Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
District implementation of California's induction policy: key elements and challenges of developing a high quality program
(USC Thesis Other)
District implementation of California's induction policy: key elements and challenges of developing a high quality program
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION OF CALIFORNIA’S INDUCTION POLICY:
KEY ELEMENTS AND CHALLENGES OF
DEVELOPING A HIGH QUALITY PROGRAM
by
Marine Avagyan
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2008
Copyright 2008 Marine Avagyan
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this paper to my amazing parents, Andranik Avagyan and Sedik
Moradkhan and my loving sister, Karine Avagian, who despite the numerous
challenges in life have done everything in their power to help me achieve every one
of my dreams. This dissertation came to fruition because of their unwavering
encouragement, love and support. My heartfelt appreciation also goes to my son,
Andrew, who has been amazingly understanding and patient with having a full-time
student as a parent for majority of his life. Through the toughest times in life, he has
been the force behind my drive for high achievement and success. Last, but not least,
I thank Setrak Setian, the love of my life, who stood by through all the physical,
emotional and professional ups and downs of the last three years, believing in my
ability to complete this journey. And finally, I thank God for getting me through this.
I did it!
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As I proudly claim the title of a Doctor, the result of the copious hours of
sleeplessness and time away from the family, I wish to acknowledge everyone who
provided the guidance, support and encouragement throughout this journey.
Dr. Amanda Datnow, thank you for your patience through all the tough times.
Your organization and structure as well as your tremendous knowledge and
experience from the field were critical to my success.
Drs. Margo Pensavalle and Rhoda Coleman, your expertise in beginning
teacher education and support was much needed and truly appreciated.
Dr. Donahue Tuitt, I would not have made it this far without your words of
encouragement back when we began the program.
I also want to thank the members of my new family, the amazing Los
Angeles Weekend Cohort, each of whom enriched our beginning experience at USC
through diverse opinions and experiences that supported and strengthened our will to
achieve.
I would also like to thank Delta Kappa Gamma Society International for the
generous scholarship award supporting my research.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge all my special friends and colleagues
who listened patiently, offered a helping hand or a shoulder to cry on, took pride and
celebrated my accomplishment.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1
Introduction 1
Background of the Problem 1
California’s Induction Policy 5
The Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of Study 8
Research Questions 9
Significance of Study 9
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 11
Introduction 11
The Teacher Induction and Mentoring Movement 13
Historical Perspectives 13
The Impact of Teacher Induction Programs 20
Teacher Retention 20
Teacher Performance 22
Student Achievement 24
Defining and Differentiating Induction and Mentoring 27
Induction vs. Mentoring 27
Common Features of Successful Induction Programs 31
Comprehensive Approaches to Induction 31
Designing and Implementing Quality Induction Programs 37
Challenges in the Implementation of Induction Programs 47
Financial and Human Resources 47
School Leadership and Culture 50
Conclusion and Summary 52
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 55
Introduction 55
Research Design 55
Sample and Population 57
v
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures 60
Data Analysis and Procedures 61
Validating the Findings 63
Ethical Considerations 63
Limitations of the Study 64
Researcher’s Subjectivity 64
Summary 65
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND IINTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS 66
Introduction 66
The Research Questions 67
Context 68
Findings 75
Sub-Question 1: Assumptions of the Policy and Interpretation of the
Mandate 77
K-12 Collaboration and Support: Roles and Responsibilities 77
Paradigm Shift in Teacher Licensure: District as Credentialing
Agency 84
Sub-Question 2: Teachers. Support Providers, Program Director’s
And Administrators’ Perceptions of the Distinct Induction Program 92
Program Goal and Objective: Clarification and Communication 92
Local Level of Monitoring Quality of Program Components 101
Sub-Question 3: Factors Influencing the Success of the District
Induction Program 113
Quality Support Providers and Time for Collaboration 113
Increased Focus on Performance Rather than Documentation 122
Individualized Support Structure 125
Quality Professional Development 127
In-Depth Guidance for K-12 Administrator 133
Summary 140
Conclusion 143
CHAPTER 5: CONNECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS 145
Summary 145
Connections to Prior Research 148
Common Features of Successful Induction Programs 148
Comprehensive Approach to Induction 148
Designing and Implementing Quality Induction Programs 149
Challenges in Implementation of Induction Programs 150
Financial and Human Resources 150
School Leadership and Culture 152
Future Research 153
Implications for Policy and Practice 155
vi
Conclusion 160
REFERENCES 161
APPENDIX A: Administrator Interview Protocol 174
APPENDIX B: Director/Coordinator Interview Protocol 177
APPENDIX C: Participating Teacher Interview Protocol 181
APPENDIX D: Support Provider Interview Protocol 184
APPENDIX E: Observation Protocol 188
APPENDIX F: Qualitative Data Analysis Code List 191
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Elements of Effective Induction Programs 38
Table 2: Demographics of Study Participants 59
Table 3: Standards for Professional Teacher Induction 72
Table 4: WUSD 2007 Induction Program Review Evidence and Artifacts 73
Table 5: WUSD Induction Program Components 93
Table 6: WUSD Year One Induction Program 95
Table 7: WUSD Year Two Induction Program 97
Table 8: Professional Development Plan for Induction Programs 128
Table 9: Critical Elements Required at Different Levels of Implementation 156
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Standards for Professional Teacher Induction Programs 6
Figure 2: California’s Learning to Teach System 18
Figure 3: Input-Output Model of Beginning Teacher Induction 141
ix
ABSTRACT
This case study examines how a school district defines and implements
California’s Induction Policy for novice teachers, identifying the challenges and key
elements of a high quality program.
The increasing focus on the impact of effective instruction on student
performance has provided the grounds for legislative mandates requiring high quality
teachers in every classroom. This, coupled with the ongoing nationwide concern over
teacher retention, has prompted the need for new teacher induction programs that
aim to address both dilemmas. California has moved farther ahead through a
statewide policy that not only requires a two-year induction for all beginning
teachers, but also converts the local district into a credentialing agency. This new
scheme is built upon a pre-existing structure which considered induction an isolated
support system that helps retain teachers. Attempts in restructuring programs to
address this significant paradigm shift, which has both legal and educational
ramifications, has created a daunting task for district who struggle in balancing
compliance with implementation while attempting to design a program that meets the
varying needs of novice teachers.
Using a qualitative case study research design, this study examines the
implementation of California’s Induction Policy at an urban school district in Los
Angeles County. A total of 19 volunteers, including participating teachers, support
providers, site and program administrators from Washington Unified School District
participated in one-on-one interviews. Additional data was gathered through
x
document reviews and meeting observations. All data was analyzed and coded
manually using the qualitative data analysis process. The findings of the data
demonstrated that in the absence of clear guidelines, models and research on such
large scale changes, districts are often left to their own vices in transforming their
programs leaving their stakeholders baffled over the goals and objectives of the
program. Increased communication and clarification with stakeholders and consistent
and regular local levels of program quality monitoring processes were highlighted as
critical to the impact of the program on its constituents. Furthermore, an Input-
Output Model of Beginning Teacher Induction was developed to help districts,
researchers and policy makers in incorporating these key elements in future efforts
within this field.
1
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Introduction
Background of the Problem
“Recruiters Struggle To Fill Demand: Teacher Glut Over” was a common
headline found in the education section of most national and local papers during the
first half of 1980s (Woo & Chrum, 1985, p.1). This sentiment was based partly on
reports conducted by the California Commission on the Teaching Profession and the
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, which presented evidence
on the rising retirement rates and decreasing percentages of college freshmen who
planned to be teachers. The Wall Street Journal (Brown, 1987, p. 2) reported that
faced with a worsening shortage of teachers, education officials are
peering behind every bush and around every corner in search of them.
That means bushes and corners in a lot of unlikely places – Spain,
Germany, aboard New England lobster boats, in the depressed Texas oil
patch, on military bases,
not only highlighting the crisis but also demonstrating the desperate efforts taken to
alleviate the situation.
Another article in the Los Angeles Times (Smollar, 1987, p. 1) entitled, “New
Teachers Learn Skills To Help Keep Them On Job: Project Matches Beginning And
Veteran Educators To Handle Problems Such As Discipline In The Classroom”
stated that “national statistics show that between one-third and one-half of all new
2
teachers quit the field after their first three years. Not only do education officials
consider that a terrible waste of resources, but it poses practical problems in that the
drop-out rate exacerbates a projected teacher shortage,” referring to the rising teacher
turnover. A 1983 California study (Smith et al., 1983) cited the increasing teacher
dissatisfaction with the work circumstances as both a direct and indirect cause of the
decreasing supply, explaining that besides causing the current teachers to leave the
profession it also affected the prospective candidates who were inhibited by the
negative conditions of teaching. Furthermore, reiterating the importance of teachers
with high academic abilities for increased student achievement as demonstrated by
various researchers, a 1988 Los Angeles Times article stated that based on their SAT
scores a large portion of students in teacher education programs were not highly
qualified academically (Roark, 1988, p. 1), creating what was once referred to as the
“intellectual ghetto” in schools of education (Sykes, 1983). This crisis was best
summarized in the statement: “there are so many serious problems with attracting
talented people to meet the future needs of the public schools that the situation is
bound to get worse before it gets better – if it does” (Roark, 1988, p. 1). The status
of the teacher supply in California and across the country took the center stage
among not only researchers and analysts in the field but the general public and
policymakers as well. Schlechty and Vance (1983) analyzed the status of the
teaching force by identifying specific issues with recruitment, selection and
retention. They concluded that:
3
Despite what the critics say, schools and departments of education now
produce many more academically able teachers than schools employ, and
those academically able teachers who are employed tend to leave the
occupation early. The ability to select, recruit, and retain teachers from
among the academically able depends in large measure on schools being able
to provide environments and career opportunities that are attractive to the
academically able in the first place (Schlechty & Vance, 1983, p. 478).
As a response to these alarming conditions, during the 1978-1988 decade
some states across the country begun developing programs to support teachers during
their induction year (Stroble & Cooper, 1988). California’s policymakers
demonstrated their commitment to the cause through the passage of Senate Bill 813
which led to the development of the California Mentor Teacher Program with the
goal of retaining exemplary teachers and improving the profession by providing
assistance through these expert teachers (Wagner, 1984). Preliminary reports of the
program demonstrated an increase in the teacher retention rates, leading to the
development of the California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)
Program, which began in 1988 as the California New Teacher Project (CNTP), a
four-year pilot program under the direction of the California Department of
Education and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. The goal of the program
was to increase teacher retention by providing beginning teachers with support.
Consequently, a new program was designed at the University of Santa Cruz, Santa
Cruz New Teacher Project (SCNTP), where beginning teachers were partnered with
veteran teachers who were released from classroom duties to mentor. In 1992 an
evaluation of the SCNTP demonstrated a dramatic improvement in the retention rates
of beginning teachers providing the grounds for a legislative funding for the first
4
BTSA program. Authorized by SB1422, the BTSA program supported first- and
second-year teachers who had earned a preliminary credential through university
coursework (Bartell & Ownby, 1994).
Due to its continued success in increasing retention rates the SCNTP was
instrumental in the development of statewide standards and practices of induction
programs. This included the examination and review of the California Standards for
the Teaching Profession (CSTP) and the joint partnership in the creation of the
California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers (CFASST). In
addition, SCNTP provided the state with models of mentor and program
administrator trainings. These programmatic elements of BTSA were legislated in
1997 as part of AB1266 (SRI International, 2002).
The current BTSA program is the statewide project that provides each district
with approximately $4000 per teacher for the implementation of the induction
program. The passage of the 1998 legislation AB2042, made the BTSA program
part of the credentialing process, where professional certification is provided after a
successful completion of a 2-year program (Clark et al., 2002). AB2210 of 2004
clarified that beginning teachers no longer had a choice of participating in an
induction program or a Fifth Year of Study Program. In order to obtain the
Professional Clear Credential, they are now required to participate in a state
approved Induction Program (CCTC, 2004). The most recently signed education bill,
SB1209, taking effect on January 1, 2007, addresses the findings of The Center for
the Future of Teaching and Learning while impacting thirty provisions of the
5
Education Code, including the Induction Program (Scott, 2006). These changes shift
the focus of the program from mostly theoretical and isolated professional
development to practical application level coursework that enhances the work of the
beginning teacher.
California’s Induction Policy
The passage of Senate Bill 2042 in 1998, followed by Senate Bill 2210 in
2004 established the requirements and standards for California’s teacher licensure
and beginning teacher induction. This reform addresses some key elements of
teacher credentialing in the state which include:
• Reconfiguration of undergraduate teacher preparation programs, including the
development of alternate standards-based routes into teaching
• Alignment of student content and performance standards with teacher preparation
standards
• Required passage of the teacher performance assessment as part of the teacher
education program for earning a preliminary teaching credential
• Required participation of teachers in a two-year induction program during the
first two years of teaching for earning a professional clear credential
This legislative change supports the goals of the California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing and the State Board of Education in establishing a system
which prepares teachers who are equipped with the most effective methods of
teaching and classroom management as well as the expertise in their content (CCTC,
6
2002). Their expectations for new teacher induction programs are outlined in the
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs
(Figure 1), which combined with the standards for subject matter preparation and the
standards for the teaching profession institute a comprehensive system of preservice
and inservice teacher preparation (CCTC, 2002).
Figure 1: Standards for Professional Teacher Induction Programs (CCTC, 2002)
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs
Foundational Standards for all Multiple Subjects and Single Subject Professional
Induction Programs
Standard 1: Sponsorship, Administration, and Leadership
Standard 2: Resources
Standard 3: Professional Development Providers
Standard 4: Evaluation
Standard 5: Articulation with Professional Teacher Preparation Programs
Standard 6: Advice and Assistance
Standard 7: Coordination and Communication
Standard 8: Support Provider Selection and Assignment
Standard 9: Support Provider Professional Development
Implementation Standards for All Multiple Subjects and Single Subject Professional
Teacher Induction Programs
A: Program Design
Standard 10: Program Design
Standard 11: Roles and Responsibilities of K-12 Schools
Standard 12: Professional Development Based on an Individual Induction Plan
Standard 13: Formative Assessment Systems
Standard 14: Completion of the Professional Teacher Induction Program
B: Teaching Curriculum to All Students in California Schools
Standard 15: K-12 Core Academic Content and Subject Specific Pedagogy
Standard 16: Using Technology to Support Student Learning
Standard 17: Supporting Equity, Diversity and Access to the Core Curriculum
Standard 18: Creating a Supportive and Healthy Environment for Student Learning
Standard 19: Teaching English Learners
Standard 20: Teaching Special Populations
7
Local school districts, county offices of education and institutions of higher
education are able to apply for state funding in order to develop an induction
program through the BTSA system. Recommendations for Professional Teaching
Credentials for candidates are permitted only through programs which meet the
standards set by the Commission and the Superintendent of Public Instruction as
specified in the Education Code section 44279.2 (c)(1).
By allowing induction programs to be in charge of providing the appropriate
support and training to the beginning teachers, the Commission and the State Board
of Education emphasize the importance of the process as well as the context in
developing quality instruction. However, this change, accompanied by numerous
layers of detailed standards, also sets the stage for varying policy interpretations at
the local level influencing program design and ultimately teacher preparation. In his
research on policy implementation, McLaughlin (1991, p. 190) states that “variations
in policies, people and places” influence the process of policy implementation:
We have learned that there are a few “slam bang” policy effects. This is
because policy effects necessarily are indirect, operating through and
within the existing setting. Thus policy is transformed and adapted to
conditions of the implementing unit. Consequently, local manifestations of
state and federal policies will differ in fundamental respects and “effective
implementation” may have different meaning in different settings
(McLaughlin, 1991, p. 190).
Ultimately, the implementation of California’s induction policy is determined
by how it is interpreted by its stakeholders at the local level, therefore highlighting
the significance of the local context, people and policies involved in its execution.
8
The Statement of the Problem
Although a great deal of research attests to the success of California’s new
teacher support program in regards to teacher retention (CCTC, 2002), there is very
little work depicting the case of the school districts who face numerous challenges in
the successful implementation of the induction policy. With each legislative reform
new standards and requirements for both pre-service and in-service teachers have
been instituted giving rise to a teacher credentialing process that represents an
overlapped and duplicated system which includes the Teacher Performance
Expectations (TPE), CSTP, BTSA events, CFASST process, Induction Standards,
Individual Induction Plan (IIP), Plan for Professional Growth (PPG), NCLB Highly
Qualified Teacher requirements, Peer Assistance and Review (PAR), mentor,
support provider, and the consulting teacher. The value of a mentor for a beginning
teacher is immense as seen through research (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004), however the
effectiveness and usefulness of this resource is often limited due to the demands of
these mandates, therefore sacrificing the essential value of the program for the
beginning teacher to his/her compliance with state and national regulations. In
addition, districts struggle with designing an effective program that meets all the
legislative mandates while providing critical learning for the participants. Finally,
very few studies have looked at the impact of participation in an induction program
and teacher quality or student performance (Strong, 2006), raising questions about
the outcome of these programs beyond teacher certification.
9
Purpose of Study
The accountability pressures in staffing every classroom with highly qualified
teachers which were put in motion by the No Child Left Behind Act have caused
states and districts to examine and invest in teacher induction programs (NCLB,
2002). California has been on the forefront of this work for many years, not only
showcasing a program at the University of California, Santa Cruz New Teacher
Center, but also becoming instrumental in the development of teacher support and
induction systems in other states and countries (Thompson et al., 2004; Olebe, 2001).
This research seeks to interpret the challenges facing districts as they implement
California’s induction policy, while looking at the elements of existing successful
programs. The goals of the study are to provide implementation strategies and
suggestions that support both theoretical and practical objectives of the induction
program.
Research Questions
This qualitative research study aims to examine the issues concerning the
districts’ implementation of California’s Induction Policy for beginning teachers.
The research will be guided by the following question: How do districts implement
California’s induction policy for beginning teachers?
1. What are the assumptions of the induction policy and what is the district’s
interpretation of this mandate?
10
2. How do participating teachers, support providers, program directors and
administrators perceive the induction program offered by the district?
3. What factors determine and influence the success of a district induction
program?
Significance of the Study
The existing research related to new teacher induction policies is currently
limited to examining their influences on teacher retention, with only a few studies
looking at teacher quality and student performance. Issues relating to the
implementation of the policy at the district level have not been studied directly. As
stated earlier, this study will examine California’s induction policy focusing on the
implementation challenges that face districts. Suggestions and recommendations will
be made based on the findings in an effort to help districts create the most efficient
program that supports new teachers through the induction phase of their career.
11
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
“Our society can no longer accept the hit-or-miss hiring, sink-or-miss induction,
trial-and-error teaching, and take-it-or-leave-it professional development it has
tolerated in the past. The time has come to put teachers and teaching at the top of
the nation’s education reform agenda.”
(National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, 1996, p. 20)
Introduction
Teachers are the most important component of an effective classroom, as
they not only deliver the content but also guide learners through the culture of the
educational system. Numerous studies in recent years have repeatedly demonstrated
that quality teaching is the key ingredient in student achievement (Darling-
Hammond, 2000; Darling-Hammond, Berry & Thoresen, 2001; Darling-Hammond
& Sykes, 2003; Darling-Hammond et al., 2005; Goldhaber & Anthony, 2004;
Goldhaber & Brewer 2000; Rivkin, Hanushek & Kain, 2005; Sanders & Rivers
1996; Wenglinsky, 2002). Developing teachers who effectively meet the needs of all
students and provide quality instruction requires collaborative effort on the part of
the university as well as the school district. Within the latter, this collaboration takes
the form of an induction process where novice teachers are provided with a holistic
support that is part of a strategic plan with mentoring and professional development
as its integral components. Comprehensive mentoring and induction programs for
12
beginning teachers have been repeatedly linked to increased teacher retention as
demonstrated through research (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004). Supporting and guiding
new teachers through the most challenging beginning years of their experience is the
key to retaining them in the profession, ultimately ensuring experienced teachers for
all students.
Given these objectives of induction programs, it is important to understand
the implementation process that a district undertakes to develop a successful program
that will provide adequate support to novice teachers. In keeping with the outline
below, this review of literature will discuss the historical background on teacher
induction, the impact of induction, and the identification of key program design
components and challenges facing districts helping to illuminate the issues of
implementation, especially from a policy standpoint.
1. Teacher induction and mentoring movement
a. Historical perspectives
b. Standards for the teaching profession
c. Licensure and induction policy
2. The impact of teacher induction programs
a. Teacher retention
b. Teacher performance
c. Student achievement
13
3. Defining and differentiating induction and mentoring
a. Induction vs. mentoring
b. Comprehensive approaches to induction
4. Common features of successful induction programs
a. Designing and implementing quality induction programs
5. Challenges in the implementation of the induction program
a. Financial and human resources
b. Leadership and school culture
6. Conclusion
The Teacher Induction and Mentoring Movement
Historical Perspectives
California’s first attempts in providing support to novice teachers dates back
to 1983 with the passages of SB 813 which included a large number of reform
provisions addressing teacher staffing and development. As part of this initiative,
the California Mentor Teacher Program (CMTP) was created and funded, allowing
districts to designate a certain percentage of their staff as mentors (Bird et al., 1984).
