative impact on student learning, particularly in poor and low-performing schools
where new teachers are often assigned. The financial cost of teacher turnover adds to the problem, draining resources from already tight budgets.
In order to remedy these problems, there has been a rapid growth of teacher mentoring and induction programs in recent decades: more than 80 percent
of new teachers participate in some kind of program, up from 40 percent in 1990-91. “Mentoring” refers to one-on-one assistance and support
given by an experienced professional to a novice. “Induction” refers to a more comprehensive program. The Alliance for Excellent Education
identifies the components of comprehensive induction as high-quality mentoring, common planning time and collaboration, ongoing professional development,
participation in an external network of teachers, and standards-based evaluation.
Though states have increasingly been involved in mandating and funding induction programs, there is by no means consistency across districts and states,
nor adequate services for all novice teachers. Far too often, what have been called “induction” programs have been limited to one-on-one
mentoring designed to help teachers “survive” their first year. There has been a lack of ongoing support, and mentors may be under-trained
and over-extended. Funding is often inadequate and unstable.
If teachers are to become the skilled professionals they need to be and if they are to stay in the field, stakeholders need to take coordinated action
to expand and improve induction programs and to make them more universally available.
Observations
During the past two decades, new thinking about induction has emerged nationwide and there are several promising comprehensive induction models.
Leading the field is the New Teacher Center (NTC) at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The central element of the NTC Induction Model is one-on-one
mentoring by a carefully selected and highly-trained mentor. Additional components include participation by all first- and second-year teachers, a network
of support for both new teachers and mentors, mentors being released from teaching duties to assist new teachers, formative assessment, linkages to
pre-service education, program evaluation, and other elements. This model promotes the expectation that teaching is collegial and that learning is a
lifelong process.
The Educational Testing Service has developed the Pathwise Framework Induction Program, a comprehensive mentoring and support program for beginning
teachers. This program provides training and support for mentors and structured tasks through which beginning teachers, with the assistance of a mentor,
can develop and hone their skills. An online component, including discussion boards, courses, mentor refresher, and resource pages, enhances communication.
The Teachers for a New Era Project of the Carnegie Corporation of New York is attempting to strengthen K-12 teaching by developing state-of-the-art
programs at schools of education. One guiding principle is the establishment of teaching as a clinical profession. Exemplary teacher education programs
will consider the first two years of teaching as a residency period requiring mentorship and supervision. During this induction period, faculty from
the higher education institution will confer with, observe, and provide guidance to the new teacher to improve practice.
There is growing evidence of the positive impact of induction programs on teacher retention, costs, teacher quality, and student learning.
Evidence from the National Center for Education Statistics’ Schools and Staffing Survey suggests that participation in comprehensive induction
programs can cut attrition in half. Many smaller studies have corroborated the finding that participation in mentoring and induction programs has a
positive impact on teacher retention, though the size of the impact varies by study.
There also is evidence that induction programs save money for school districts. It has been estimated that for every $1.00 invested in induction, there
is an estimated payoff of nearly $1.50.
An evaluation study in California in the early 1990s showed that teachers participating in induction programs, compared to other new teachers, used
more complex and challenging instructional materials, were more successful in motivating students and setting high expectations for students with diverse
backgrounds, and made greater use of state curriculum frameworks. Teacher attrition was reduced by two thirds, and the programs were especially successful
in supporting minority teachers. This work laid the foundation for development of subsequent induction programs.
Investigating the impact of induction programs on student learning is a growing area. Research by the Educational Testing Service has found some impact
of these programs on student achievement. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Services began a five-year evaluation
study that will examine the effects on student achievement of two programs, the NTC Induction Model and ETS Pathwise. More research is needed to sort
out what aspects of induction most affect teacher quality and retention, which, in turn, affect student learning and district costs.
Though many states require teacher induction, current state policy leaves much to be desired.
Recent studies have found that 30 or more states have some form of mandated mentoring program. Merely requiring this mentoring, however, does not assure
that programs are comprehensive and effective, or that funding is secure.
Education Week reports that only 16 states require and finance mentoring for all new teachers. Only five states provide a minimum of two or more
years of state-financed mentoring, down from eight in 2003. More in-depth data collected by Education Week in 2003 indicate that nine states
specified a minimum amount of time for mentors and new teachers to meet; eight required mentors and teachers to be matched by school, subject, and/or
grade; nine required mentors to be compensated for their work; and seven required release time for mentors.
Some states have made strides toward developing comprehensive induction programs, but limited and uncertain state funds challenge this progress.