Although the primary purpose of the mentor was to provide support to beginning
teachers, the funding of the program did not turn out as planned causing confusion in
the role of the mentor. Most mentors were asked to conduct professional
development and had other district level responsibilities. However, a number of
14
studies of the CMTP in 1988 demonstrated that the program was meeting its goals of
providing support to novice teachers; although in most districts across the state it had
not made a difference on teacher retention. These findings resulted in
recommendations that clarified the role of the mentor as an instructional leader,
increasing the release time and monitoring of mentors’ work. As a result, there was
an emphasis on providing support and training to mentors as they were expected to
know more than their protégés (Odell, 1991).
California’s current induction policy traces its beginnings to the California
New Teacher Project (CNTP) which began in 1988 as a result of the Marian
Bergeson Act (SB 148) which was designed to reverse the high teacher attrition rate
and to study the components of various teacher support programs across the state. As
a result of beginning teacher policy surveys, two organizations, California State
Department of Education (SDE) and the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CCTC), sponsored pilot programs to help restructure teacher
education and induction in a school environment. In 1991 there were a total of 37
pilot projects across the state utilizing a wide range of approaches to providing
support to novice teachers (Sclan & Darling-Hammond, 1992). An analysis of the
four-year long CNTP demonstrated the relationship between mentors and the novice
teachers as the most effective strategy in supporting beginning teachers (CCTC,
1997). It also demonstrated the need for program standards and a framework, which
led to the passage of Assembly Bill 1422 in 1992 establishing the Beginning Teacher
Support and Assessment (BTSA) program, with a budget of $4.83 million. School
15
districts across the state were encouraged to design and implement BTSA programs
that included the findings and recommendations of the pilot. One year later, studies
of two districts showed that mentor relationships continued to be the most effective
methods of support that influenced teacher retention (Raymond-Burch, 1993). The
1994 report on the implementation of the BTSA Program created by CCTC and SDE
recommended the establishment of frameworks and standards for beginning teacher
support and induction programs. The benefits of mentoring and induction were also
reported, illustrating the state’s commitment to these programs through increasing
mentor training. Draft framework and standards were piloted in 1995 leading to the
publication of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) in
January of 1997 by CCTC and SDE (CCTC, 1997).
The local BTSA programs were developed and authorized through
competitive grants to local education agencies (LEAs) – individual or consortia of
districts or county offices of education. During the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school
years the grants for local BTSA programs nearly doubled due to the tremendous
increase in beginning teachers caused by the state’s 1996 class size reduction policy.
The passage of SB 1266 in 1997 established the framework for the two-year support
and assessment program for every beginning teacher in California, which included
those with preliminary credentials in their first or second year of teaching. It also
encouraged local school districts, county offices of education, colleges and
universities to collaborate on the organization of the new teacher induction.
16
To give local BTSA programs a standardized system of support, the
California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers (CFASST) was
established in 1998, addressing the implementation of the key elements of the
program (Mitchell et al., 1998). This was followed by the passage of SB 2042,
California’s Induction Policy, which brought major reforms in the state’s teacher
preparation, including the establishment of multiple standards-based routes into
teaching, alignment of the teacher preparation standards with state academic
standards, and the passing of the Teaching Performance Assessment (TPA) within
the teacher preparation program. In addition, SB 2042 made the two-year induction
program a required component of new teachers’ professional development during the
first two years as a way to earn a California Professional Clear Teaching Credential.
Based on this, in late 1998 the CCTC launched an extensive effort to design and
improve the preparation of teachers with the development of new standards and
assessment which were aligned with the state academic content standards as well as
the CSTP. This process established California’s “Learning to Teach” system (Figure
2) which demonstrates the interrelationship between the three sets of teacher
preparation program standards: Subject Matter Preparation, Preliminary Teacher
Preparation, and Professional Teacher Preparation/Induction.
As a result of the recommendations made by SB 2042, a tremendous increase
was seen in teacher recruitment programs of the late 1990s and early 2000s.
However, as the teacher shortage decreased and as a result of the statewide budget
crisis, a number of its important elements such as the TPA were either under-funded
17
or eliminated. The TPA, a key component of the teacher credentialing system based
on the state’s Teacher Performance Expectations (TPE) and modeled after the CSTP,
was only partially implemented, creating inconsistencies in credentialing
requirements across the state (Center for the Future of Learning and Teaching,
2004).
Meanwhile, the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 made teacher quality a
central component of education requiring that each teacher meet the Highly
Qualified Teacher requirements by the 2005-2006 school year. With such emphasis
on teacher quality, in 2002 the CCTC designed the Standards of Quality and
Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs to establish the
expectations of the commission at the district level. As part of its efforts to raise the
quality of the state’s teaching force and meet the federal requirements, California
Assembly Bill 2210 was passed in August 2004 with an urgency clause that put it
into effect immediately, changing the new teacher licensure procedures across the
state. This policy made participation in the two-year induction program a
requirement for obtaining the Professional Clear Credential, placing a significant
value and demand on the quality of induction programs developed by school districts
(CCTC, 2004).
18
Figure 2. California’s Learning to Teach System from http://www.btsa.ca.gov
19
Continuous evaluation of the policy and programs across the state have
prompted the most recent state legislation, SB 1209, establishing a number of key
elements for streamlining the statewide teacher preparation and licensure program as
well as addressing the new dilemma in the decreasing teaching workforce as caused
by high retirement and low program entry rates. These include the required funding
for two full years of induction, including candidates with the early completion
option; revision of the BTSA block grant funding to one based on the number of
participants which is adjusted annually for inflation; regular reviews of induction
programs by CCTC to support the revision of Induction Program standards by 2008;
and inclusion of out-of-state prepared teachers to complete induction rather than fifth
year studies. SB 1209 also reestablishes the TPA as a required component of teacher
preparation programs statewide beginning July 1, 2008. Finally, a study has been
commissioned by the SDE to examine the state of the BTSA program and modify the
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs
to avoid any repetitive requirements between teacher preparation and teacher
induction programs (Scott, 2006).
Approximately a decade of policies and programmatic changes have lead to
California’s current teacher induction program, which is a combination of
overlapping policies and standards established during the past ten years, as
developed to address the needs of the time. As a result, the induction policy has
become subject to varying interpretations at the implementation level, bringing about
20
inconsistencies in both teacher preparation and teacher induction programs across the
state.
The Impact of Teacher Induction Programs
Findings from studies of teacher induction programs over the past decade
both in United States and other countries have often been used to demonstrate the
key components of effective induction programs and to support the passage of new
policies. Having begun as a plan to increase teacher retention, a great deal of
research has looked at this element as an important goal and outcome of induction.
Teacher performance and student achievement are two additional but less examined
elements in research on such programs.
Teacher Retention
Teacher retention continues to be one of the important issues in the field of
education as we face teacher shortage caused by increasing retirements and the
decrease in number of candidates entering the profession (Center for the Future of
Learning and Teaching, 2006). Although there continues to be a debate over the
causes of this shortage, attributed to retention or recruitment, the lack of qualified
teachers in the classroom is a problem that cannot be overlooked. Whether we
choose to invest in hiring more teachers or retaining the ones already in the
profession, it is crucial that we recognize the elements which lead to an experienced
and high quality teaching force.
21
Analyses of the impact of induction on teacher retention have lead to the
identification of various effective components of induction. Smith and Ingersoll’s
(2004) research on the effects of induction and mentoring on the beginning teacher
turnover across United States demonstrated that novice teachers who were assigned
mentors who taught the same level/subject and who collaborated on planning and
other professional development activities were more likely to remain at the school
than those who did not. Although the depth limited this study, detail and currency of
the data on the intensity of the induction program and the mentor selection process, it
established the value of the mentoring as a significant component of induction. The
studies of the retention research in California (CCTC, 2000) although were based on
a limited data which dated before the induction policy was implemented, also
demonstrated a high correlation between mentoring and retention. This confirmed
the findings of an earlier research on mentoring programs conducted by Ingersoll and
Kralik, where the authors concluded that having a mentor from the same field during
the first year reduces attrition by about 30% (Ingersoll & Kralik, 2004). Furthermore,
one of the conclusions drawn from a recent review of the literature on teacher
recruitment and retention supported the finding that schools that provided mentoring
and induction support to the novice teachers had a lower turnover (Guarino et al.,
2006). Another significant finding was that retention rates were not affected by the
mere participation in an induction program, guiding researchers to look into
additional components which support teachers’ maintenance in the profession.
22
The 2006 report published by the Public Policy Institute of California
addressed retention of new teachers in the state by looking at compensation, class
size reduction, student poverty and business cycles. Looking at teacher retention in
high-poverty districts, the study reported that recruitment is a more significant reason
for the teacher shortage in these areas. In order to address this shortage the authors
concluded that investment in professional development, specifically BTSA, is more
cost-effective than increasing compensation (Reed et al., 2006). This finding is
supported by a recent cost-analysis study of mentoring programs for beginning
teachers conducted at the Santa Cruz New Teacher Center which concluded that
“teacher induction in a given district pays $1.66 for every $1 spent,” considering the
large cost of replacing teachers (Villar & Strong, 2007).
Teacher Performance
Although studies of induction programs addressing teacher retention make up
the majority of the work in this area, the highly qualified teacher requirement of
NCLB has in recent years instigated an increasing interest in teacher quality as an
element of a successful support and mentoring program for novice teachers. A
number of state and national studies have looked at the impact of induction on
teacher quality as measured by student performance and teacher competency and
attitude, however there are very few rigorous ones that illustrate significant
correlation. Most of the work in this area is weak due to the problematic nature of
23
designing true experiments involving students, as well as the inability to clearly
define induction, retention and teacher quality.
The 2004 review of statewide research in this area conducted by SRI
International concluded that “the studies are not strong enough for us to conclude
that induction works – that it improves teacher retention or effectiveness (measured
in terms of student achievement or otherwise)” (SRI International, 2004). In 2004 the
CCTC funded a research conducted by Educational Testing Service (ETS) to
investigate the impact of CFASST on teaching effectiveness of beginning teachers.
By identifying ten effective teaching practices a quasi-experimental research was
designed to provide 34 beginning teachers with two levels of (high and low)
BTSA/CFASST support which addressed these measures. The results of this study
showed statistically a significant difference in only one area: instructional planning.
In addition, the group with the high CFASST engagement scored higher on seven of
the ten measures. However, due to the limitations of this study in regards to sample
size and the inability to randomly assign teachers, it was difficult to identify a direct
correlation between BTSA/CFASST and teacher performance (Thompson et al.,
2004).
Other studies, such as the 2005 comparative study of the pre- and post-
induction experiences among new teachers in England, focused mainly on changes in
the daily activities (reflection, autonomy, collegiality and communication) of a
teacher (Smethem & Adey, 2005), rather than improvements in instructional
strategies or student achievement. Another study focusing on teacher efficacy in
24
early practice concluded that although teacher self-efficacy increased significantly
during student teaching, it decline similarly during the first year of teaching
(Woolfolk Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005). Due to the lack of rigorous research in this
area, correlations between induction programs and teacher performance are
inconclusive.
Student Achievement
The ultimate goal of all efforts in the field of education is to increase student
achievement. Over the years, very few studies of teacher induction have attempted
to develop a correlation between these programs and student performance. However,
the high accountability atmosphere created by NCLB, stresses student progress as an
evidence of quality instruction and successful teacher induction. A limited number
of studies linking student learning to teacher induction identified teacher
development as an important factor in student performance (Thompson et al., 2004).
The 2004 ETS research funded by ETS also investigated the impact of CFASST
engagement and student achievement as seen through six subtests of California’s
standardized testing program. The findings of this study demonstrated that students
of teachers who had high level of engagement with BTSA/CFASST scored higher
than those who had lower level of engagement. However, these results were limited
by the small sample size as well as the small number of respondents to the survey
rendering the results inconclusive and recommending rigorous research in this area
(Thompson et al., 2004).
25
Michael Strong, director of research at the New Teacher Center at University
of California in Santa Cruz, attributes the lack of rigorous research in this area to a
number of factors (Strong, 2006). According to his research, the biggest challenge is
represented by the schools’ and districts’ failure to maintain adequate data that can
connect student achievement to teacher performance. In addition, statewide testing
is not administered to all grade levels, creating gaps and inconsistencies in the data.
In presence of available data, analysis of student achievement presents additional
obstacles, as student performance on an assessment can be influenced by a number
of factors besides quality instruction. Finally, educators continue to debate the
reliability and validity of standardized testing as an accurate assessment of student
achievement, disputing any possible correlations. Strong states that although these
factors can be controlled in an experimental design, it is virtually impossible to
create the experimental and control groups in this field which would meet the
standards for true experiments (Strong, 2006).
Given these limitations, the findings of any research correlating student
achievement to teacher induction should be interpreted with great scrutiny. Two
studies conducted at the New Teacher Center compared beginning elementary
teachers’ students’ performance on standardized tests in three districts. During the
first year teachers in all three districts received support from a full-time release
mentor. During the second year the mentor support was reduced in one district,
eliminated in another and continued the same way in the third district. The analysis
of the data demonstrated that students whose teachers received support from a full-
26
time release mentor performed better on standardized tests than others,
demonstrating the value of mentoring during the first two years of teaching. The
second study compared student achievement data from all classrooms in one district,
grouping them by teachers’ years of experience: 1-2 years, 3-9 years, 10 or more
years. The findings from this study demonstrated no significant difference between
the performance of beginning and experienced teachers (Strong, 2006).
The correlation of student performance and teacher mentoring and induction,
although key to any quality program design, will not be addressed in this research
study, as within the current implementation of the policy and with the lack of
adequate data, findings would likely be deemed inconclusive.
However, examination of the impact of induction on new teacher
performance and student achievement has been commissioned by the U.S. Education
Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), who has recently sponsored a
five-year national research study. This $10.3 million dollar evaluation study
(expected for completion in October 2009) will examine the impact of two high-
quality induction programs developed by Santa Cruz New Teacher Center and ETS
PATHWISE (McNulty, 2005). The findings from this research will support the
identification of program components that districts must consider when designing
beginning teacher support programs.
27
Defining and Differentiating Induction and Mentoring
Induction vs. Mentoring
Developing an effective induction program encompasses more than the
incorporation of key elements suggested by research. Rather, it requires a
comprehensive interpretation of the policy language, including an understanding of
what induction represents. Much of the literature on the topic of beginning teacher
support programs uses induction and mentoring interchangeably. Furthermore, when
discussed individually, the definitions vary from one researcher to another. In order
to understand the goals and assumptions of the policy clearly, it is important to
develop a thorough definition of these two terms as seen in the context of the current
research of existing programs.
Mentoring is defined as “a process that facilitates instructional improvement
wherein an experienced educator (mentor) works with a novice or less experienced
teacher (intern) collaboratively and non-judgmentally to study and deliberate on
ways instruction in the classroom may be improved,” according to the mentoring
program at the Hilton Central School District in New York State (Bower, 2005, p.
22). It is the pairing of a novice and an experienced teacher, where the latter guides
and supports the learning of the beginner during the early stages of professional
practice based on the belief that having an experienced person guiding a novice
during these challenging times will help in the overcoming of obstacles. Sandra J.
Odell (2006, p. 203) explains that mentoring is “one component in a set of structured
28
professional development experiences provided for novice teachers.” She adds that
adequate preparation and appropriate disposition of mentors to address the
difficulties of the practice are crucial for the success of the program.
Originally referred to as the “buddy” relationship, often arranged at a school
site with the help of the administrator, mentoring has changed tremendously in the
recent years with the emergence of standards for the teaching profession, including
the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), Educational Testing
Service’s Praxis III PATHWISE assessment system, Danielson’s framework for
teaching, and teaching standards designed by individual states (Portner, 2005).
These documents have laid out the foundation and set the guidelines for the new
mentoring process, which has expanded beyond providing social-emotional support
to include guiding the development of quality teaching practices. As part of this
important task, the selection and training of mentors within the context of these
standards has become a significant component of new teacher support programs,
giving rise to the role of the teacher-leaders in the field of education who often serve
in other school and district positions as professional developers and/or cooperating
teachers (Portner, 2005).
Research on mentoring has identified characteristics of quality mentors to
include knowledge and expertise in content, effective student and work management
skills, knowledge and use of resources to help students progress, positive people
skills, quality curriculum planning and delivery skills, understanding of child
29
development, and the use of variety of instructional strategies (Bower, 2005).
Official mentoring programs have designed a formal selection process which may
include interviews and observations of the mentoring candidate, followed by
subsequent evaluations. This is often followed by a training that prepares the mentor
for supporting mentees through the use of evidence gathered from observations of
the novice teacher’s classroom. Other important components of the training might
include strategies for reflective questioning to help the new teacher build knowledge
based on his/her experiences as seen through the evidence. These research-based
mentoring strategies which support the development of beginning teachers become
an integral part of statewide policies stressing the importance of a carefully designed
and implemented induction program.
Induction, according to Harry K. Wong (2005, p. 43), “is the name given to a
comprehensive, coherent, and sustained professional development process that is
organized by a school district to train, support, and retain new teachers, which then
seamlessly guides them into a lifelong learning program,” adding that “mentoring is
not induction; (but) a component of the induction process.” This type of on-the-job
training for novice teachers provides the opportunity to develop skills within a
structured and comprehensive professional development program which is aligned to
teaching standards and district goals. A key element of this acculturation process, as
explained earlier, is played out by the mentor whose selection and preparation are
crucial to the success of the program.
30
Other very important components of the induction program have been
researched at the University of Santa Cruz New Teacher Center (SCNTC) where the
following checklist of important elements has been accumulated to present a
comprehensive plan for a quality induction program:
• Full-time program administrators
• Quality mentoring
• Mentor selection
• Mentor development
• Formative assessment for beginning teachers
• Training in data collection and analysis
• Training for site administrators
• Teaching standards
• High expectations for new teachers, mentors and students
• Training for work with diverse students and English language learners
• Networking and training opportunities for beginning teachers
• Contractually bargained new teacher placement
Together these components set the guidelines and tone for a policy that
intends to support not only the retention but also the development of a quality
teaching force. Eloquently stated by Moir (2005, p. 71), the founder and director of
the SCNTC, a
31
comprehensive induction and mentoring system can sustain and nourish
that initial enthusiasm of new teachers on their first days. But it can also
reinvigorate veteran teachers and can maintain for entire careers that chill
down the spine at the sound of the word teacher.
Common Features Of Successful Induction Programs
Comprehensive Approaches to Induction
Numerous existing exemplary programs both nationally and internationally
currently provide effective induction and mentoring to novice teachers, supporting
their professional growth. Such programs in Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand,
Shanghai (China), and France, according to Wong, are based on “induction processes
that are comprehensive, coherent, and sustained,” leading to a culture of lifelong
learning (Wong, 2005, p. 42). Various districts across the United States are also
included in Wong’s list of “state-of-the-art induction programs” for training and
supporting teachers to focus on student outcomes. One of these, the eight-year
teacher development program provided at Flowing Wells School District of Tucson,
Arizona, supports the novice teacher into becoming an expert. The emphasis on
student work in Forsyth County Schools of Georgia, another model program, is
demonstrated in their “Work on the Work” Induction Academy. Homewood-
Flossmoor University is the name of the professional development program at the
Homewood-Flossmoor High School District in Flossmoor, Illinois, emphasizing its
dedication to lifelong learning. Dallas Public Schools in Texas have developed
induction programs for future educators, such as high school students, student
32
teachers, beginning teachers and veterans looking for advancement. Induction
programs in California, Connecticut and South Carolina are designed based on
specific standards and protocols for teachers and students (Wong, 2005).
A closer look at individual programs from across the country and some
foreign countries provides an understanding of the core elements of induction
programs in context. This also helps in determining the challenges faced by districts
which will be discussed in the next section.
A research report from Chicago Public Schools (CPS), released in January of
2007, reported the positive outcomes of induction and mentoring on novice teachers’
first and second year experiences, including the quality and effectiveness of various
components of the induction program including the support and training. (Kapadia et
al., 2007) The GOLDEN Teachers Program (Guidance, Orientation, Leadership,
Development, Empowering New Teachers) is one of the six induction programs in
Chicago developed in response to the alarming findings by Ingersoll regarding the
rising teacher attrition rates (Ingersoll, 2001). As part of this program, novice
teachers are paired with school-based mentors and are required to attend 15 hours of
self-selected workshops from a wide selection provided throughout the year. Another
program at CPS, the New Teacher Support Initiative (NTSI), prepares mentors
through a training provided by the University of Illinois at Chicago. Yet in another
program, New Teachers Network (NTN), full time coaches are employed for
supporting the novice teachers in their classrooms and for providing them with
biweekly professional development (Kapadia et al., 2007). The findings of this report
33
indicate that participants in these mentoring and support programs are more likely to
report good experiences during their first two years expressing their intention to
remain at the same school. Induction programs in isolation, as the research indicates,
do not create measurable differences among beginning teachers’ experiences,
however collaboration and opportunities for administrative assistance created as part
of the program are reported as the most influential factors for beginners (Kapadia et
al., 2007).
A two-year research study of district induction programs conducted by the
Colorado Partnership for Educational Renewal (CoPER) in 2002 gathered data to
support the districts’ efforts in renewing and improving the existing program. A
survey of approximately 2000 new teachers and other induction/mentoring program
staff from sixteen partnership districts revealed common trends and practices which
spoke to the effectiveness of the programs regardless of the size and characteristics
of the district (Basile, 2006). Study of the 31 survey items indicated that the most
significant results related to mentoring. Novice teachers attributed their knowledge
of school and district policy and the increase in their professional knowledge and
skills to the intensity of their mentoring. In addition, the survey results indicated the
importance of on-site mentors who taught in the same context as their mentees. As a
result of this study the Colorado New Educator Consortium was created in
conjunction with districts, institutions of higher education and policy groups to build
the capacity for high quality induction programs across the state. The Consortium
addresses issues relating to the influences of state and local policymakers, induction
34
leaders, school and district administrators, mentors and teacher educators on the
implementation and implications of new teacher induction (Basile, 2006).
Another study of three teacher induction programs implemented in New York
City from 2002 to 2004 demonstrated that regardless of the clear differences in the
implementation of each program, all three positively impacted their participants.
Growth in instructional skills and strategies was seen among novice teachers who
participated in the Accelerated Teacher Preparation (ATP) program where they
received mandated mentoring provided by the school. In addition, they participated
in university education courses and received intensive coaching from a university
assigned master teacher. Teachers participating in the Professional Development
Laboratory (PDL) program where they had an in-school Resident Teacher as a
mentor indicated “approaching proficiency” in their teaching, while their students
performed at the same level as their peers in veteran teachers’ classrooms. In
addition to the observation and coaching by the mentor, PDL teachers were required
to enroll in PDL Teacher Leadership Institute that supported the development of
their instructional and leadership capacities. The New Educator Support Team
(NEST) program participants showed growth in teaching proficiency as they
continued in the program. NEST teachers received peer coaching and individual
mentoring from coaches through workshops and other resources. Participation of
veteran teachers in these communities of learning was also encouraged (Ashdown et
al., 2006).
35
The findings from these three studies reiterate the importance of mentoring
and the establishment of professional communities of learning as key components of
quality induction programs which empower beginning teachers and enhance student
learning.
To demonstrate the importance of induction programs on teacher
development Maria Assuncao Flores conducted a study of 14 novice teachers
involving 18 elementary (ages 10-15) and secondary (ages 15-18) schools in
northern Portugal during the 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 school years (Flores, 2006).
It is important to indicate that at the time Portuguese schools did not have formal
programs for supporting beginning teachers even though it had been recognized by
their policymakers as an important phase in the professional development of new
teachers. The analysis of the interview data indicated that teachers found the
opportunity to learn on the job as the most positive experience during their first year,
however, they stated that the lack of collaboration and administrative support were
serious obstacles to their success. Flores concluded that peer support, leadership and
demands of the profession both within and outside of the classroom greatly
influenced the first year of teaching. The findings of her study support the belief that
“induction is a key phase in the teacher’s career which needs to be given more
attention by policymakers, school leaders, teacher educators, teacher education
course providers, and other stakeholders” (Flores, 2006, p. 62). Flores also
emphasizes the need for a “novice-centered and context-dependent” program where
mentors and school leaders are provided with an extensive training in order to foster
36
a “collaborative culture within schools” in partnership with the university teacher
preparation programs.
Such elements are implemented in the nationwide mandated induction
program for first-year teachers in Israel which includes mentors who are appointed
by the principals to help on site and “peer-group workshops” facilitated by the
pedagogy faculty at the teacher training colleges. Feedback from peers and workshop
coordinators is followed by an end-of-the-year assessment which is a requirement for
licensure. A unique feature of this program is the light workload for beginning
teachers who are considered independent teachers and receive only half the workload
compared to regular teachers. A research of this system published in February 2006
involved 144 participants from various levels and content areas (Lazovsky &
Reichenberg, 2006). The study found that participants viewed the workshops and
their mentor teachers positively indicating the “imperative” role of the mentor
teacher in working with the novice. In addition, the need for formal training,
compensation and release from full-time teaching for mentors was stressed
(Lazovsky & Reichenberg, 2006).
The California model of the induction program developed by the New
Teacher Center (NTC) at UC Santa Cruz has been examined on a number of
occasions, leading to findings which have resulted in its statewide implementation.
A 2006 report prepared by the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities (AASCU) indicated that a unique feature of the NTC induction model is
the one-on-one mentoring conducted by carefully selected and highly trained
37
mentors who have been released from their teaching duties. In addition, a network
of support is created among first- and second-year teachers and their mentors to
provide the opportunity for collaboration. “This model promotes the expectation
that teaching is collegial and that learning is a lifelong process,” states the report
(AASCU, 2006, p. 2).
Designing and Implementing Quality Induction Programs
As evident in the commonalities found among various examples of quality
induction, successful programs feature elements whose presence is vital for their
impact on new teacher satisfaction, retention, and performance, the main focus of
existing studies in this field. Findings from various self-studies of quality new
teacher support and induction programs have been used to suggest guidelines for the
development of new teacher support and induction programs which address these
key components (see Table 1).
Considering these elements and the critical issues that must be addressed in
the development of mentoring programs, program developers can guide their work
using the following seven questions provided by Ganser (2005):
• Who provides the leadership of the program?
• On what principles or standards is the program based?
• What are the characteristics of the beginning teachers that the program
serves?
• Who serves as the mentors in the program?
38
• How long does the program last?
• How is the program evaluated?
• Where does the program fit into teaching as a profession?
Table 1: Elements of Effective Induction Programs (PEN, 2004, Moir, 2006, Breaux
& Wong, 2002)
Public Education Network
Santa Cruz New
Teacher Center
Breaux and Wong
• Integral to school/district long-
term planning for improving
teaching and learning, aligned
with the instructional philosophy
of the school, and establishes
professional norms and
expectations for all teachers.
• Aligned with professional
standards as well as state and
local student learning standards.
• A strong institutional
commitment, as evidenced by
state and local mandates, and
strong administrator support and
involvement.
• Participation by all new teachers,
whether entering the profession
from traditional or alternative
pathways.
• Input from beginning and veteran
teachers on program design and
structure.
• Reduced workloads, release time,
and placement in classes with
less, rather than more demanding
students.
• Quality mentoring, with careful
selection, training, and ongoing
support for mentors.
• Ongoing assessment to determine
whether the program is having its
desired impact.
• Begins prior to, extends
throughout, and continues
beyond the new teacher’s first
year of teaching.
• Full-time program
administrators
• Quality mentoring
• Mentor selection
• Mentor development
• Formative assessment
for beginning teachers
• Training on data
collection and analysis
• Training for site
administrators
• Teaching standards
• High expectations for
new teachers, mentors
and students
• Training for work with
diverse students and
English language
learners
• Networking and
training opportunities
for beginning teachers
• Contractually
bargained new teacher
placement
• Start with an initial four
or five days of
induction before school
begins
• Offer a continuum of
professional
development through
systematic training over
a period of two or three
years
• Provide study groups
where new teachers can
network and build
support, commitment,
and leadership in a
learning community
• Incorporate a strong
sense of administrative
support
• Integrate a mentoring
component into the
induction process
• Present a structure for
modeling effective
teaching during in-
services and mentoring
• Provide opportunities
for inductees to visit
demonstration
classrooms
39
Responding to these questions by examining the available research will
provide an in-depth analysis and explanation of issues relating to program design
that support the goals and objectives of a statewide policy.
Carefully selected leadership is key to the success of a mentoring and
induction program, as this individual or team determines the selection and training of
mentors, matching of mentors with mentees, planning of professional development,
organizing meetings and mentoring activities, evaluating and implementing
improvements. Historically, this role has been played by the director of staff
development or instruction, however over the years committees have been formed to
assist in carrying out these functions. A partnership between the district, the local
teachers’ union and the local colleges and universities is created through the
representation of these entities in a steering committee. The involvement of these
stakeholders ensures a continued interest in the needs of beginning teachers. The
current induction programs formally outline the responsibilities of the leadership and
the advisory committee. The responsibilities of California’s BTSA program director
are outlined in the Induction Program Standard 11, which states that “the program
leader(s) clearly communicate the program’s rationale, goals, and design to the
school district leaders and administrators, school officials, bargaining units when
present, and others responsible for employing, assigning, and supporting
participating teachers” (Alpert & Mazzoni, 1998).
The second question on Ganser’s list supports the development of a
standards-based program. Although informal mentoring programs have been around
40
for many years, with the heightened accountability of recent years in the field of
education, these programs have been redesigned based on the various professional
standards for teaching as mentioned in earlier sections. These frameworks have
clarified the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders along with the goals and
purposes of the program and all its components. In addition, these standards have
made an effort to bridge the gap between preservice teacher education and beginning
classroom teaching experience. Outlining the expectations for mentees and mentors
has also been a key outcome of this movement (Portner, 2005). In California this
component is played out by various standards which include the Teaching
Performance Expectations, California Standards for the Teaching Profession, and the
Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs.
The next question on Ganser’s list addresses the characteristics of beginning
teachers served by these mentoring and induction programs. The traditional image
of the beginning teacher has changed greatly in recent years, as increasing number
of older adults are entering the profession for change of career, along with the
younger group that is coming through alternative routes of teacher certification,
rather than the four-year degree. Finally, the conventional view of teaching as a
lifetime career appears to be absent among many young adults entering the
profession, as many of them “plan on testing the waters of teaching for two or three
years before making a commitment,” while others aspire to move into administrative
or management positions within the field of education (Johnson, 2004).
41
Another key issue to consider in the development of an induction program is
the alternative certification trend which creates a much needed pool of candidates
especially for the hard to staff subjects as well as urban schools. Two such programs
authorized and funded by NCLB are Troops to Teaching and Transition to Teaching,
with the latter including support activities for pre- and in-service preparation. Other
methods of meeting the requirements of a certification and the “highly qualified”
component of NCLB are utilized to certify teachers in rural or other areas with
unique contexts (Portner, 2005).
Due to these varying characteristics of program and candidate needs, Ganser
notes that “one-size-fits-all teacher mentoring programs cannot be viable in the long
run… (and) flexibility in mentoring program is even more critical” (Ganser, 2005, p.
9). A comprehensive program, according to him, should address this matter when
designing the mentor selection process, program duration and evaluation methods
and interpretation of how the program fits into the teaching professions.
Early mentoring programs addressed the mentor selection process by
basically identifying veteran teachers who were either involuntarily assigned or
chose to volunteer as “buddies” to the beginning teachers. Physical proximity and
teaching in the same context were often keys in this process. In recent years with
changes in the number of retired teachers compared to beginners as well as with the
advancements of technology in communication, Ganser (2005) admits, that the
selection and capacity of mentors has changed significantly. The high number of
retirees in the recent years has left a pool of younger teacher-mentors, who often also
42
work in various teacher leadership capacities and may not be teaching in the same
context as their mentees. This decrease in the number of mentors has also created
changes in the mentoring configuration, where instead of the one-on-one
mentor/mentee relationship; districts assign mentors to a team of beginning teachers
who may be at different sites teaching in different contexts. Such cases require the
development and use of specific mentoring program guidelines and mentor roles and
responsibilities to ensure that the mentoring continues to be effective. The rise of
electronic communication in recent years has provided another method for
addressing this challenge, as seen through the increasing e-mentoring or virtual
mentoring programs, where one-on-one support is provided electronically. These
include some stand-alone national programs, such as Teacher-to-Teacher E-
mentoring facilitated by Phi Delta Kappa International, or individual statewide
programs, such as University of Minnesota’s Mentoring through Technology to
Support Student Achievement program, Loyola University Chicago, Milwaukee
Public Schools, and the newly developed Louisiana FIRST online e-mentoring,
which complement their face-to-face programs. Additionally, novice and veteran
teacher e-mentoring programs are available in specific content areas such as math
and sciences. Although the advent and growth of these programs appear to be the
ideal solution for addressing the mentor shortage, their quality and efficiency is a
subject of future research.
In addition to changes in the mentor selection process, the role and capacity
of today’s mentor have also evolved in order to meet the program goal of providing
43
quality mentoring to novice teachers within the context of nationwide high
accountability environment. “Mentoring requires new abilities: working with adults,
collaboration, and often most complex, being able to articulate the set of teaching
skills that they work with every day,” states Moir (2005, p. 62). The following
scenario presented by Mark Bower (2005) in his description of the mentoring
program mandated by the State of New York provides one example of the mentor’s
changing role:
During the first few months of the beginning teacher’s induction year, the
mentor may become fully responsible for various instructional and
socialization activities. Mentoring has an evolutionary quality; the
experienced teacher assists the beginning teacher gradually to gain
competency, confidence, realistic values, experience, self-evaluative skills,
and curricular knowledge. Interaction between the mentor and beginning
teacher may involve modeling, supervision, coaching, and discussion and
curriculum collaboration. (p. 24)
To prepare mentors for such rigorous responsibilities, programs must include
a systematic mentor professional development plan which will provide support to
mentors in helping them address the changing needs of novice teachers. Bower
(2005, p. 23) states that “mentors are seen as facilitators of instructional
improvement, providers of an alternative form of supervision, and supporters of
teachers’ professional growth and development” - roles which demand continuous
self-reflection on one’s own teaching skills, as well as a comprehensive
understanding of adult learning. “Continuing to learn and study the research that
supports mentoring” is one of Bower’s (2005) ten essentials for designing an
effective program.
44
Another key element of an effective induction program to consider is its
duration. In their early years, programs were designed to provide support to the
beginning teacher during the first year of practice, after which the mentee was no
longer considered a beginner. The financial cost of the program often determined its
length. Wong (2005, p. 47) states that one of the components of a quality program is
a “time frame that begins prior to, extends throughout, and continues beyond the new
teacher’s first year of teaching.” Currently, most programs extend their services to
new teachers to second and sometimes the third year of teaching. Ganser (2005, p.
11) notes that “less frequently, the period of time is extended backward by initiating
formalized mentoring during preservice preparation in a traditional or alternative
certification program.” The benefits of multiyear mentoring reflect the
developmental needs of novice teachers whose beginning practice takes them from
the survival to the discovery phase, where they develop an understanding of the field
and all the components involved in teaching that had not been addressed in their
teacher preparation programs.
Determining program length is a component of a design that is successful in
meeting the goals and objectives it aims to reach, and continuous evaluation is key in
monitoring its progress towards these intents. Ganser (2005) states that originally
almost all program evaluations addressed the stakeholders’ opinions of various
program elements. Often used as tools for program improvement, these evaluations
were based mainly on surveys and questionnaires. The changes in the field of staff
development during the past two decades have lead to a more elaborate and
45
functional system of program evaluation (Sparks & Hirsh, cited in Portner, 2005),
which takes into account the value of the program and its various components, the
use of the various data gathering strategies, the personnel responsible for collection
and analysis of the data, and the evaluation of the evaluation process itself (Ganser,
2006). The focus of program evaluation has clearly shifted from program
improvement to its effect on the participants. In addition, a sound evaluation system
is one of the most significant elements of state mandated induction and mentoring
programs used to determine compliance with program standards and eligibility for
state funds.
The final question presented by Ganser (2005), as an important element to be
considered when developing a program, looks at how mentoring and induction fit
into the teaching profession. In recent years, a number of states have linked
induction to teacher licensure, which has inadvertently also turned these programs
into incentives for hiring, where new teachers seek districts that provide a formal
support program. A 2004 research study by Janice L. Hall (2005) demonstrated that
66% (thirty-three) of the states had a mandated mentoring or induction program with
twenty-two of them state-funded. In addition, she found that five states were at the
time in the process of piloting programs. Although this is a positive move towards
creating a steady support system for novice teachers, policy mandates which are
based on insufficient research and understanding of the problem they intend to
alleviate can inadvertently create an environment of rules and regulations which
demand compliance for continuous funding. The dramatic rise in state-mandated
46
programs demands a well-thought-out program design that continues to focus on
student achievement by meeting the needs of the novice teachers rather than a
bureaucratic hoop for them to jump through for obtaining professional license.
The aforementioned components of induction and mentoring programs are
key to their effectiveness in relation to teacher quality and student learning; however
it is important to understand the significance of their context as this influences the
success and failure of any program. Portner (2005) states that the longevity and
value of the induction and mentoring process depends on its successful integration
into the culture of the school. He presents three principles that serve as the
framework for such integration (Portner, 2005):
Principle 1: An embedded induction and mentoring program consists
of both internal and external relationships.
Principle 2: Leaving the responsibility of inducting and mentoring
new teachers to assigned mentors only is shortsighted and a
prescription for failure.
Principle 3: An embedded induction and mentoring program thrives
on informed dedication and purposeful nurturing.
The interweaving of the key elements presented by Ganser, NEP and Moir
represents the roadmap for creating an effective induction program that is embedded
within and integral to a positive school culture and has student learning as its focus.
As Portner (2005, p. 89) puts it, “unless and until induction and mentoring becomes a
47
part of a school’s everyday routine – is taken for granted yet highly valued – it runs
the all-too-real risk of becoming just another fad of the month.”
Challenges in the Implementation of Induction Programs
In identifying successful methods of designing induction programs, a number
of challenges surface as obstacles that can possibly hinder their effectiveness. These
obstacles are often attributed to barriers relating to financial and human resources or
to gaps within the culture of the organization. Although most studies of induction
programs address positive outcomes and success, underlying issues are often
insinuated in their analysis.
Financial and Human Resources
Commitment to any large-scale comprehensive program that provides
quality results requires resources. One of the most common obstacles in the field of
education, including induction, is the lack of sufficient financial resources to develop
and implement the most comprehensive plan that incorporates all the key elements
discussed earlier. In recent years this situation has proliferated due to the shifting of
resources to address the major emphasis placed on increasing student achievement
fearing federal and state penalties for not demonstrating adequate yearly progress on
high stakes assessments. In the absence of adequate state funding, induction
programs are forced to reconfigure their resources, at the cost of reducing or even
eliminating some of their most important elements. Quality teacher induction is a
48
costly endeavor; however recent studies show teacher turnover results in far more
alarming costs, as evident in the following quotation from a 2005 publication of the
Alliance for Excellent Education:
A conservative national estimate of the cost of replacing public school
teachers who have dropped out of the profession is $2.2 billion a year. If the
cost of replacing public school teachers who transfer schools is added, the
total reaches $4.9 billion every year. For individual states, cost estimates
range from $8.5 million in North Dakota to a whopping half a billion dollars
for a large state like Texas. (p. 1)
The significance of these numbers is far more evident in high poverty low
performing schools, which experience the highest rates of teacher attrition. This
dilemma, referred to as the “hole in the bucket” by Ingersoll (2002), is summarized
in a report of a pilot study on the cost of teacher turnover conducted by the National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (Barnes et al., 2007):
Low performing schools rarely close the student achievement gap because
they never close the teaching quality gap – they are constantly rebuilding
their staff. An inordinate amount of their capital – both human and financial –
is consumed by the constant process of hiring and replacing beginning
teachers who leave before they have mastered the ability to create a
successful learning culture for their students. (p. 1)
In California the commitment of the legislature to reducing teacher attrition is
evident in its continuous funding of the BTSA program, at $102 million in 2006-
2007 or $3893 per teacher, despite the state’s fluctuating economic conditions. In
2002 the Commission on Teacher Credentialing released a preliminary report
regarding teacher retention in California. This comparative report analyzed the data
on credentials issued to teachers matching it to their employment status based on
records from the Employment Development Department. The findings indicated that
49
84% of the state’s teachers were still employed in the profession after four years,
compared to the national retention rate of only 67%. Although these numbers look
promising, the mere fact of having 16-20% of an organization’s workforce
continuously shifting creates significant challenges in the development and
sustenance of high quality staffing, with low performing high poverty schools
suffering most. High teacher turnover has significant impact on the availability of
high quality teachers who can serve as mentors, a crisis that was addressed earlier in
this review.
A report entitled, Status of the Teaching Profession 2005, published by the
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (2006) accounts the daunting teacher
shortage crisis facing California during the next ten years. Based on the age of the
current teaching workforce, it predicts that if the 97,000 teachers who are now at the
age of 50 or over retire at the average age of retirement, during the next 10-11 years,
the state will have to replace approximately 32% of the teaching staff (Esch et al.,
2005). This crisis is escalated by the decreasing percentage of candidates entering
teacher education programs during the past three years. In the face of this dilemma,
the report makes three recommendations to policymakers in California, one of which
states, “ensure that all teachers who enter the classroom have a thorough knowledge
of the subject matter assigned and posses the pedagogical skills required to teach all
children,” further specifying the use of the BTSA program to “promote a coordinated
and coherent effort to bring novice teachers into the profession” (Esch et al., 2005, p.
97). The successful implementation of the induction policy must be cognizant of this
50
situation, recognizing that high teacher turnover impacts programs in many ways,
which include the financial cost of hiring and training new teachers, and the dilemma
of selecting, adequately training and compensating mentors from a dwindling pool of
experienced staff.