Two years ago, a partnership between the University of Alaska and the Alaska Department of Education began the Statewide Mentor Project that was based
on the NTC model. Data have supported the effectiveness of the program in increasing teacher retention and the legislature approved funding for a state-wide
program.
California’s New Teacher Project funded and evaluated several induction models in the late 1980s. The project’s success led to legislation
that provides for Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment programs throughout the state.
New Jersey has been involved in mentoring programs for two decades, but funding has been uneven. Currently all districts are required to have a Mentoring
for Quality Induction plan in place, but they vary widely from district to district.
Legislation enacted in Michigan more than a decade ago mandated the New Teacher Induction/Teacher Mentoring Program requiring three years of mentoring.
The state Department of Education has developed guidelines and tools for districts as well as program standards. There is currently an effort underway
to foster a network of support among teacher preparation institutions.
Virginia mandates mentoring for all beginning teachers and funds about half the costs for this program. The state Department of Education developed
guidelines for effectiveness, and with federal funding, supports 20 pilot induction programs across the state.
In Georgia, higher education institutions have been involved in developing resources for new teacher support. Albany State University, the University
of Georgia, and Valdosta State University founded the Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program in 2000 which has a BRIDGE (Building Resources: Induction
and Development of Georgia Educators) component. This is a peer-reviewed, interactive online resource and mentoring site for teachers.
Other notable state programs include Connecticut’s Beginning Educator Support and Training and Louisiana’s Teacher Assistance and Assessment
Program.
There is evidence from several states that competition for funding has led to reduced state support for induction programs. Some states depend on foundation
funding or the U.S. Department of Education Title II teacher quality grants. Without a steady source of funding, these programs remain in precarious
situations.
Conclusion
As states increasingly hold their teacher preparation programs accountable for the success of new teachers, higher education institutions need to work
with school districts to ensure that induction is high-quality and well-designed. They need to work toward greater alignment between what is taught
in schools of education and what occurs in the classroom. They need to evaluate programs to document their effectiveness and ensure their quality.
Long-term policy support for teacher induction programs and adequate funding at the state level can help teachers realize their full potential, keep
them in the profession, promote greater student learning, and save money. Mentoring and induction can bridge the gap between pre-service education and
the classroom, and higher education institutions must be an important part of this picture.
RESOURCES
American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). AASCU’s Task Force on Professional Development for Teachers
made recommendations on induction in the report To Create A Profession: Supporting Teachers as Professionals (2001). Boundary Spanners:
A Key to Success in Urban P-16 University-School Partnerships (2006) is a guide for educators who are seeking to link universities and schools
in a quest for better outcomes.
aascu.org
Alliance for Excellent Education. Tapping the Potential: Retaining and Developing High-Quality New Teachers (2004) discusses
comprehensive induction programs as the single most effective strategy for developing and retaining high-quality teachers across the nation.
all4ed.org/
Education Commission of the States. An analysis by Richard Ingersoll and Jeffrey M. Kralik, “The Impact of Mentoring on Teacher
Retention: What the Research Says” (2004), summarizes what is known—and not known—about the effectiveness of teacher induction
programs, focusing on teacher retention.
ecs.org
Education Week. Quality Counts, an annual report on policies that affect K-12 public education, contains state-by-state information
on teacher mentoring efforts. The 2003 report includes an in-depth study of this topic.
edweek.org
Educational Testing Service. ETS has developed the Pathwise Framework Induction Program and conducts research on the impact of teacher induction,
particularly on student learning.
ets.org
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF). Induction Into Learning Communities (2005) summarizes NCTAF’s
research on induction programs in the United States and abroad and offers policy recommendations. Related projects include the Cost of Teacher Turnover
Study, the Strengthening and Sustaining Teachers Project, and Teachers Learning in Networked Communities.
nctaf.org
National Staff Development Council (NSDC). NSDC offers Standards for Staff Development and other resources related to high-quality staff development
programs, including mentoring.
nsdc.org
New Teacher Center (NTC), University of California, Santa Cruz. NTC works with school districts, universities, policymakers, and educational
leaders to create support systems for new teachers. Its work builds on the Santa Cruz New Teacher Project, an intensive mentor-based induction model
created in 1988. NTC has consulted with a number of states on issues related to state policy and has conducted policy surveys in Alaska, California,
New Jersey, Michigan, Virginia, and Washington.
newteachercenter.org
Selected state resources include:
California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
btsa.ca.gov
Connecticut Beginning Educator Support and Training
ctbest.org
Georgia Systemic Teacher Education Program
coe.uga.edu
Louisiana Teacher Assistance and Assessment Program
doe.state.la.us/lde
##