Human resource barriers to the implementation of induction are also caused
by the inadequate number of mentors currently available in the field. This causes
significant problems in the program’s ability to match mentors and mentees
effectively (e.g. proximity, same content area). The quality of the program is further
undermined by the shortage of substitute teachers who are employed to release the
beginning teachers for professional development, collaboration, observation and
other activities which are key to their growth.
School Leadership and Culture
It is important to recognize that even if the above-mentioned financial and
human resource concerns were eliminated, other organizational gaps would continue
to impede the full implementation of a quality induction plan. Quality induction
involves collaboration and is embedded within the teacher’s daily practice; however,
typical school schedules do not provide opportunities for this type of interaction. In
addition, Odell (2006) writes that often the goals of the program are in contrast with
the culture of the school, especially the individualistic atmosphere rising out of the
autonomy teachers have in all decision-making within the confines of their own
classroom. Induction and mentoring are in fact shared learning environments where
51
careful observations of the novice by the mentor lead to a reflective discussion that is
based on evidence. Moreover, there often is an assumption that mentors are the
troubleshooters; therefore, the concerns of new teachers are to be referred to and
addressed by them only. The misunderstood role and responsibility of the mentor at
the school as solely the social-emotional support provider also undermine the
demands put on these individuals who are often full time teachers with other duties
at the school site.
Portner’s (2005) proposed framework for the successful integration of
induction into a school culture as mentioned earlier identifies three key principles he
calls “systems-thinking, collaborative-doing, and committed-leading.” By
conceptualizing induction as the reciprocal relationship between its components, the
role of each element (e.g., people, policies, practices, mandates) in the success of the
entire program is clarified. Similarly, the collaborative-doing view of induction
ascertains that this process requires the commitment of all stakeholders who are
direct and active participants in the development and monitoring of the program,
while interacting with and supporting teachers and mentors by providing them with
time and resources. This could mean evaluating the school schedule to incorporate
time for collaboration and articulation, and reaching out to local universities and
other professional organizations for expertise and support. Finally, committed-
leading identifies the influential role of the leader in the success of the program.
Portner (2005, p. 80) writes, “vision without action is a daydream; action without
vision is a nightmare,” showing the importance of leaders who have a vision and are
52
committed in supporting their organization towards materializing that vision. The
term leader in this context refers to those who move the program forward, including
the administrators, instructional supervisors, curriculum coordinators, non-mentor
teacher veterans, mentors, teachers association’s leaders, mentors, and most
importantly, principals. Induction program administrators are often left to carry the
burden of the complex issues involved in the program design and policy
implications. However, the engagement of others who participate in the
development of the program’s vision and embrace its objectives and goals makes the
difference between participating teachers who see the full value of induction to their
practice and those who find it to be an added inconvenience to their daily work.
Identifying the organizational challenges of implementing a comprehensive
induction program is critical to the program’s efforts to examine and prescribe
solutions based on the framework offered by Portner (2005). By developing an
interactive and collaborative system of support and professional development and
growth for novice teachers, induction becomes embedded within the landscape of the
larger system of education creating outcomes that positively influence the daily
instruction in each classroom and ultimately individual student progress.
Conclusion and Summary
The importance of a comprehensive induction program for beginning
teachers has become a central element in the development and sustenance of highly
qualified teachers in every classroom, which research has continuously linked to
53
increased student achievement. An in-depth review of the literature in this area
describes the successful implementation of programs as a product of various issues
related to policy objective and interpretation, program impact on stakeholders,
selection and support of the key figures involved in the implementation, active and
collaborative administration, and challenges relating to human and financial
resources as well as the school culture.
The need for exemplary induction programs is extremely important in places
like California, where state policies have placed the local programs in charge of
recommending candidates for the Professional Clear Credential. Considering the
research findings regarding the positive effects of induction programs on beginning
teacher retention and to some extent instruction, the policy serves to provide all
teachers across the state with equitable access to support and resources. However,
left to the planning and decision of individual districts, the development of induction
programs that meet the standards set by the policy, can vary according to the policy
interpretation of the stakeholders at the local level. Further legislative action
attempting to address the gaps in the system often leads to complex list of
requirements and mandates that challenge the design of an effective program.
California’s current induction policy is a result of years of legislative action and
research, representing a patchwork of recommendations, assessments, resources, and
mandates that often overlap. Compliance with the numerous and often redundant
requirements places an unnecessary demand on novice teachers’ time and energy, as
well as presenting a financial burden to the district, especially in times of such high-
54
stakes accountability where immediate improvements are most desirable. Education
policy implementation is the “product of interactions between policies, people, and
places” (Honig, 2006, p. 2), which highlights the importance of understanding the
context in order to determine the complexities and challenges of implementation. In
addition, “failure to attend to the different challenges and opportunities such policies
present in short and long terms may significantly curb implementation” (Honig,
2006, p. 15). To ensure successful policy implementation and prevent programs
from becoming compliance-driven instead of goal-driven, it is crucial to understand
the design elements and challenges of an effective program.
The goal of this study is to examine an established induction program in
order to identify the key implementation decisions and strategies which result in
positive outcomes for participants and the program’s overall performance.
Furthermore the interpretation of the state’s induction policy will be studied to
support the development of guidelines for future program design that is best aligned
with the policy.
55
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter focuses on the methodology of the study, specifically the
population and sample, instrument development, methods and procedures, and data
analysis. To recap, the purpose of this study is to illuminate the challenges of district
level implementation of California’s induction policy for beginning teachers.
The research will be guided by the following overarching question and its
three sub-questions: How does a district implement California’s induction policy for
beginning teachers?
1. What are the assumptions of the induction policy and what is the district’s
interpretation of this mandate?
2. How do participating teachers, support providers, program directors and
administrators perceive the induction program offered by the district?
3. What factors determine and influence the success of a district induction
program?
Research Design
This study employed a qualitative case study research design, examining the
implementation of California’s induction policy within the current induction program
56
in Washington Unified School District (WUSD, pseudonym). Qualitative research
according to Patton (1985, p. 1) “is an effort to understand situations and their
uniqueness as part of a particular context and the interactions there.” The goal of
this study was to understand how program participants and stakeholders interpret and
perceive the state policy and its local implementation while developing an in-depth
understanding of how this interpretation influences general program design and its
ultimate success or failure. The case study research is the most appropriate approach
supporting this aim, as it “help(s) us to understand processes of events, projects, and
programs and to discover context characteristics that will shed light on an issue or
object,” as described by Sanders (cited in Merriam, 1998, p. 33). Analyzing the
program from the stakeholder’s point of view highlighted the general factors
influencing the induction program, while isolating the unique issues that rise in
specific contexts.
The use of the case study method allowed for a thorough examination of the
induction policy implementation and program design at an urban public school
district helping to understand the phenomena. Kenny and Grotelueschen (cited in
Merriam, 1998) identify case studies as the most appropriate method when
attempting “to develop a better understanding of the dynamics of a program.” Their
strength, notes Merriam (1998, p. 39) is in “studying educational innovations, for
evaluating and for informing policy,” key elements in the current state of
California’s induction policy implementation.
57
Sample and Population
The Washington Unified School District’s BTSA/Induction program
represents one of the original state-approved pilot programs currently supporting
approximately one hundred K-12 teachers (60 in year one and 40 in year two)
through the use of support providers (SP)/mentors known as consulting teachers
(CT) who are partially funded through the district’s Peer Assistance and Review
(PAR) program. The approximately 24 support providers represent full-time
teachers from K-12 regular and special education classrooms selected based on an
application, observation and interview process. In addition, the program utilizes the
services of about five early-retirees who are selected to serve as support providers
based on the recommendations of their administrators.
I chose this district for the study because in the past several years, it has
developed a highly structured BTSA program which, based on the annual state
survey, has received generally positive evaluations from its stakeholders. Since the
inception of the induction policy, the district’s program has gone through many
changes to meet the goals of the policy. In addition, there have been a number of
administrative changes as well as a large drop in student enrollment, both of which
have in some ways influenced the implementation of the policy. The success of a
program is often defined by the effective interaction of its factors which are regularly
modified to meet the requirements and demands of the current political, educational
and financial environments. Studying a program that has been considered high-
58
quality year after year supports my goal of identifying the policy implementation
challenges which districts may face regardless of their experience or expertise with
the program. The aim of such purposeful sampling is to examine “information-rich
cases … from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to
the purpose of the research” (Merriam, 1998).
Approximately twelve different BTSA Induction Program Directors
throughout Southern California were contacted through e-mail seeking their
participation. However, all requests were denied often citing the district’s recent
participation in the State Induction Program Review. Two other districts were
excluded, despite the directors’ consent, as they were a high school district,
significantly limiting the scope of this study.
Washington Unified School District BTSA Induction program was selected
as the unit of analysis for this study. The sub-samples consisted of six support
providers (consulting teachers), from two elementary, two middle and two high
schools. Efforts were made to include both new and veteran support providers as
well as early-retirees. Nine participating teachers (years one and two), representing
the elementary and high schools were also included. In addition the sample
consisted of three site administrators and the program director. Recruitment of
volunteers was done through a brief presentation at the support provider meeting, as
well as during a BTSA-1 full-day and BTSA-2 after-school workshops. Everyone
was provided with copies of the Consent Form and a calendar of possible interview
dates. Administrators were contacted through e-mail. By selecting representatives
59
from the different grade levels, the study ensured that issues specific to contexts
were addressed. In total, 19 individuals were interviewed. This purposeful sampling
was practical for the purpose of this study which was to understand stakeholders’
perceptions of the policy and the consequences of this perception on program’s
success.
The following table (Table 2) presents the demographics of the participants in
this study. Interviews with these stakeholders were analyzed and the findings are
presented in the subsequent sections representing the themes within each sub-
question.
Table 2: Demographics of Study Participants
Participant Group Employment Position in WUSD
Program Administration
Director
Former Coordinator/Teacher Specialist
School Site Administration
Elementary Assistant Principal
Elementary Principal
Middle School Principal
Support Providers
Full-Time Teachers:
1 Elementary (K-5)
2 Middle School (6-8)
2 High School (9-10)
Retired Teachers:
1 Elementary (K-5)
Participating Teachers
BTSA Year-One:
3 Elementary (K-5)
2 High School (9-10)
BTSA Year-Two:
4 Elementary (K-5)
60
Instrumentation and Data Collection Procedures
The data collection procedures for this case study were based primarily on
interviews, and to a lesser extent document reviews and observations. Patton (1987,
p. 196) explains that, “we interview people to find out from them those things we
cannot directly observe…. feelings, thoughts and intentions. The purpose of
interviewing, then, is to allow us to enter into the other person’s perspective.” This
method of collecting data is most appropriate in supporting the goal of this research
which is to identify people’s interpretations of a policy and its implementation.
Semi-structured interviews, according to Merriam (1998, p. 74), assume “that
individual respondents define the world in unique ways,” therefore a combination of
structured and open-ended questions was utilized. An interview protocol was
designed for each group: participating teachers, support providers, school
administrators, and program director. Open-ended questions were designed to gather
descriptive data that was analyzed for commonalities in responses (see Appendices
A, B, C and D for interview protocols). All interviews were taped and transcribed
verbatim.
The data from the individual interviews was supported by a thorough review
of the documents and records pertinent to the program design and implementation,
not limited to the district induction plan and the new teacher induction portfolio. For
example, the results of the annual state survey of participating teachers, support
providers and administrators added another dimension to the data. Furthermore,
61
meeting agendas, workshop handouts and evaluations were reviewed to advance my
understanding of how the program is aligned with the state policy.
In addition, observation notes from the monthly support provider meeting and
full day and after-school beginning teacher induction workshops were collected as
evidence of policy interpretation. Kidder (cited in Merriam, 1998) explains that
observations used for research are carefully planned tools used to systematically
collect valid and reliable data which serves the purpose of the research. Merriam
(1998) notes that observations highlight details which due to their routine or delicate
nature may not be revealed by the participants, but for the researcher they can
provide important clarification of the context. The observation of the monthly
support provider meeting provided data on understanding how the program
stakeholders interpret and implement the induction policy, as well as providing
insight into the discussions and interactions which influence program design and
policy implementation. Novice teachers’ perspective of the program design and
policy interpretation was observed in their attendance, interaction and participation
in the full-day and after-school workshops (see Appendix E for the observation
protocol).
Data Analysis Procedures
The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of how a district
induction program is designed based on the local interpretation of the state policy.
The goal was to identify the key elements and challenges of the implementation
62
process. The interviews, document studies and observations provided sufficient data
to answer the three research questions guiding this study.
Patton (2002, p. 438) advises that “description forms the bedrock of all
qualitative reporting, whether for scholarly inquiry … or for program evaluation;”
however, care should be taken to separate it from interpretation, which is the
explanation of the findings after a careful analysis. The analytical framework
approach was utilized to describe the important processes involved in the
interpretation, implementation and design of an induction program. The first step in
the analysis of this data was a review of the district induction program plan to
identify its goals and purposes and build context for the issues raised in the
interviews of each group: beginning teachers, support providers, administrators,
director. “The analyst’s first and foremost responsibility consists of doing justice to
each individual case,” cautions Patton (2002, p. 449), highlighting the importance of
careful and thorough understanding of each one. Next the interview transcripts were
reviewed in light of the research questions raised by this study and responses were
coded manually through the use of the qualitative data analysis process.
Identification of the general themes and concepts in these responses were further
enhanced through additional coding that was applied to all available data. Using
content analysis, defined by Patton (2002) as the process of taking volumes of
qualitative data and reducing it to “core consistencies and meanings,” the coded data
was then arranged into a matrix to analyze for patterns and to help find and show a
relationship in the data. Cross-classification matrices, Patton (2002) points out, can
63
be used to organize the data in a new way that might generate new patterns and
themes which do not surface during inductive analysis. Summarizing the theories
emerging from inductive analysis and referencing all findings with specific
quotations from the data provided grounds for a comprehensive response to the
research questions steering this study. The findings are presented in a narrative that
includes implications for future research along with suggestions for policy makers
and program administrators.
Validating the Findings
The validity of the findings is crucial to the quality of any research, since it
determines the accuracy of the results. To establish validity, the triangulation
method was used, where multiple interviews representing the views of stakeholders
from all levels were included. In addition, the analysis of documents helped add
another layer by providing a point of comparison between what the program looks
like in writing and how it is perceived. Observation data from support provider and
participating teacher meetings helped answer questions not readily available in
interviews or documents.
Ethical Considerations
The research guidelines set by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the
University of Southern California were closely adhered to at all stages of this study.
The study was approved by IRB as well as the WUSD BTSA Induction Program
64
Director. Consent forms, clearly outlining the depth of the participants’ involvement
in the study, were provided to all members being interviewed to clarify their
understanding of this voluntary participation in the project.
Limitations of the Study
The sample size and duration of this research presented important limitations
to the quality study. By analyzing the program in only one district and interviewing a
small group of people involved in the program, this research provides a limited
picture of the issues involved in the district implementation of the induction policy.
The findings of this study although cannot be generalized to other schools and
districts, they do provide a basic understanding of some common challenges in
policy implementation that can be considered as starting points for program design in
other locations.
Researcher’s Subjectivity
I worked as a support provider in this district for approximately four and half
years, and this research grew out of my personal interest in ensuring that local
programs provide the most effective and efficient support to novice teachers.
However, in order to preserve the validity of the findings, all care was taken to
ensure that my personal biases do not impact the results of the research. Most study
participants did not know me from the past, as the support provider’s job is mainly in
a one-to-one context with the beginning teachers. The few who recognized me, did
65
not express any concern regarding their responses or participation in the study.
Although my personal experiences and knowledge of the program are part of the
data, triangulation ensured that these were not uniquely significant to the outcomes
of the study.
Summary
This chapter described the methods that were employed in conducting this
study, identifying the key components of the research design: sample, instruments,
and analysis. In addition, the researcher’s subjectivity, ethical consideration and
study limitations were noted. The following chapter will outline the analysis of the
research findings.
66
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS
For some time now, we have recognized that implementation is a crucial link
between the objectives and outcomes of policies, programs, and practices. We also
have come to recognize that implementation, as a process of enactment or “carrying
out,” is inherently problematic. It is fraught with uncertainty and unpredictability. It
is a process that is difficult to control and prone to failure.
Smylie & Evans, 2006, p. 187
Introduction
This study examines one district’s efforts in implementing California’s
Induction policy for beginning teachers by looking at program design and its
stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences. This chapter illustrates an analysis of the
findings from this case study, examining the implementation of California’s
Induction policy from the standpoint of its stakeholders. Washington Unified School
District (WUSD) is a mid-size urban district that had a well-received beginning
teacher support program in place before the current induction policy. The
implementation challenges and factors highlighted through this research shed light
on the immense difficulties facing districts whose programs are still at their infancy
or continue to struggle to meet induction goals.
67
The Research Questions
The following question and the three sub-questions guided this qualitative
research in an attempt to identify the key elements and challenges of developing a
high quality induction program that meets the needs of novice teachers while
reaching the goals and objectives of the state policy. The thorough analysis of the
interview data from various stakeholders, as well as document reviews and event
observations lend themselves to the following general findings and themes within
each sub-question which will be expanded in the subsequent sections:
How do districts implement California’s induction policy for beginning
teachers?
1. What are the assumptions of the induction policy and what is the district’s
interpretation of this mandate?
• K-12 collaboration and support: roles and responsibilities
• Paradigm shift in teacher licensure: district as credentialing agency
2. How do participating teachers (PT), support providers (SP), program
directors and administrators perceive the induction program offered by the
district?
• Program goal and objective: clarification and communication
• Local level of monitoring quality of program components
68
3. What factors determine and influence the success of a district induction
program?
• Quality support providers and time for collaboration
• Increased focus on performance rather than documentation
• Individualized support structure
• Quality professional development
• In-depth guidance for K-12 Administrator
The brief overview of the district and induction program demographics will
be followed by a detailed analysis of the data disaggregated by each sub-question
and examined further for individual themes and findings. A synthesis of the data
analysis results will be provided in the conclusion.
Context
WUSD’s Beginning Teacher support and Assessment (BTSA) Induction
Program is one of the over 150 state programs which serve roughly 29,000 teachers
in the state on a budget of $93 million, based on the 2006-2007 data. This district’s
program was one of the 15 state-funded programs which piloted BTSA during the
1992-1993 school year. Over the years it has continued to change and grow based on
the numerous state mandates regarding the credentialing and induction of novice
teachers, however maintaining its reputation among regional stakeholders as a well-
designed exemplary program, according to the program administration.
69
The WUSD Teacher Induction Program Mission states: “Through the lens of
adult learning theory, learning communities, and a standards-based system reflective,
inquiry-based practitioners will use the Plan, Teach, Reflect, and Apply cycle to
ensure professional growth within their own practice. This will provide equity for all
students and will promote successful learning.” The goals and objectives of the
district’s program are described in the Participating Teacher Agreement required of
each participant, stating that, the WUSD “Induction Program will provide two years
of support, formative assessment, and content in the context of the participating
teacher’s classroom as a pathway to the Professional Teaching Credential.” The
program is currently serving 100 teachers, consisting of sixty Year-One and forty
Year-Two teachers. Two of the Year-One teachers are candidates for the Early
Completion Option of the BTSA Induction Program, which allows participants with
a minimum of three years teaching experience to complete two years of induction
requirements in one year. Since the conception of the state’s induction policy, SB
2042, which transformed local districts into credentialing agencies, the WUSD
Induction Program has recommended approximately 30 candidates for the
Professional Clear Credential.
Washington USD is an urban school district, third largest in the county, with
a student population of over 28,000, attending the twenty elementary, four middle,
five high and two specialized schools. The diverse student population of WUSD
schools is served by approximately 1250 teachers, with an average of 13.4 years
education experience in this district compared to the county and state’s 10.6 year
70
average (CDE, 2006). The higher district average of education experience suggests a
higher retention rate, however due to lack of detailed data it has difficult to conclude
whether BTSA teachers are the ones who stay; or if they are moving, whether they
are moving to administrative positions, out of the district or out of the field of
education. Nevertheless, compared to the county and the state, Washington USD is
retaining its teachers at a significantly higher rate.
The state’s responsibilities in funding and administering induction programs
are detailed in the California Education Code Section 44279, which also outlines the
requirements and expectations of district induction programs. Funding of the BTSA
program was established in 1992 with the passage of SB1422 which designated
$3000 per participant, to be adjusted based on inflation rates. The 2006-2007 average
state allocation for each BTSA teacher was $3,541 (Mitchell et al., 2007). In
addition, the legislation required that districts supplement state allocations with at
least $2000 per teacher (CCTC, 2005). In WUSD this was done by combining the
support services provided to beginning teachers under the funding framework of the
California Peer Assistance and Review Program for Teachers (PAR), whose purpose
is to improve teacher performance in the classroom. The 2006-2007 in-kind
expenditure per teacher in WUSD was $3,959, making the total amount of spending
per teacher $7,824. Based on this fiscal arrangement the PAR panel has a key role in
the selection, assessment and renewal/non-renewal of support providers (SP),
referred to as consulting teachers (CT), whose duties and compensation are detailed
in the District’s Collective Bargaining Agreement. WUSD currently has a total of 29
71
SPs made up of 24 full-time classroom teachers and 5 retired teachers. PAR is also
responsible for reviewing and evaluating the impact of the BTSA program and
makes reports and recommendations to the Superintendent and the Board of
Education.
District induction programs are reviewed and granted approval based on the
Induction Submission Guidelines set by the state Commission on Teacher
Credentialing, which require that local programs show evidence of meeting the
twenty Standards for Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction
Programs, seen in Table 3 (CCTC, 2005). Table 4 lists the components of the
Washington USD’s Induction Program designed by the district to meet the
requirements, as reported in the 2007 Induction Program Review (IPR), previously
known as the Peer Program Review.
The 2007 Evaluation Study of California’s BTSA program conducted by
University of California Riverside which includes an analysis of the statewide IPRs
notes the challenges of defining each standard and its elements: “team members did
not always agree about what evidence would be necessary to demonstrate meeting
each standard and element. Indeed, on several occasions we observed IPR team
members discussing with some uncertainty what each standard or element is actually
expected to mean in the day to day practice of a local BTSA program (Mitchell et al.,
2007, p. 147).” Interviews with program stakeholders conducted as part of the data
gathering for the current study yielded similar results attesting to the complexity of
developing and directing a standards-based program of support for novice teachers.
72
Table 3: Standards for Professional Teacher Induction
Standard 1: Sponsorship, Administration, and Leadership
Standard 2: Resources
Standard 3: Professional Development Providers
Standard 4: Evaluation
Standard 5: Articulation with Professional Teacher
Preparation Programs
Standard 6: Advice and Assistance
Standard 7: Coordination and Communication
Standard 8: Support Provider Selection and Assignment
Foundational
Standards
Standard 9: Support Provider Professional Development
Standard 10: Program Design
Standard 11: Roles and Responsibilities of K-12 Schools
Standard 12: Professional Development Based on an
Individual Induction Plan
Standard 13: Formative Assessment Systems
Program
Design
Standard 14: Completion of Professional Teacher Induction
Program
Standard 15: K-12 Core Academic Content and Subject
Specific Pedagogy
Teaching
Curriculum to
All Students in
California
Schools
Standard 16: Using Technology to Support Student
Learning
Standard 17: Supporting Equity, Diversity and Access to the
Core Curriculum
Standard 18: Creating a Supportive and Healthy
Environment for Student Learning
Standard 19: Teaching English Learners
Standards for Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs
Implementation Standards
Teaching All
Students in
California
Schools
Standard 20: Teaching Special Populations
73
Table 4. WUSD 2007 Induction Program Review Evidence and Artifacts
Standards for Quality
and Effectiveness for
Professional Teacher
Induction Programs
Washington USD Induction Program Evidence and
Artifacts
Standard 1:
Sponsorship,
Administration, and
Leadership
• Induction Advisory Committee
• Program Director
• Program Coordinator
• Teacher Specialist
• Peer Assistance and Review Panel
Standard 2: Resources • Fiscal Reports
Standard 3:
Professional
Development Providers
• Consultants
• Consulting Teachers
• Inside/Outside Trainers
• CFASST Trainers
Standard 4:
Evaluation
• State Online Surveys
• Mid-Year Participant/Support Provider Surveys
• Inservice Evaluation
• ASAP Evaluation
Standard 5:
Articulation with
Professional Teacher
Preparation Programs
• University Partners
• Teaching Performance Assessment
Standard 6: Advice
and Assistance
• New Teacher Information from Human Resources
• New Teacher Orientation
• Participating Teacher Agreement
• Induction Handbook
• Induction Orientation Checklist
• Mid-Year Review
Standard 7:
Coordination and
Communication
• Memorandum of Understanding with Institutes of Higher
Education
• BTSA Program Network
• Induction Advisory Committee
• Student Teacher Placements
Standard 8: Support
Provider Selection and
Assignment
• Support Provider Interview, Observation, Selection and
Assignment
• Support Provider Monthly Contact Logs
• Collective Bargaining Agreement – Article 19 – PAR
• Support Provider Orientation
• Support Provider Monthly Meetings
• Support Provider/Participating Teacher Assignment
Standard 9: Support
Provider Professional
Development
• CFASST Training
• Support Provider Professional Development
• Support Provider Monthly Meetings
74
Table 4. WUSD 2007 Induction Program Review Evidence and Artifacts (cont.)
Standards for Quality
and Effectiveness for
Professional Teacher
Induction Programs
Washington USD Induction Program Evidence and
Artifacts
Standard 10: Program
Design
• Induction Handbook
• Components of Standards 15-20
• California Standards for the Teaching Profession
Standard 11: Roles
and Responsibilities of
K-12 Schools
• Induction Handbook
• Site Administrator Roles, Responsibilities and Checklist
• Principals’ Monthly Meetings
Standard 12:
Professional
Development Based on
an Individual
Induction Plan
• Individual Induction Plans
• After School Academy Program
• Induction Forums and Release Days
• Support Provider Monthly Contact Logs
Standard 13:
Formative Assessment
Systems
• CFASST Events and Completion Checklist
• Participating Teacher Observations
• CFASST Descriptions of Practice (DOP)
• Individual Induction Plans
• Support Provider Monthly Contact Logs
• State Online Survey
Standard 14:
Completion of
Professional Teacher
Induction Program
• Completed Portfolio and Completion Documents
• Individual Induction Plans
• Participation in Professional Development
• Professional Credential Recommendation
Standard 15: K-12
Core Academic
Content and Subject
Specific Pedagogy
• Induction Forums and Release Days
• CFASST Events
• Individual Induction Plans
• After School Academy Program
Standard 16: Using
Technology to Support
Student Learning
• District Technology Tools Training
• Trainings by the district Ed. Tech. Department
• After School Academy Program
Standard 17:
Supporting Equity,
Diversity and Access to
the Core Curriculum
• Induction Forums and Release Days
• CFASST Events
• Individual Induction Plans
Standard 18: Creating
a Supportive and
Healthy Environment
for Student Learning
• New Teacher Orientation on Health Services
• Induction Forums and Release Days
• CFASST Events
• Site Administrator Checklist
• Health Framework
75
Table 4. WUSD 2007 Induction Program Review Evidence and Artifacts (cont.)
Findings
The Induction Standards and the matching components selected or designed
by the Washington USD’s Induction Program, as seen in Table 4, speak to the goals
and objectives of the state and district program. The general purpose of the State
BTSA Induction Program is to provide first and second year teachers with
professional development in preparation for the professional clear credential. The
specific objectives of the state policy are outlined in the Induction Standards.
Standards 1-9, categorized as the Foundational Standards, ensure the
coordination of the program’s administrative, fiscal, and support systems. They
establish collaboration with Institutes of Higher Education, in order to create and
sustain the development of skilled teachers from preservice into inservice education.
In addition, these standards supply the guidelines for support providers as well as all
professional development as this is how information and resources that prepare
novice teachers to meet the everyday demands of the classroom are provided.
Standards for Quality
and Effectiveness for
Professional Teacher
Induction Programs
Washington USD Induction Program Evidence and
Artifacts
Standard 19: Teaching
English Learners
• New Teacher Orientation to ELD Program
• Induction Forums and Release Days
• Taking the Challenge: ELD/SDAIE Observation Tool
• CFASST Events
Standard 20: Teaching
Special Populations
• New Teacher Orientation to Special Education Program
• Induction Forums and Release Days
• CFASST Events
76
Standards 10-20, grouped as Implementation Standards are further divided
into three parts: Program Design, Teaching Curriculum to All Students and Teaching
All Students. Program Design Standards set the requirements for the local induction
program, successful completion of which earns the candidates a recommendation for
the Professional Clear Credential. They emphasize the formative assessment system
and the creation of Individual Induction Plans for monitoring progress. These
standards also define the responsibilities of the novice teachers’ schools and
administrators merging the goals of the induction program with the schools’ goals.
Standards 15 and 16, Teaching Curriculum to All Students, focus on content
pedagogy and the integration of technology in K-12 classrooms, emphasizing the use
of California Content Standards and Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP)
in instruction. The last 4 standards, grouped under Teaching all Students, ensure that
novice teachers understand and provide a healthy learning environment with
appropriate instruction that meets the unique needs of all students, including
language learners, the culturally diverse and those with special needs.
In developing this policy, the state postulates that if a district demonstrates
evidence for each of the standards and elements, 104 in total, then it can be assumed
that the program is meeting its objectives and is impacting the participants. The
depth and rigor of these standards attest to the state’s laudable intentions; however
they also illustrate presumptions regarding the organizational culture and operations
at the district and school level, which often challenge the program design and
effective policy implementation.
77
In the following section each of the general findings for each sub-question
will be presented and the results will be further examined within the emerging
themes.
Sub-Question 1: Assumptions of the Policy and Interpretation of the Mandate
The demanding standards laid out by the state policy carry assumptions that
challenge their implementation. There are also numerous variations in the way the
induction policy is being interpreted by different stakeholders, resulting in varying
levels of commitment and implementation as explained below.
K-12 Collaboration and Support: Roles and Responsibilities
One of the significant assumptions of the policy is that administrators and
coordinators of local induction programs have the authority to ensure and monitor
the collaboration of the schools and site administrators to ensure that novice teachers
are supported at their school sites through the induction process. Standard 11, Role
and Responsibilities of K-12 School Organizations states: “School site administrators
provide the structure and create a positive climate for the program’s intensive
support and formative assessment activities.” As evident in the IPR documentation
Washington USD’s Induction Program has developed the Administrator Checklist
that each novice teacher is required to complete as part of their induction portfolio.
The intention is that the site administrator becomes aware of and considers the items
on the checklist when working with the beginning teachers to ensure that they know
78
the critical things about the school. Furthermore, the program administration
presents the program and its requirements at the principals’ meetings to inform the
site administrators about the demands of the induction program and to enlist their
support of the induction process by making them cognizant of the responsibilities
and demands made of the novice teachers outside of their teaching.
All participants in this study were asked the following three questions:
• What is the impact of the induction program on the school where the
novice teachers work?
• How effectively are the goals of the district induction program aligned
with individual site goals?
• What is the role of the site administrator in the induction process, if any?
The WUSD Induction Program administration expressed that site
administrators are well aware of the induction requirements, however adding that
“they’re eager to get new teachers in. They have extra-curricular activities they’d
like to pull them into and yet they (PTs) have a credential program. They are keenly
aware that they have to be involved in BTSA.” “I know that there’ve been
presentations at principals’ meetings, but probably not as long as they should have
been,” noted another administrator.
Commenting on the impact of the program on the school site, one of the
principals mentioned the Administrator Checklist which was especially useful in that
it made them conduct a disaster drill in a timely fashion in order to sign off the PT’s
form, saying “that (the form) helped us as a school, because we wanted to meet his
79
deadline, but also pushed us to go forward with it.” Interestingly, this principal’s
comments started with, “he (PT) may be unique in the sense that he’s excited about
learning things… He comes there positive with questions and what’s interesting is he
comes back with answers and tries them out,” implying that the impact of the
induction program depends on the individual participant’s “excitement about
learning,” which according to this is uncommon. The site administrator also
recognized that this communication and collaboration depends “on the relationship
the principal has with their teacher too.”
Another principal, who has a larger number of novice teachers, expressed that
although she has always been supportive of new teachers, setting them up with
mentors and meeting with them regularly, BTSA has given her work “a framework
and (has) put some labels on it so it isn’t dependent upon the individual to make sure
that that happens for every teacher.” She added that “it isn’t about, oh, you’re lucky
enough to get to the school where that principal is or this principal is. It’s any school
you go to, there’s support.” In describing her role in the induction process of novice
teachers, she concluded “I think teachers…. new teachers to the site in particular,
need to know that I’m here for them… at all levels of getting them launched. That’s
my role.”
Regarding the alignment of induction program’s goals to the goals of the
school site, most administrators, program and site, referred to the District’s use of the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) in the development of the
Professional Plan for Growth (PPG), the main component guiding the District’s
80
formal evaluation process. “PPGs have to have a school wide focus. All BTSA
teachers are involved in setting up their PPGs aligned with their school wide focus,”
noted one principal, adding that BTSA’s Individual Induction Plan (IIP) and
workshops also support this integration of school and program goals. “They’ve got a
workshop that helps them do exactly that and they’re very much guided to link those
two pieces… They go and they get a new shot in the arm then they come back and
do that,” commented another principal, demonstrating the impact of the program on
the school site. To put these findings in context, none of the PTs from this
administrator’s school participated in this study.
Responses to questions regarding site support for induction were quite
different from SPs and PTs who together represent approximately eleven different
schools in the district. When asked about the induction program’s impact and
alignment with the expectations of the schools and administrators employing them,
SPs commented:
We had a lot of induction teachers and I don’t think it has any impact on us.
My guess is administrators have no role in the induction process. I don’t
think they are aware of the program. I don’t see that happening. I haven’t
heard of it. So I would say not a very direct role if any.
I don’t think we have a full support of the school site per se.
I don’t think they really know (about induction). They just know this person
is in BTSA.
None whatsoever! It is non-existent. The only time I’ve heard about
administrator getting in contact with a mentor is when the new teachers
didn’t seem like they were involved in the program at all. So when there’s a
problem, the administrator got into it.
81
These comments demonstrate gaps in the requirements set by the Induction
Standards, their representation in the district program and the actual implementation
at the site level. Although the framework does exist, as one principal noted, the
actual operation within that framework appears to be ineffective for the most part.
Only one of the SPs mentioned program’s positive impact, “You’re preparing the
teacher to be a better problem solver… Of course, it improves the overall teacher
quality, and when you have better teachers you have better students.”
Almost all PTs responded similarly as their mentors, in that they felt a
disconnect between the induction program and their school site responsibilities and
operations. When asked if the induction program has an impact on their school, the
following responses were shared:
I haven’t seen anything. Because of this program we’re doing this, this and
this. A lot of it is those of us in the program who are doing them because we
have to turn papers in and certain things have to be done. I mean individually
in the classroom there may be things you haven’t thought of doing that this
might give you an idea here and there. But across the board schoolwide, I
haven’t seen anything so I don’t think anything’s happened.”
Yes, because we’re pulled out of the school to go to a full day meeting and it
impacts the school when they have ten teachers out at BTSA meetings.
Yeah, when I’m out. When they have to get a sub. The kids ask: you have to
go again?
PTs were also asked if there was any alignment between the goals of the
program and their individual school. Although two teachers noted that some of what
they have learned in BTSA they have used in their classroom as demonstrated here,
82
most PTs did not recognize a direct link between induction and their classroom
instruction and practices:
I think the biggest difference between the goals of the program and the goals
of the school are that the school is focused very much on student
achievement, which is heavily writing based and critical thinking based. And
I think doing the different events (CFASST) in the program I align my
lessons to meet the school’s expectations, but at the same time I feel like the
program is more professional development to prep the teachers more than
what the teacher is going to do to prep the students. I think it’s the first level
where you have to make sure that your teachers are on the same page and
then as a teacher whatever we learn apply to my class. So I don’t think
they’re exactly the same thing.
Finally, when asked whether the site administrator plays a role in induction or
is even expected to have a role, many teachers shared the disjointed relationship
most administrators have with the induction process of their novice teachers:
My administrator has a role (laughs)? I think that they should be aware of all
the things that we’re going to do and why. I don’t think I should have to tell
them that I’m not going to be here because I have to go to workshop. I think
they should be aware of where we’re going and maybe even ask about how it
went, or you know, talk to us about what we’re doing. I never thought about
the role because my current administrator has no role in my BTSA program.
In my school, nothing. I’ve seen no involvement at all. I think they should be
involved. They should know the professional development meetings we’re
attending and what it entails. They should know what the program is like and
support also.
They don’t expect to see any of the things that you’re doing for your program
so they’re not really involved with the program. And sometimes some of the
things we have a question about, they don’t know how to answer it, because
they’re not completely sure of what’s going on.
83
I think they should be a little more aware of where we go and what we’re
learning. And maybe he (principal) is. I don’t know, but it’s not really
discussed unless we bring it up.
The lack of understanding and alignment of induction goals and objectives to
that of schools and administrators in many schools has increased the separation
between BTSA Induction and classroom instruction, further deeming the program an
add-on and merely a hoop to jump through for obtaining a clear credential.
Literature on the implementation of the induction program demonstrates that
organizational leadership and culture can be obstacles to the quality of the program
as well as its positive impact on the participants. Portner’s (2005) collaborative-
doing view of induction demands the commitment of all stakeholders whose clear
understanding of the program is the basis of the systematic modifications and
adjustments they make to the school’s schedule and operations to ensure that
induction is an imbedded process. Although the administrator’s interviewed at
WUSD showed a level of commitment to the program, their perspective appeared to
be individualized and personal, rather than a district level practice that is built into
the culture and is upheld by all site administrators as assumed by the Induction
Standards.
84
Paradigm Shift in Teacher Licensure: District as Credentialing Agency
State’s decision to turn districts into credentialing agencies is fully embedded
in the conjecture that districts are capable of and have the capacity to take on such a
responsibility. Referring to the goals, targets and tools of policy designs, Honig
(2006) writes that contemporary education policies have shifted their focus from just
adding programs to implementing deeply rooted large-scale improvements that
completely change the professional practice within the entire organization, including
schools and the local communities, districts and states as in the example of NCLB.
In addition, she notes that the targets of these policies have shifted from mainly
school staff to people and organizations of all levels - school, district, state and
federal, where “those targeted to implement educational policies may very well be
the policy makers themselves” (Honig, 2006, p. 12). Finally, the tools of the new
policy design which used to be limited to federal mandates and incentives have
significantly expanded to include multiple traditional and new methods that range
from sanctions, high stakes, to capacity building and systems change.
California’s induction policy, a systems change initiative, has caused a
paradigm shift in the state’s teacher preparation and licensure practices, requiring a
change in the core beliefs and understandings of how, where and when quality
teachers are developed and who is ultimately responsible for this enormous task. The
goals, targets and tools of this policy are deeply imbedded within the elements of the
Induction Standards, blurred and often unfamiliar to those charged to endorse and
attain them. Program administration is given the gigantic responsibility of seeing the
85
novice teachers through the induction process; supporting their growth in the
profession and helping them obtain the Professional Clear Credential. They are asked
to design, implement, and evaluate all components of the program, while working on
gaining the support of the sites and the interest and motivation of the PTs. They are
held accountable for providing quality-learning opportunities to novice teacher by
selecting trainers and support providers that fit the goals of Individual Induction
Plans created by each PT relating to the demands of different schools.
The approach towards achieving these goals, which defines policy
implementation, varies from compliance to transformation of practice. The
Washington USD Induction Program Design is in compliance with almost all of the
Program Standards and Elements. It has detailed documentation of evidence and
artifacts that ensure compliance with the induction policy. Whether this compliance
begets the development of effective instruction that transforms professional practice
appears to be a distinct goal isolated from the Policy objectives as seen through the
words of the participants of this study. The perceptions and understanding of the
goals of the state policy, credentialing process, program components, program
quality monitoring, and the overall support process paint a clear picture of this gap
between policy compliance and implementation. To illustrate, all participants were
asked the following: What are the goals and your opinion of the California induction
policy? And what is your impression of the new credentialing process?
At the program administration level the Policy was defined as “a two-year
beginning teacher support program. It involves inservice support from a mentor
86
teacher who is trained in the formative assessment process. It’s a way that beginning
teachers clear their preliminary credentials in public schools. It is job embedded
inservice and support. It’s not so much about motivating teachers to come and giving
prizes. It’s a requirement.”
Site administrators expressed a more global explanation of the induction
policy and program, mostly focused on the collaboration between the mentor and
novice teachers as the key for the PT’s growth.
We’re trying to get these qualified teachers in the classroom, after their
university experience, to give them hands-on experience in the classroom
with guidance or coaching so that they’re more qualified. It’s wise to have
the time for the district to watch a teacher in action to make sure that they’re
qualified.
I think it’s probably good-news bad-news, and they were trying to give the
school district the responsibility of really training their own teachers, the way
that the districts want it. I think it has a lot of strengths to it. I think the
schools really weren’t set up to provide that kind of support. I don’t think
districts necessarily have that kind of support.
Others observed the objective of the policy in terms of the licensure process,
“I think it mainstreams everything quickly and you might encourage more people to
enter the profession if you don’t have to do an extra fifth year. If you can just do it as
part of on-the-job training.”
Overall, support providers interpreted the induction policy in terms of the
guidance and support that it offers to novice teachers, as demonstrated in the
following comments:
I think that the state was trying to change from the way that I was brought in
as a teacher where it was really sink or swim. I think the district and the state
want to provide the new teachers and in fact require the new teachers now to
87
have support as they go through that first year so that if they aren’t doing well
or if they are really struggling that their students still receive quality
education even if that teacher is having trouble. But even if the teacher is not
having a strong year we can’t afford a missed year in a child’s education. So I
think they’re trying to find a way to ensure that.
I wondered if hopefully they realized that new teachers needed more personal
support. Because I thought that the program being handled at the universities
was not as personalized as it could be when it’s given to the school districts.
The positive personalized support system is further upheld for providing
opportunities for hands-on learning.
The teachers are doing it hands on. They are going through the actual process
that relates to their own classroom, grade level content instead of learning
some more theories.
Somebody must have been thinking the right thing because you can do only
so much at the university level. It’s just very realistic. You’re immersing into
the environment. You have enough background to actually start teaching. But
when you are facing the situation and you are guided through it with
somebody who has had a little more experience that has been through that it’s
definitely much better than just sitting in the classroom and listening to a
lecture by somebody who has probably not been in the classroom for a while.
Finally, addressing the systematic changes induced by the policy, support
providers talked about the convenience it has provided to participating teachers in
terms of being job-embedded and the opportunity for the district to have a greater
role in the selection and preparation of “homegrown” teachers.
The district would have first hand where they would pick and build teachers
that they want to keep in the district.
Maybe to make it a little more convenient for the new teachers to do the
training in their own district. Overall, it’s a good idea, but it depends on how
it’s structured and managed in each district.
88
In this view, everyone agreed about the central impact of induction on the
most vulnerable few years of teaching.
The extensive focus and emphasis on the support provider’s role as the key to
the success of a new teacher’s induction process dominated SP’s responses as well,
undermining the comprehensive system of induction that incorporates design,
administration, evaluation and licensure components.
Participating teachers had a more difficult time interpreting the induction
policy. In fact, 7 of the 9 participating in the study asked if this refers to BTSA
demonstrating their limited understanding of the depth and intent of the process of
induction. Their responses focused mainly on district needs and the licensure
requirement. Of the nine participating teachers that were interviewed for this study,
one third explained that they did not know anything about the BTSA Induction
Program until they were hired at the district, demonstrating that even some
institutions of higher education are unaware or unprepared to inform and guide their
students in the process of obtaining a professional licensure. When sharing their
overall interpretation and perception of the policy, often based on the varying
explanations given to them, PTs expressed a high level of stress regarding its
excessive demands on their time, “I’m not pretty sure, but a lot of stuff they do is just
to make the time and repeat the same thing over and over.” At the same time PTs
noted the value of the support and collaboration that it provides to guide their
growth:
89
My understanding is that it shouldn’t be any extra work for me, but it’s
mainly, what I’m already doing. I’m documenting more and reflecting in a
written format so that it can be all accounted for rather than just going on my
own through the process of doing these things. At first I thought it’s just a lot
of extra work. It has been helpful. I appreciate that there is support here,
where maybe there wouldn’t be.
I think they just thought that it would be a good experience for us to be
together and be able to discuss what was going on in our classrooms and
hopefully help us along with our teaching. I think us being together with
people from our district and being able to learn together is a good part of it.
I guess it helps us out and provides us with someone that is there to support
you if there’s no one.
In addition, many PTs viewed the policy as a way to give each district the
opportunity to develop its own teachers within the framework of the induction
standards and the CSTPs.
Having it in the district makes it more accessible for teachers. They are able
to become more familiar with their own district and their own policies within
their district. They get to work with teachers that they know in their school
and get to see them more often than just going to the university.
It might be easier if it’s from this one district. It’s the district that you work in
as opposed to people going to different schools and each school having a
different way of doing things. It’s also easier for the district and the state if
they know that all the teachers are doing the same thing within the district.
Along with these benefits, PTs recognized and shared their concern regarding
the limits created by the policy.
They were probably trying to focus in the particular district that you end up
at, but as a teacher you go through so many changes. You develop so much.
You change from district to district. So I’m wondering, okay if I move from
let’s say district A to district B now what’s going to happen?
90
Overall, PTs recognized the convenience the policy has established compared
to the fifth year university program, where the financial cost and commute to the
class pose additional burdens.
It could be convenience for the teachers. That way they can get into the
classroom right away, having classes that are conveniently located in the
district instead of staying in the university. I think it would have been best if
they would have left it up to the student or teacher.
Interestingly no PT tied the induction policy to improving instruction, and
only one addressed its impact on children, “It’s for our benefit to help the children.
I’m all for that.”
The responses demonstrate how various stakeholders are unaware of the
significant change in the policy which requires districts to prepare and induct
teachers into the profession. Successful implementation in the form of transforming
practice is jeopardized by the lack of clear communication and comprehension of the
policy goals. Datnow explains that “reform implementation involves an active and
dynamic interaction between local educators, the reform policy, and the social,
organizational, and political life of the school” (2006, p. 107). Such coordination will
occur when all participants clearly understand the goals and objectives of the
initiative, are well aware of and are dedicated to their role in the process and actively
contribute to its operations. The findings of this study demonstrate that the
Washington Induction Program stakeholders are at the initial stages of embracing
this new system, although the authorization to recommend candidates for the
Professional Clear Credential became the local district’s responsibilities back in
91
2004. The following “unintended consequences” derived from the 2007 UCR
research of the state BTSA Induction program combine to create a vulnerable state of
policy implementation:
The addition of credentialing may have changed program emphasis from
mentoring and individualized support to compliance. Legislating BTSA
as a universal requirement, rather than a voluntary program has greatly
increased the number and types of both participants and providers. A shift
in the “lead players” in BTSA from universities to LEAs. What was
formerly the traditional domain of professors of education is now the
domain of the local professional practitioners. (Mitchell et al., 2007, p.
32)
McLaughlin illustrates this unforeseen dilemma by explaining that “local
manifestations of state or federal policies will differ in fundamental respects and
‘effective implementation’ may have different meanings in different settings” (2006,
p. 10). “Implementation is not about mindless compliance to a mandate or policy
directive, and that implementation shortfalls are not just cases of individual
resistance, incompetence or capability,” she adds, where “Implementation involves a
process of sense making that implicates an implementer’s knowledge base, prior
understanding, and beliefs about the best course of action” (McLaughlin, 2006, p.
214). Responses from the WUSD Induction Program stakeholders demonstrate a gap
in the knowledge base and beliefs that ultimately impact implementation. Additional
underlying issues arising from the “unintended consequences” of California’s
induction policy will be addressed when discussing the key components of the
District’s program.
92
Sub-question 2: Teachers, Support Providers, Program Director’s and
Administrators’ Perceptions of the District Induction Program
There is not one overarching perception of the WUSD Induction Program,
but rather varying opinions regarding its components as seen by different groups of
stakeholders: participating teachers, support providers, program and site
administrators. Due to shortfalls in communication and the lack of consistent and
systematic local program quality monitoring, within each group there are general
impressions of program effectiveness as related to the services provided through in
the induction process. Reflected in the participants’ responses these views are
analyzed in the following sections.
Program Goal and Objective: Clarification and Communication
In addressing the focus of Support for Professionalism as part of their BTSA
case study the UCR researchers outlined four activities that are critical for the
development of professionalism among teachers: acquiring skills through reflective
practice, understanding and addressing diverse student needs, developing collegiality
and integrity in the profession, and striving to impact school improvement through
innovative methods. They concluded that “In order for BTSA Induction programs to
support the development of these attributes, they need to be clearly conceptualized,
aggressively organized and administered, adequately resourced and supported, and
faithfully implemented” (Mitchell et al., 2007, p. 61).
93
The key elements of the Washington USD’s Induction Program were
identified through a thorough analysis of the program documentation, as well as
interviews and observations of meetings as described in Tables 5, 6 and 7. The
general components of the program, guided mainly by the Induction Standards,
include formative assessment, support, professional development, evaluation and, as
of SB1209, employment and licensure specification. Tables 6 and 7 detail the
specific support and professional development that are offered to novice teachers
during each year of the Induction Program.
Table 5: WUSD Induction Program Components
Program
Components
Description
Formative
Assessment
See detailed descriptions in Tables 7 and 8
Support
Two years
Support Provider
Minimum of one hour per week one-on-one meetings
Professional
Development
New Teacher Orientation (NTO) – 1 ½ days before school begins
Induction Orientation – one 2-hour session within the first few weeks
Release Day – 8:00-3:00
Induction Forum (IF) – 3:45-5:45
After School Academy Program (ASAP) – 3:45-5:45
Induction Colloquium
Consultant Proposal
Evaluation
BTSA/Teacher Induction Feedback Form
Induction Portfolio Review
Communicate with the Induction staff in timely manner
Participating Teacher Survey
End-of-the-year online survey for CCTC and CDE
94
Table 5: WUSD Induction Program Components (cont.)
Program
Components
Description
Hiring and
Licensure
Requirements
Induction orientation/interview within six weeks of hiring date
Induction Program enrollment within 120 days of hiring date
Consent Forms
Completion of Induction program within five years of the date of
issuance of Preliminary Credential
Professional Credential Recommendation
Although based on the Induction Standards and the California Formative
Assessment and Support System for Teachers (CFASST), the activities and products
included in all support and professional development are designed and determined by
the WUSD Induction Program administration. When asked about their input in
designing the program, the support providers and novice teachers interviewed in this
study shared that they did not have a role or any idea about how this process was
accomplished. One of the veteran support providers, with numerous years of
experience as a CT in the district, noted that she participated in designing the original
program, however with many changes in administration and state legislation; she is
no longer privy to that information. Asked whether the new policy has changed her
responsibilities, she responded, “I don’t think my responsibilities have changed so
much because I have always understood that my role is to support the teachers not as
an evaluator, but clearly as someone who would help them to grow and to stay in the
teaching profession. So I don’t think it has change too much. The only thing I see is
that we are too much into paperwork.” Her comment demonstrates the gap in clarity
and communication among stakeholders regarding the significant changes and their
95
“unintended” consequences, specifically the muddled lines between evaluation and
support. If the recommendation for the Professional Clear Credential is made by the
district, then teacher performance must become a critical piece in determining one’s
preparation. Support providers have a first-hand insight into the teacher’s classroom
instruction, and the evidence collected by them is crucial for determining whether a
teacher is prepared for the challenging career.
Table 6: WUSD Year One Induction Program
Induction
Formative
Assessment
Professional
Development
Evidence & Artifact
Standard 18: Supportive and Healthy
Environment
Event 1:
Community
School District
Classroom
(CSDC) profile
Event 2:
Classroom
Management
Inquiry
• NTO: Bloodborne
Pathogens/Child
Abuse
• IF: Parent
Communication/Par
ent Conferencing
Guest Teacher Folder (Procedures,
Routines, Seating Chart, Crisis
Information)
Site Administrator Checklist
Classroom design plan with
reflection
Copy of School Safety Plan
identifying PT’s role
Interdisciplinary lesson plan using
Health Curriculum with student
work samples
Standard 18 Reflection Sheet
Year One Modules
Standard 15: Content and Pedagogy
Event 3: Profile
of Practice
Individual
Induction Plan 1
• Release Day:
Classroom
Management
• Release Day:
Differentiated
Instruction
• Release Day:
Thinking Maps
• Release Day:
Standards-Based
Assessment
Initial Individual Induction Plan
Classroom routines and procedures
Samples of differentiated lessons for
focus students with reflection
(Year1-ELL/Year2-SpEd)
Copies of grade level or department
meeting agendas with reflection
Thinking Maps lesson plan with
student work samples and reflection
Peer or CT review of standards-
based lesson (printout of e-mail
correspondence)
Standard 15 Reflection Sheet
96
Table 6: WUSD Year One Induction Program (cont.)
Induction
Formative
Assessment
Professional
Development
Evidence & Artifact
Standard 19: English Language Learners
Event 4:
Assessment
Inquiry
Individual
Induction Plan 2
Event 6:
Summary of
Growth
• NTO: English
Language Learns
• ASAP: Assessments
and Placement Tools
for English Learners
• IF: Differentiated
Instruction for
English Learners
Skills assessment by CT using the
ELD/SDAIE Observation Tool
Matrix
ELD lesson observation by PT using
the ELD matrix
ELL student work samples of
differentiated instruction with
reflection
Lesson plan that draws on students’
prior knowledge
Reflection on verbal parent
communication with parents of two
ELL students
Reflection on written parent
communication with parents of two
ELL students
Standard 19 Reflection Sheet
Table 7: WUSD Year Two Induction Program
Induction
Formative
Assessment
Professional
Development
Evidence & Artifact
Year Two Modules
Standard 16: Technology
Event 1: Revisit
CSDC
Event 10:
Components of
Effective
Instruction
Lesson Inquiry
• District e-mail
system training
• ASAP: Information
Bias- Teaching
Research Process
through Technology
• IF: EdTech/BTSA
Class -
o Managing
technology in
the classroom
o Spreadsheet
applications
o Internet
o Webquests
Release Day electronic feedback or
PT survey via e-mail
Standards-based lesson plan
showing student technology use &
work sample with PT reflection
Use of site electronic grading
program
PowerPoint presentation for lesson
or school event
Data organized via computer
program, lesson plan based on using
the data for instruction, two-way
parent communication regarding the
data and impact the data has had on
instruction
Standard 16 Reflection Sheet
97
Table 7: WUSD Year Two Induction Program (cont.)
Standard 17: Equity, Diversity &
Access to the Core Curriculum
Event 9:
Standards-Based
Event 10:
Components of
Effective
Instruction
Lesson Inquiry
Individual
Induction Plan 3
• Release Day:
Developing Cultural
Proficiency
• Release Day:
Understanding the
Context of Poverty
• IF: Cultures in the
Community
• Release Day:
SDAIE Strategies
Follow up assignments for Release
Days and Forums
SDAIE lesson observation by PT
using SDAIE matrix
Lesson plan on California’s
history/traditions of major
cultural/ethnic groups (Grades 4, 8,
11)
Classroom Inclusion Plans signed
by CT and PT
Standard 17 Reflection Sheet
Standard 20: Special Populations
Event 11:
Assessment Over
Time Inquiry
Event 12:
Summary of
Growth
• NTO: Special
Education Overview
• IF: SpEd 1 – A
Walk Through the
IEP Process
• IF: SpEd 2 –
Effective Classroom
Management
Techniques
• IF: SpEd 3 –
Effective
Instructional
Strategies for All
Learners
• IF: SpEd 4 –
Building a
Classroom
Community
• Special Education
Department Forum
meeting
Copy of signature page from IEP
meeting attended by PT
Portfolio assignments from the
Induction Forums
Collaborative Tracking Sheet:
Record significant interventions for
students with Special Needs
Agenda from a District Quarterly
Special Education Forum
Standard 20 Reflection Sheet
By transforming the district into a credentialing agency, the lines between
support and evaluation have become obscured, especially for districts that have
rigorous requirements and the luxury to be selective of whom they choose to hire.
This consequence of the Policy has significant impact on public education. If an
organization is going to endorse a candidate, it will have to make certain that the
98
person meets every single criterion, as any oversight of the candidate’s performance
gaps will become problematic for the state for years to come, as the teacher transfers
from one district to another. Both time and fiscal commitment to the induction
process must be aimed at producing the most qualified teachers, making support
providers, who have direct contact with the candidates’ practice, greatly responsible
for this enormous task. As another support provider put it, “It’s just a little bit more
pressure on me and I know for a new teacher because their credential is riding on it.”
If success requires that the program attributes are “clearly conceptualized and
faithfully implemented” (UCR, 2007) then the stakeholders’ perception of the
program components and their goals will impact implementation. The WUSD site
administrators generally had limited knowledge of the program design. One of them
shared that she had been asked about some of the professional development
presenters; however, other than that she was not involved in the process of
developing the program. Similar gaps in program conception are evidenced among
PTs.
As part of their work with the PTs support providers are closely involved
with most of the components of the program and receive candid feedback from PTs
regarding their effectiveness, value and clarity. Although the interviewed SPs know
what the induction program encompasses, responding to questions about program
design and objectives and whether it meets the goals of the state standards was more
challenging as seen the following responses:
99
That’s a tough one. The most straight forward and easy thing is just helping
the teachers who are almost teachers, who are ready to go into the profession
get the necessary support and guidance they need and eliminate the
unnecessary classes to take just to get them immersed into the classroom and
help them have a smooth entrance into the profession I guess.
I don’t know. To tell you quite honestly I’m pretty confused about all of that,
because initially when induction started we were told we didn’t have to really
do anything. We’re just doing CFASST. Now, all of a sudden the tables are
turned completely. I’m pretty sure that originally we were supposed to be
helping with induction. And a lot of times when the PTs get together with the
program administration, we’re not necessarily present. So the information
that they’re getting about what goes into their portfolio, I’m not getting that
information. So in the end, you cross your fingers and hope that everybody is
doing what they’re supposed to be doing.
The sentiment expressed in the latter comment is somewhat disconcerting, as
it suggests a lack of systematic development and growth in the process of becoming
a professional educator.
In defining the logic behind the district induction program, one veteran SP
commented, “What we were going to do was to provide interventions if the teacher
wasn’t cutting it,” however the overwhelming amount of documentation and
“minutia,” as one principal put it, required by the current program make this the sole
responsibility of the support provider. Even more alarming was hearing a support
provider of almost five years ask, “What are the induction standards?” and only after
more explanation finally responding, “Oh, those things.” This misinformation and
lack of clarity on the language, purposes and goals of both the program and its
components leads to an environment that is compromising the “faithful
implementation” of the policy. “I just follow. I just do whatever they ask me to do
month to month. Just keep up with the deadlines and hopefully it will finish one
100
day,” was a response from a Year-One teacher summarizing her commitment to her
own induction process pointing to the separation between policy implementation and
sheer compliance. The shortfalls of communication and clarification are further
implicated by the lack of consistent local quality monitoring as described below.
Local Level of Monitoring Quality of Program Components
Successful implementation of specific programs and their elements support
the ultimate impact of a policy on practice, however determining success requires
identified measures and assessments as well as continuous quality monitoring and
evaluation. McDavid and Hawthorne (2006) define evaluation as a “structural
process that creates and synthesizes information intended to reduce the level of
uncertainty for stakeholders about a given program or policy.”
The analysis of California’s induction policy demonstrates numerous
assumptions and “unintended” consequences which create an atmosphere of
uncertainty especially within the context of a district level program, which as
explained earlier, is designed by a small local group with little input from all levels
of the stakeholder groups. The role of evaluation and accountability measures is
much more critical with the increasing responsibilities of the BTSA Induction
Program from a support service to a licensing agency.
To elucidate the strategies used by districts to address this, the participants in
this study were asked the following question: What accountability measures are in
place to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the following:
101
• procedures of recommending candidates for the professional clear
credential
• district program alignment with the state induction standards
• quality of implementation of induction program components
• quality of PT’s work in attaining the induction standards
• quality of SP’s work with the participating teacher
• quality of the professional development
• quality and level of support for the support provider
Responses from participating teachers, support providers, and both site and
program administrators demonstrated a high level of misconception or lack of
information regarding the procedures for evaluating the various program operations.
Of the nine participating teachers interviewed none had awareness of the
recommendation procedures for the clear credential, “I don’t know. I don’t have
much knowledge if there’s that process in place,” and in fact they hadn’t even
thought of it, as seen in the following examples.
“I don’t know who makes the recommendation. I should probably know,”
was a common response as the interview questions awakened a new perspective on
this critical component of the program. A Year One teacher commented while
thinking aloud, “The first thing that comes to mind is who do they choose and what
happens to teachers who don’t get chosen. And that’s kind of scary. To go through
with it and then have somebody pick a handful of candidates instead of everyone.”
And then there were those who recognized the gap in the system, “I mean they just
102
kind of look at all your paperwork that you turn in. Does it really reflect me as a
teacher in the classroom? It’s a lot of work and then you think what if it’s not good
enough. What if I didn’t dot the i’s and cross my t’s?” “I knew people would turn in
boxes that were ridiculous and they just got their credential,” added another teacher.
This frustration was repeated again and again, “I don’t know that they know
us enough to be able to recommend us. I mean who are they to say? I don’t know. I
know at times you work really hard and you did all your coursework already and
you’re ready. I think it’s a little annoying that you’re not considered ready for a
credential already even though I have my masters and bachelors and all this stuff. I
mean here I am and they’re going to say I’m ready or not.” Year Two teachers,
halfway through the program, reflected on their experiences from the previous year,
“Last year when I went for my review at the end of the year they didn’t even really
look at it (portfolio). They said oh ok, you’ve done this, but now at the end of the
second year they’re really going to look at it. There was nobody really to say here’s
what you need to do, here’s what you’re missing.” Among these were also teachers
who were despondent, “I’m not aware and I don’t even care. If they decide not to
clear my credential I really don’t care. I’ll find another job for sure,” shared a
teacher.
Support providers’ comments regarding this component were just as
disheartening. Most of them admitted to not knowing anything about it and shared
that they only assume this process is completed by the program administration. Some
hinted that district human resources administrators or maybe even some state level
103
officials might be involved in this; however none were able to clearly describe the
procedures. “I kind of feel that maybe it’s a little bit subjective and there aren’t really
clear-cut guidelines as to what is a good portfolio that does get approved and what
isn’t. And like I said before if a teacher comes in very well prepared do they still
have to go through the same. It’s almost as if somebody is a little bit more outspoken
their portfolio might be more scrutinized because they are complaining. And that’s
what I mean by subjective. It comes down to one or two people judging as okay this
one passes this one doesn’t,” commented an experienced support provider. This
sentiment was reiterated and further expanded by a site administrator who stated, “I
really think it’s wise to have the time for the district to watch a teacher in action to
make sure that they’re qualified. I’m a little hesitant because there are some districts
that I know of who are not willing to take teachers full time if they’re not making it
according to their standards. For example, Washington and a neighboring district are
kind of snooty is the best way to put it. If people aren’t cutting it for their version
then they might not be recommended so that can go to a whole different political
issue. There are people that wouldn’t cut it here that would make it in a larger district
that needs vigilant teachers.”
Concern for the quality and integrity of the recommendation process was
heard in almost everyone’s response demonstrating the confusion and misconception
of the process which gives rise to uncertainty among stakeholders. The range of
ambiguity is seen in the following comments from two experienced SPs: “In my
experience they’re not very particular about the teachers doing it perfectly. So if they
104
turn in something and it looks like they’re doing it, they’re clearing them. I think it’s
not a matter of being smart now, you have to show documents,” and at the opposite
end, “You mean the district can say no, you can’t be a teacher? Does that happen?
Really? I don’t know. You really have to be very bad for the district not to
recommend you. And if you’re really that bad then you shouldn’t be a teacher. If
you’re really a good person and you’re doing your job right then of course the
district will recommend you. Who else would be able to judge, unless you really get
them upset?”
In light of these misinterpretations and considering the numerous changes to
the beginning teacher support programs over the years, a veteran support provider
expressed her concern with the ultimate direction of the program, whether a policy
directive or a district decision, “I’m really hoping that they will exercise their
responsibility in good faith or they will not play favoritism or punish some of the
new teachers that are very open with their opinion and aggressive in their behaviors
even though they’re excellent teachers. They will not be penalized and denied
credentials. I really am hoping that the district will exercise that right,” she
summarized her point by reiterating the genuine intentions and objectives of the
policy as “taking care of each of the teachers as adults coming to impact the children,
you just have to go by how well they do their job.” Whether the current
implementation at the district level across the state is maintaining this focus and goal
is a subject of debate as seen in the example of this one district whose program is
considered successful based on state surveys.
105
Considering that the recommendation for the credential is ultimately the most
critical component of the program in terms of PT’s career goals and future in
teaching, there is very little understanding of the procedures and how PT’s work
during the two years of the induction program contributes to this goal. Study
participants’ reflection on questions relating to evaluation and assessment mainly
addressed the recent Induction Program Review by the state and the annual end-of-
the-year survey. Other than these two events, most were not aware of any formal
method that monitors the quality of the various components, such as the quality of
the PT’s work on achieving the standards and the quality of SP’s work on supporting
their mentees in this.
Furthermore, the word “checklist” was heard in a number of responses, “It
seems like there’s a checklist and we just check off if I have all these elements. I turn
things in, but I don’t know how thoroughly they’re looking at this standard. I don’t
know if they’re just going to go through and double-check the checklist, or if I just
turn it in and they’re going to give it back, or if my support provider is supposed to
go through and look at that. Sometimes though it seems like it’s just the checklist,
there may not be a lot of concern about what’s actually there. I mean I’d like to think
they’re looking at it. I just don’t know,” shared a Year One teachers revealing a
feeling of disappointment with the lack of follow up and monitoring as echoed by
others. “We just have a list of things and journal entries that we have to have, just a
list of things that we need to show to meet each standard,” shared PTs describing the
106
evidence/artifact list included in each module designed based on the Induction
Standards 15-20. A principal expressed a similar concern,
It’s kind of a rubber stamp. When they finish the criteria, when they get
everything checked off they get to move on. The only place where I see
glitches here in Washington is a procedural glitch. The way the BTSA
program is set up, and I’m not clear whether the state is mandating what it
actually looks like, or we have taken their battles and turned it into our own. I
don’t know where that quite meets in the middle but ours is almost a little
checklist. You have to have this and you have to have that. Well, if it isn’t at
the right quality or if there’s one piece missing there’s a little bit of nit-picky
kind of things in the end, which doesn’t discriminate between a quality
teacher and someone who just may not be as organized as they could be. And
I think we had a little breakdown there.
The flaw in this process is further summarized by a Year One teacher, “They
look through them to see if they were acceptable or unacceptable, and they rank them
on varying degrees, but I’m not sure what makes something acceptable or what
makes something unacceptable. I didn’t know that they go through and rank
everything,” implying the lack of a systematic process of reviewing and
documenting quality and communicating the results.
The aforementioned “ranking” process describes the recent, February 2007,
addition to the program - the portfolio review by SPs during the monthly meeting,
which was observed for data collection as part of this study. Support providers were
paired randomly in order to review a set of completed Module Ones, which included
CFASST Events 1 and 2, from Year One teachers. Using what they referred to as a
rubric, developed at a previous meeting, SPs looked through the documentation to
determine whether the item was included and whether the work was done
“minimally” or “in-depth.” The regional director who was present at this meeting
107
circled the room while commenting on the process and providing feedback to SPs.
The observation of this meeting displayed the inadequacies of this evaluation process
as many support providers had a difficult time qualifying whether a certain piece was
“done minimally” or “done in-depth.” “What are the expectations for CFASST
completion? What is ‘completed minimally,’ or ‘completed in-depth?’ And what
does it look like?” were some of the questions raised by the participants. Some SPs,
especially those in their first year, were concerned that they may not be as thorough,
finding it a lot easier to look at work that was produced by PT from their own
schools. At the same time they expressed that the process was a “good eye-opener”
agreeing with the regional director’s suggestion “to have a release day to do this so
you can debrief and look at implications.” Additionally, greater focus and emphasis
on defining these two qualifiers through the development of rubrics was discussed as
SPs recognized the subjectivity of this evaluation and progress-monitoring process,
“I think that it was unfair to put a consulting teacher to read it without any sort of
rubric or expectation.”
Guskey (1998) writes, “Evaluation is the systematic investigation of merit or
worth,” where systematic refers to the thoughtful, intentional and purposeful process,
and investigation addresses the collecting and analyzing of appropriate and pertinent
information. The new portfolio evaluation process is certainly a positive step
towards collaborative quality monitoring and as the program administration shared, a
definite attempt to include the support providers in the process of monitoring the
participating teachers’ growth. Such efforts need to be enhanced and expanded to
108
include other components of the program, such as professional development, support
provider development and overall program design, which currently lack a local
monitoring system.
The professional development provided as part of the induction program is
perceived very differently by different stakeholders. Veteran educators, such as
administrators and support providers value the information and strategies shared as
well as the opportunities that are available to the novice teachers which support their
growth. PTs, on the other hand, are often frustrated by the quality, time and
documentation commitments of the program, often missing its overall purpose.
When selecting professional development providers, “I just assume that they depend
on trying to look for people that can make it at least a little interesting. I have no idea
how they pick people. No idea at all. It will be better if they could give us feedback
how and why they call those people, and what factors made them think those are the
right people to come and talk to us,” commented a participating teacher, illustrating
the disconnect existing between the goals of the induction standards and goals and
the components supporting PT’s achievement of these goals. When asked
specifically about how the quality of these events is measured one PT expressed, “I
believe they can feel from our faces and how we react. Most of the time they’re just
indirectly forcing everybody to just be patient and listen to it no matter how good it
is, no matter if you like it or not. They just make you sit down and listen to it. If it
wasn’t that strict I would probably not go to many of them most of the time.” In
relation to a formal evaluation process other participating teachers shared that, “We
109
write down on the evaluation at the end of the day, whether we thought it was useful
or very useful or somewhat useful. And I’m not even sure if anybody really looks at
that or really tallies up to see was the speaker really worthwhile for the teachers or
were they not. I don’t know if anyone does that,” highlighting the lack of
communication between stakeholders.
Support providers were equally unclear and frustrated with the process of
selecting and evaluating the professional development activities for PTs,
I don’t know how this is done. That’s one of the leading sources of frustration
for new teachers. You got Induction Forum advertising as being something
like SDAIE methods for all learners. And then very often it’s concentrating
on one area like English teachers. And you got 75% of the teachers saying
this doesn’t apply to what I’m doing. I can’t go back to my classroom
tomorrow and implement this. This was two hours of my afternoon. We don’t
have hundreds of hours just waiting. I don’t know how the quality of these is
monitored. At the end of each session obviously there’s an evaluation sheet,
but as far as I know the same people are invited back the next year.
Support providers are the link between the Induction Program and the
classroom performance of the novice teachers. Their role will be described further in
the next section; however the process for monitoring the quality of their work is
discussed as part of this overall program quality monitoring section. Interviews with
stakeholders demonstrate that besides the end-of-the-year state survey, there are no
other formal or informal methods of monitoring whether a support provider is
meeting the needs of the PT. There are a number of assumptions as to the existence
of an informal process, such as communicating concerns to the director or the site
principal, however it is a murky situation that really depends on one’s level of
comfort with high level personnel, especially for most novice teachers on temporary
110
contracts who are trying to make a good impression in order to keep their jobs.
Referring to the method of addressing the quality of the support process it was
shared that, “We have to be careful. We can’t have teachers evaluating teachers, but
we do question them. We meet with the support providers every month in meetings
and get feedback from them. We have them share with us what activities they are
doing. Anytime, the participating teachers have the option of asking for a different
support provider.” The dedication and commitment of the support providers to the
induction process is not a matter of debate, as these are individuals who are devoting
a great deal of their personal time for a very minimal financial reward to impact the
upcoming generation of teachers, however policy mandates regarding licensure of
teachers in California ultimately require consistency in expectations and
performance, therefore creating the unintended consequence where the quality of a
support provider’s work becomes a critical piece of the preparation for the
Professional Clear Credential, necessitating clear guidelines and progress
monitoring.
Similarly, the WUSD Induction Program currently does not have a systematic
local program monitoring process, which as noted by McDavid and Hawthorne
(2006) supports the development of information that reduces uncertainty regarding
the progress towards goals of a policy. In Washington, as one support provider
noted, “If it looks good on paper then it’s good.” Everyone, with exception of Year
One teachers mentioned participation in the Induction Program Review by the state,
however when asked about the findings, none had any information regarding the
111
outcomes of the Review, pointing again to the lack of communication among
stakeholders. The changes to various program components put in motion during this
school year however are assumed to be the result of the findings of the IPR.
In explaining assessment and evaluation, Rozenholtz (1989) states that
greater learning both for teachers and students occurs when the continuous feedback
and support of daily classroom issues is paired with explicit criteria for evaluation
and rigorous monitoring. The Induction Program represents an “exposed classroom”
for the novice teacher who is being collaboratively guided by the support provider
and all other components of the program, responsible for setting and communicating
clear expectations and criteria and for holding all stakeholders accountable for
closely monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of these components.
Olebe (2001) anticipated these critical challenges at the inception of the
California BTSA Induction Program, “BTSA programs will need to meet a higher
threshold of legal defensibility related to opportunities to learn, advice and assistance
to candidates, and decisions on individual program completion,” therefore requiring
the local program to develop systems that monitor its processes. In addition, the
Washington USD Induction Program, like many others that have components
partially administered by PAR, such as the consulting teacher (support providers),
faces a second challenge. “How a high accountability system will exist within a new
program with no built-in accountability measures is not clear… how support and
assessment will be aligned yet separate from evaluation for evaluation of
employment,” expresses Olebe (2001, p. 82). The designation of a local district as a
112
credentialing agency has made this line much less apparent, creating significant
challenges in program design and quality for stakeholders at the local level.
Sub-Question 3: Factors Influencing the Success of the District Induction Program
Although all stakeholder groups defined successful induction programs
similarly, and recognized the challenges of developing a high quality, standard-
based induction program for novice teachers, every group identified specific
improvements that can help enhance the existing WUSD Induction Program as
presented below.
Quality Support Providers and Time for Collaboration
The role of the support provider in the WUSD Induction Program as defined
by the stakeholders participating in this study is that of a facilitator, to “guide you
with any questions that you might have regarding everything that goes on in the
classroom; she keeps you aligned. She answers questions that you can’t find by
yourself and directs you to the right place. They’re just there for you, whether it’s
little teaching questions or helping to answer district level questions.” Participating
teachers, administrators as well as the support providers recognize the value of the
support person for novice teachers who are bombarded by numerous professional
expectations atop the daily responsibilities of the classroom. Having the
requirements of the BTSA Induction Program looming over them is overwhelming.
The support provider provides them with the direction and focus needed to stay on
113
track with the induction process, while gaining valuable experience among other
things, in instruction, classroom management, parent communication, planning and
assessment from an exemplary veteran teacher. Support providers help novice
teachers maneuver through the numerous requirements and documentation of the
induction process, helping them prepare the portfolio that will earn them the
Professional Clear Credential.
As such, the selection, training and retention of support providers are key
factor in a high quality induction program. Washington USD is currently
experiencing a critical shortage of SPs which is causing a serious human resource
challenge in terms of SP availability due to work overload and limited time for
comprehensive support.
Preparing Support Providers. The full value and merit of these skilled
professionals is limited to the support available to them. After a rigorous selection
process, support providers receive a brief, 3-4 day training on the California
Formative Assessment Support System for Teachers, expected to have a full grasp of
the policy, program and documentation process, “With the 3 days of training I’m
expected to know a lot to provide to teachers.” Although program administration
explained that the monthly support provider meetings provide continuous
professional development, most SPs interviewed disagreed, “It’s not enough. It’s not
much. A lot of times we go and just sit there and do nothing and just get bored. And
then sometimes we think, why are we talking about this? They bring to our meetings
things we learned when we were being trained as new teachers and call it
114
professional development.” First year support providers expressed frustration with
the lack of time for clarification, “Just because we’re support providers, doesn’t
mean that we don’t have questions, we don’t have problems that we have
encountered, something that we don’t understand. I feel like I’ve been given Carte
Blanche and that I need a little guidance through at least the first year and I know
I’m not the only one feeling this way. We’re just struggling to get this paperwork
done and there is no rubric of what is expected of us. We’re expected to put in the
hours, but am I really putting in the quality time? Am I making the most of the
teacher’s time?” “Are there support providers for support providers?” asked another
SP sharing her loss for answers to many of the PTs concerns and questions.
Once given an assignment, support providers are required to make contact
with the teachers assigned to them, often at unfamiliar schools, and are asked to be
available to provide support for induction and beyond at any time needed.
Regarding their assignments, support providers generally noted that they are much
more comfortable working with someone at their own site, “I know that I’m a better
support provider when I’m mentoring somebody in my school site, because I
understand everything else that goes on.” “You could do so much if the mentees are
on site. You could just get them during your prep period, meet with them at lunch,
have common things to talk about, common students, common issues,” added
another echoing the opinion shared by participating teachers. The shortage of support
providers is also affecting the match in subject matter, “I’m paired with a social
science teacher. I don’t know what standards they’re using. It’s a different grade
115
level, different school, and different standards. So my support for that would be very
limited.” The feeling of “incompetence and inadequacy” was shared by other
support providers who are assigned completely outside of their own context, a
challenge that is facing all districts across the state especially in the unique fields
such as the arts, physical and vocational education. WUSD support providers who
are early retirees are assigned to 8-12 teachers each, however even they expressed
frustration with the conditions caused by this shortage, “With 10 teachers it’s tough
because I have most at one school and the rest at another schools and I’d be meeting
some teachers at 5:30 at night. That’s late for them. And it puts me at a school that
I’m not aware of, in the dark. I think that’s not the best time to meet with a teacher.
They’re not receptive. They don’t want to listen to what I have to say at that time.”
Support Provider Skills. WUSD support providers are generally full-time
classroom teachers, who often have other leadership roles at the school site, as one
admits, “Part of the problem with consulting teachers is that they have their own kids
to teach, their own work to do. This is an extra thing.” Although they are excellent
teachers, most are not trained in working with and teaching adults, which requires a
different approach than teaching students in K-12 classrooms. The brief training
offered through the program is insufficient in preparing them for this job, causing
them to fall back on any strategy that has worked for them, such as sharing handouts
and giving advice. The inquiry based focus of the induction process gets lost, as it
isn’t a familiar practice, especially not in the context of adult learning, clearly seen in
one SP’s comment, “she (regional director) wants it really to be more of an inquiry
116
based process where new teachers come up with an inquiry that would be of value to
them. And we did certainly a fair bit of that in a master’s program. It is very
meaningful but very hard. It’s probably more challenging than simply having events
where someone tells you answer this question, teach this lesson, be observed and
you’re done. I’m wondering for first year BTSA people if that’s going to be too
broad in terms of options and too in depth in terms of expectations.” The fact that
inquiry is built into CFASST and all formative assessments has gotten completely
lost in midst of brief support provider trainings that focus mostly on program
compliance and document completion. “Most of the times as a consulting teacher
you spend time talking about things that have nothing to do with induction. So make
sure that the induction folder, the paperwork gets done so you can help them with
other aspects,” shared another SP demonstrating the gap in policy and
implementation, as induction is referred to as the folder or the paperwork that is
getting in the way of the real work.
WUSD also uses early retirees as support providers. These candidates are
selected based on recommendations from their administrators or other district
personnel who have known them over the years. Support provider interviews
brought up an interesting dilemma that seems to exist among the retirees and the
support providers currently teaching full time. “Do they really know what is going
on in today’s teenager’s lives and heads? Do they really know the new methods and
strategies that are going on? Some of these teachers started teaching almost 40 years
ago. Is education the same as it was 40 years ago?” were questions raised by a few
117
members. Given the shortage of support providers, of course everyone agreed that
they would rather have retirees helping than having to support 12 new teachers on
top of their full-time classroom teaching responsibilities.
As the credentialing aspect of induction becomes a greater reality among site
administrators concerned with the hiring factors, their reliance on the support
providers to guide these teachers also increases. The environment of true support
becomes dotted by numerous external requirements and demands that cause the
communication and time to be disjointed and scattered. Trying to help the PT get
their PPGs completed for the administrative evaluation, while getting their
documentation completed for a certain BTSA Event, the support providers have to
juggle time demands and needs of both the novice teachers, often more than three at
a time, and their own careers and lives. “Sometimes it feels like it’s more of a
reminder to the PT to do the work that they’re supposed to do, which is not the
pleasant part for me. I like more of the interaction and the common problem-solving,
brainstorming sessions, or coming up with new ideas of how to deal with a situation
or having had similar things to share whether it’s a lesson plan or a procedure or
whatever it is. That is I think the most useful part,” shared one support provider. It is
not surprising to see them quit this job, as given the challenges; the stipend is of no
value.
Emotional Support. An unspoken but critical role of a support provider is
providing emotional support that is so needed for a beginner who is experiencing
disillusionment as the demands of the classroom, parents, administration and BTSA
118
accumulate. A veteran support provider described this critical need by saying that,
“My role is…to basically boost their moral and give them hope. Allow them to vent
their frustration from time to time. They need to know that their mentors also have
gone through the same feeling when they first came and therefore it is ok.” When
commenting on the use of the log to tracks the amount of monthly contact time
between SPs and PTs, one support provider shared her frustration,
Do the administrators of the program realize that the emotional needs are as
important as getting through paperwork of the program? Can I comment on
that? Because on that sheet we fill-out how the hours are dispersed. There’s a
place talking about what event you are working on for that week. Did you
demonstrate a lesson? Did you do a teacher observation? There’s not really
a place for emotional support, but just to go in and find out how they’re
doing. The new teachers appreciate that call to follow-up after a STULL
evaluation - that’s not on the log. And not that it’s any of my business but
it’s just nurturing and it’s providing the emotional support for the ups and
downs of that first year. How is all this monitored?
This sentiment was reiterated in interviews with participating teachers who
identified the emotional support as a priority, “somebody that you can ask questions
and they make you feel better, so you don’t go home crying everyday.”
Supporting Support Providers. Support providers’ dedication to the job is
seen in the remarks made by the participating teachers and site administrators,
however their frustration and exhaustion with the responsibilities is visible in their
own reflections. “What I’m seeing with the support providers is that moral is down.
We’re losing a lot of good people because it’s all about work, work. I think some
creative and motivating ideas and plans have to be made. For example, years ago at
the end of the year we used to have a banquet designed primarily for mentors and
119
district administrators were invited as guests. And that by itself was a moral builder.
You didn’t mind even if you put hundreds of hours with each teacher. You’re doing
it for a good cause, motivating, building and encouraging,” commented one support
provider who has over time seen all her colleagues leave, adding, “I think it’s
missing a little bit of professional touch.” The comment, “A few years ago when we
first joined it was pretty clear. We had all gone through the BTSA program together
and wanted to give back. Most of the people I’m consulting with today, I don’t even
know who these people are,” elucidated the lack of camaraderie, collaboration and
network among support providers which is vital to professional growth and moral of
a group. The designation of the district as a credentialing agency has created an
added responsibility and accountability, in that SPs now have the burden of
reinforcing the collection and completion of every single document, sacrificing time
and energy from meaningful conversations that these demands have displaced.
“There is only so much we can do and we need support also,” was the frustration
heard among experienced support providers.
Focusing on a way to make their work most meaningful, some suggested that,
“you need to take certain teachers out of the classroom and allow them to just work
with these new teachers. Or give SPs time off for a certain time so they can go spend
more time with the novices if they need to.” Another one added, “I have talked to
other new teachers whose consulting teacher told them to do this and this, came and
took it and the work was done. So the quality of that teacher compared to a teacher
who really spent time would be different obviously. We need the time. Give
120
consulting teachers time so they can go and do what they signed up to do.”
Participating teachers added their desire for more hands on involvement by their
support provider, such as co-teaching followed by immediate analysis of instruction.
They expressed their interest in support that is guided by their instructional abilities
and needs rather than CFASST Events.
One participating teacher best summarized the multifaceted role of the
support provider as the people who “are in there to save your life. They support you
and watch over you. They’re there to make sure you’re going along okay. I mean
it’s a good word, support provider, because they fall under that umbrella, anything
that you need they’re there.”
Support Provider Retention. Recognized by all stakeholders as a critical
piece, or the “strength of the program” as one site administrator put it, support
providers’ recruitment and retention must become a district priority. Valuing the use
of classroom teachers as support providers who are able to bring current classroom
issues to the table, another administrator expressed an important dilemma, “The
support provider is the absolute key, but it’s a huge job, and it’s a catch 22, in that
those students in that support provider’s class might not benefit as much as they
could.” An interesting model was suggested by a principal: “What if our support
providers took a shared position so that there were two support providers and they
taught together and that way part of the time they were released to be support
providers, part of the time they were teaching in the classroom so that they don’t lose
their skills in instruction. But then that again goes to limiting two at each school site
121
and one grade level so it’s a management piece and finding the way to do it.” Such
considerations are going to be critical to the future success of the WUSD Induction
Program, as the full implementation of policy mandates require greater manpower.
This year, the PAR panel at WUSD sent Consulting Teacher Application Packets to
every permanent teacher in the district. Current support providers were asked to
make presentations to the staff at their own and other sites to help with the
recruitment process. It will be interesting to see whether this attempt increases the
number of applicants or if the district will need to revisit other aspects of the job,
such as pay and time commitment in order to make it more appeasing to already
exhausted expert teacher leaders.
Increased Focus on Performance Rather than Documentation
Along the lines of providing quality support is a concern for the significant
amount of precious time that participating teachers are spending on paperwork and
documentation that could instead be spent on focusing on improving the quality of a
novice teacher’s classroom instruction. The legalities concerning licensure as put in
action by the Induction Policy have established a system that concerns itself more
with compliance than performance. Procedures for documenting every aspect of a
novice teacher’s participation have distanced the program from its main goal of
developing quality teachers, heightening the concerns regarding the quality of the
candidates that are being recommended for the Professional Clear Credential.
122
The constructive feedback offered by stakeholders participating in this study
included streamlining the paperwork to focus in in-depth analysis, building in PT
observation of veteran teachers, expanding the inquiry model, providing clear
guidelines and rubrics, building in time for discussion regarding specific issues and
maintaining clear communication among all levels of the program. Many participants
agreed that the local induction program must be as rigorous as the fifth year at the
university if it is to claim the title of a reputable quality induction program.
Support providers, working closely with the participating teachers on
completing the induction requirements shared their perspective on the lack of rigor:
“In the end it’s really the completion of the CFASST requirements. Overall it’s the
Induction Binder. What’s in that binder is what gives you your clear credential. If
somebody can complete all those requirements they’ve got their act pretty much
together. People who can’t meet those requirements that doesn’t necessarily mean
they’re bad teachers and that they shouldn’t be teaching. It’s just a lot of hoops to go
through for some people. There are some people who just dot their i’s and cross their
t’s and they fill out all the paperwork and they’re not necessarily good teachers. So if
the approval on the portfolio is what gets them that clear credential, I think that
there’s a prescriptive clearing method.”
Participating teachers shared similar concerns in that they want to learn new
strategies and skills, however without the redundancy and with greater relevance to
their own context, “some of the events and some of the paperwork is just paperwork.
I’m not getting anything out of it. It’s not helping me become a better teacher. I think
123
that they really need to sit down and look at the program and think what’s going to
help our teachers move along instead of what’s just busy work for them.”
Commenting on the importance of rigor, one participating teacher shared that
“the program needs to be rigorous. The WUSD program expects a great deal and
they don’t just expect you to brush on the surface,” however this was not a common
thread in other participants’ responses. One’s teaching context greatly influenced his
or her gain from the various components of the program as in the example of PTs
teaching at the secondary level. Math and science teachers especially appeared
frustrated with the lack of support in the content area, which they shared as areas of
concern in their practice.
The use of the portfolio to document performance was criticized by many,
especially Year One teachers who just recently completed one as part of their
university coursework, “it would really help if they had a little less paperwork and a
little more hands-on kind of things. Putting together a whole new portfolio doesn’t
really say that I’m a better teacher now, or I have been trained better now, because I
have this portfolio. Anyone can put a portfolio together.” “This is pretty much
everything that I’ve already done at the university and that’s what I’m upset about.
Why do I need to do it again? They need to have guidelines and reasoning. They
need to have a rubric for each activity so we can see how we’re being judged. How
we’re being tested,” expressed another teacher. Referring to the amount of time and
effort that it takes to accumulate a portfolio, a participating teacher commented that,
“The portfolio is extra work for us. You make the portfolio and it just sits in your
124
classroom and you don’t really use it for anything. Even the one I have from my
university I don’t use it for anything because as time changes my lessons change, my
ideas change, my everything changes. So I don’t use the portfolio. I spend so much
time kind of like a perfectionist and when I’m done, and then I don’t use it for
anything. The portfolio is more for the district to be able to have something to show
that we’ve done the work, but as teachers, personally I don’t use it for anything.”
Recognizing the need for demonstrating evidence of their practice, some PTs and
SPs suggested varying the formats for various events and considering electronic and
online versions of certain tasks, a resource widely practiced in the industry however
untapped in the WUSD Program.
Induction “is merging the academic, which is college-based with the
practical, which is classroom-based,” defined one administrator, explaining that
keeping the balance between the expectations of the classroom and the program is a
significant challenge for beginning teachers. She added that although everyone’s
intention is to bring in and keep quality teachers in the profession, “sometimes
BTSA is almost - I’d rather quit than cope with all this stuff,” so creating and finding
that balance is critical.
Individualized Support Structure
In line with the emphasis on performance study participants expressed the
need for individualizing the induction process. Through more specific feedback, goal
setting, quality one-on-one interactions, deep communication, differentiation,
125
homogenous grouping and regular performance monitoring stakeholders believe in
the local program’s ability to develop an induction program that meets the needs of
individual teachers.
“They don’t know the quality of the teachers who are coming in. It depends
on experience and what background teachers have when they are first starting. That
would make a difference,” shared a support provider. “To treat them all as plain
vanilla flavored teachers is not fair,” added another support provider, recognizing the
higher quality of incoming cadre of teachers and emphasizing the importance of
considering their abilities and skills when designing induction. One support provider
summarized this in plain terms, “If a person can demonstrate a high level of
confidence in certain areas there should be a way to make an exception with certain
people rather than making everybody go through the same requirements. When you
have certain students in your class performing at a much higher level, are you going
to give them the same introductory type of exam?” Participating teachers shared their
mentors’ views in this aspect adding that they would like to have more regular
feedback on their individual performance, to help make the process more relevant to
their own practice, “I think that if my work was checked once in a while by someone
other than my support provider and I knew that I was doing the right thing by
someone who is in charge of the program, and we met individually even just to make
sure I was on the right track I think I would want to be interested every time I go,
instead of half the time when I feel like - what am I doing here.” Listening to and
126
considering the novice teachers’ feedback and experiences were other key points
raised by PTs who wished for more alignment in induction and their practice.
Recognizing the challenges of individualizing the complex process of
induction, site administrators pressed the point about making the program somewhat
more flexible, so that while it is efficient, it can be adjusted when necessary. “Just
like in education for the general population you can’t meet every child’s need with a
blanket program,” induction must provide a program that supports everybody so that
“we don’t lose teachers on the way.”
Quality Professional Development
Professional development in the form of release days and after-school forums
are a commonplace in induction programs. Geared towards supporting the novice
teachers’ progress towards Induction Standards 15-20, these training sessions are
designed and provided by the district personnel or outside consultants acquired by
the district. Washington USD offers participating teachers 3-5 full day and
approximately 10-11 after-school training opportunities each year focusing on
various topics.
All participants in this study recognized the benefits of professional
development. Numerous considerations were suggested for improving this practice
in the current WUSD Induction Program. Administrators, participating teachers and
support providers agreed on three general factors that the professional development
127
plan must consider: content implementation, content provider and time commitment,
as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Professional Development Plan for Induction Programs
Considerations Elements for Developing the Practice
Year One
Guided immersion in instructional
practices (PTRA cycle)
Attaining the logistics and demands of
teaching
Capacity building
Ongoing reflection and progress
monitoring
Time
Commitment
Year Two
Guided immersion in the depth and
complexity of teaching (Inquiry model)
Capacity building
Ongoing reflection and progress
monitoring
Alignment with the
content and/or the grade
level
Models of instructional practice
Samples of student performance
outcomes
Content
Implementation
Full implementation
demands
Pedagogical knowledge
Content knowledge
Resource management
Classroom management
Ongoing progress monitoring
Expertise
Contemporary classroom
experience Content Provider
Reflective and purposeful
selection
Applicability of content
Collaborative selection process using
participating teacher, administrator,
support provider feedback
Time Commitment. Quality teaching requires significant amount of time for
preparation and planning. Novice teachers, unfamiliar with the curriculum and
resources require additional time for this process as they lack the experience and
expertise as well as resources accumulated by veteran teachers. The overwhelming
demands of the profession atop teaching responsibilities present significant
challenges that affect the quality of instruction as well as moral. “You’re a little
128
overwhelmed at first and then you’re taken out of your classroom for different all-
day events. I mean at times you’re just trying to keep your head above water because
you’re trying to balance both of those things. I think especially in the first year of the
program it’s a challenge because all these new things are being thrown at you at once
and you’re constantly juggling the program,” noted one support provider. A Year
Two participating teacher explained, “I know that as a year two I have to attend less
meetings that I did last year and I wish it was reversed. Because this year I know
what I’m doing better than what I did last year and last year I missed a lot of class
time.”
Similar comments were shared by site administrators: “It’s so difficult. You
can’t get it all done in the two years of the program and I think it’s all too much.
They’re not ready to get it when they get it. I think that the professional development
piece shouldn’t start until at least half into the first year of teaching. Those teachers
are already drowning. Have them have a coach and survive the first part and then
give them the annual workshop. They really and truly are too overwhelmed to get
any of the content at first. Maybe in a perfect world they could have them just
survive the first year with a coach and then in the second year include the
professional development part.” These observations from the stakeholders confirm
that Year One should allow the opportunity for teachers to merge their university
learning with the actual classroom practice under the guidance of the support
provider. With regular and frequent collaboration within the framework of the Plan,
Teach, Reflect, Apply (PTRA) cycle of CFASST, PTs will have the opportunity to
129
fully immerse in their classroom practices while attaining the logistics and demands
of the teaching profession, such as professional responsibilities, the general
curriculum and its components, parent communication, administrative evaluation and
teamwork. Having deciphered these components, they will then be better prepared
and more attune to the depth and complexity of teaching, delving into the
curriculum, assessment practices and differentiation under the guidance of the
support provider and through the Inquiry model of formative assessment.
Considering the amount of work and the length of time that it takes to induct teachers
into the profession, one principal added, “Teachers need the 3
rd
year and that isn’t in
place.” The importance of ongoing reflection and progress monitoring was shared by
everyone interviewed as a way of identifying gaps and recognizing growth. The
current WUSD Induction Program addresses this informally and often only when
problems arise.
Content Implementation. The second element suggested for consideration,
content implementation, was also a concern for everyone. Participating teachers
talked about the applicability of the content presented as part of the professional
development, as summarized by one PT, “I think they really need to look and see
what’s good and what’s appropriate and what’s worthwhile for us, instead of just
making us go.” “Sometimes they are completely useless and sometimes they’re
useful. You’re not sure what you’re going to get, but you have to do it because it’s
part of the program. Some of the time I get very good ideas from them and make it
work for me, and other times I just stick it in the box and it sits there, because it
130
doesn’t pertain to me or my subjects or grade level. So basically it’s a lot of
paperwork,” noted another PT, recognizing the challenges of differentiating activities
to meet the needs of every teacher in every grade level and in every content area.
Some PTs shared their frustration with the redundancy in some of the content that is
part of the university’s preliminary credentialing program, “Sometimes I feel like
I’m just repeating what I’ve already done.”
Most talked about the lack of connection between what they learn and what
their classroom needs are, suggesting accurate alignment and supported
implementation of the professional development content. “Make it more applicable
and less busywork,” noted an experienced SP echoing the criticism shared by most
of the PTs, “I expect that if I’m going to go to workshops to learn that I’m learning
something that’s going to help me and I can bring back to the classroom.” “Really
think about the workshops. Is it going to help? Are they going to be able to take this
information back to the classroom and be able to use it?” recommended one Year
One teacher. Washington USD uses the Induction Standards to design the
professional development, however as one principal noted, “I think it’s a huge
challenge, keeping a balance between what a new teacher’s expected to do in a
classroom and what the expectation of the program are, because when you’re not at a
school site and you’re designing a program it’s very easy to say, of course they have
to keep that piece of paper. Well, why?” Furthermore, PTs shared their concern
regarding the inadequacies of continuity and follow-up with the valuable content,
generally a common flaw in staff development. “More follow-ups, the same way we
131
expect follow-up with our kids, because then it also forces the teachers to keep
working on it. It’s not just something you turned in for a program a few months ago.
So then it really makes you incorporate it into what you’re doing,” explained one
participating teacher. If the goal of induction is to develop a cadre of quality teachers
then implementation of what they have been taught in the program must guide its
design as a veteran support provider explained, “The only way I can judge the
quality is by how the new teachers benefit from some of these presentations. If they
could take at least one thing to implement in their classrooms, I think that’s a
fantastic presentation.”
Almost all PTs expressed a great interest in observing experienced teachers,
“I would like more time to see other teachers and other schools and know what else
is out there,” and although the WUSD Induction Program suggests this to all
participants, teachers expressed that they would prefer to have this as a required
component with all arrangements made for them ahead of time. “We have a thousand
things to think about. They said maybe so I’m going to put that on the back burner,”
shared one PT. “Going out and visiting other teachers in other schools helps more
than sitting in a professional development meeting or a presentation,” added a Year
Two teacher. The interest in seeing “real life” teaching versus a lecture was also seen
in the suggestions regarding the use of actual classroom examples, “having actual
things that teachers have done in the classroom that have worked for them and
sharing that information with teachers.”
132
Content Provider. In connection with time commitment and implementation
considerations, all stakeholders noted the importance of selecting expert content
providers. Overall study participants commented on the trainers’ knowledge and
skills, however greater emphasis was placed on how current they were on their
experience in the real classroom, “we need people to train us that actually have
experienced it for themselves.” The WUSD Induction Program uses guidelines
developed by the District for selecting trainers and presenters, however, participants
in this study recommended that the district consider their feedback from workshop
evaluations and informal discussions to obtain more quality presenters who are
interesting and motivating. In addition, the presence of the “well-trained support
providers who have direct current experience with the same grade level or content as
the mentees” at workshops and inservices was highlighted as a strategic method of
helping novice teachers process and filter the content for their own context.
WUSD Induction Program stakeholders valued many components of the
current professional development plan, and their suggestions are mainly due to the
policy implementation gaps which fail in providing the capacity and support for the
districts to develop a more comprehensive and differentiated professional
development plan that meets the varying needs of individual teachers.
In-depth Guidance for K-12 Administrator
In the process of determining the key factors that are critical to a successful
induction program based on the various sources of information in this study, the need
133
for continuous reciprocal communication was highlighted in order to develop and
maintain transparency of program goals and objectives.
The analysis of the interviews from the stakeholders elucidated that the role
and responsibility of the site administrator in the induction process of the novice
teacher is twofold. Principals must have an in-depth knowledge of the implications
of the new policy on the incoming workforce, and build the capacity at the site level
to ensure comprehensive support for the induction process in order to avoid what one
PT described as, “the school doesn’t really know what BTSA is doing and BTSA
doesn’t even know what the school is doing. They are definitely detached, and they
don’t have a connection.”
Considering the overwhelming responsibilities placed on the site
administrator’s plate, the WUSD Induction Program has streamlined their
participation in the process to the bare minimum. In designing a standards-based
induction program, the Induction Program administration has developed a portfolio
component that involves the site administrator in guiding the PT with a number of
site-specific elements. This Administrator Checklist is the only document that
requires the principal’s participation in induction. Aside from this, administrators are
invited to attend a celebration of their PT’s achievement during the colloquium held
at the end of the school year. The broadening influence of the Induction policy as it
pertains to the change in the credentialing process compels site administrators to
evaluate their understanding of induction and its impact on their recruitment and
hiring practices.
134
The question, “What would make an induction program a high quality
program which its ‘graduates’ would proudly declare on their resume?” was an eye-
opener for most participants in the study. One principal recognized that, “It’s part of
the shift in paradigm from teaching credentials coming from the university and it
really wasn’t clear to me. It’s been told to me but it didn’t get clear to me until this
year when we had the problem with one teacher.” Additionally, she recognized how
this policy requires her to view “teacher preparation” in a new light, where
completion of a teacher-credentialing program at a prestigious university’s is no
longer a sufficient factor for defining a quality teacher. “I have not looked at
induction as a criterion for why I would hire a teacher. You got your credential
cleared out of Washington as opposed to another district, to me, that would carry
weight. Now that I realize that that’s what happening, that’s going to have to be part
of my criteria in selecting a teacher. Where did you get your education? Where did
you get your support? What did it look like? And hanging some questions on that is
going to make a difference,” she noted.
Although the administration of the Washington USD Induction Program
shares the Induction Program components with the principals at their monthly
meetings, participants in this study acknowledged that they are not well informed. “I
think making sure principals are clear. I don’t think as principals we’re looking at it
that way because it’s something new, and realizing that that’s what the whole BTSA
program means. I think principals need to be aware of that. I’m not sure that there’s
the same level of support from school to school,” expressed the administrators’
135
concern for lack of clarity and information. Aligned with these changes is the
importance of the administrators’ role in the recommendation for the Professional
Clear Credential, as expressed by one support provider, “Obviously the principal’s
input is very, very important too because they’re doing formal observations.”
Although logically meaningful, logistically, this creates issues with the non-
evaluative process of induction, where all work and communication between the
participating teachers and his or her support provider is confidential.
The administrators’ responsibilities for establishing and maintaining site level
support for induction teachers include guidance with site specific needs, support with
the induction process and collaboration concerning the program design. Participating
teachers noted that the unique needs of each school present a challenge for the depth
of support they can provide to their participating teachers, specifically those that are
not at their site. One PT described the particular culture of a school adding that
getting them accustomed to this culture “becomes the administrator’s job.” She also
expressed that she didn’t think that “every administrator is thinking about doing
something about it,” recommending a site-based emphasis.
Soliciting and gaining school site support for the induction of novice teachers
was offered as an important element in creating the learning to practice continuum.
Participating teachers shared that, “Sometimes we come back with some good ideas
from workshops and things that we go to that we can bring to the school and to our
colleagues,” however the capacity for these interactions is often lacking at the site
level. In the same way, administrators expressed the need to know what is expected
136
and the desire to know more information, “I’m lucky enough to have a candidate
who gives me information, but that may not always be the case. Maybe just letting
all principals know these are the topics for this month.”
Raising site awareness of the participating teachers; BTSA commitments,
helps adjust and align school’s instructional goals and plans, “When the teacher (PT)
says that I have a BTSA meeting tomorrow I know that that means we’re going to go
to the class and have homework, but that it’s a day that they’ve known about for
more than a day, so their sub plan should be good,” explained one administrator.
Another principal noted the importance of “having good documentation, a good
notebook, a good printout on an annual basis of what is required for each teacher for
the teacher and for the principal. Because I need to be planning what I expect of
them around what is being expected of them outside of my own site.” The WUSD
Induction Program is presented and shared with the site administrators during a
Principals’ Meeting, where expectations for the site support are clarified, however
study participants disclosed that this process must be further enhanced, as one
administrator shared, “I think that I now do a better job of that (supporting the PT)
because of what happened with one of my teachers, other than that it’s not getting
through to me and I think that needs to be enhanced a little bit. That’s where I would
say that information about what this is all about and how is it impacting the school
needs to be strengthened. I think it’s back to communication, because the principals
have to support this. You have to.”
137
Moreover, through enhanced knowledge construction, the overall effort of
supporting the development of quality teachers becomes collaborative and focused as
explained by one site administrator, “I’ve done evaluations of a few teachers who are
in BTSA, giving them feedback if I’m in their classroom. It helps actually for me to
know what they talk about (in BTSA) because if I had a teacher who was struggling I
could say, well has your support provider gone over any of that with you because
you should look at something here and here and here. So in that sense it makes a real
personal conversation for the school.”
Improved communication between the program and the site also helps the
school administration recognize the changing responsibilities of the principal as a
key player in a new teacher’s induction process based on the policy demands.
Whether the capacity and structure within the current system supports this change is
questionable, as seen in this principal’s comment, “The downside is schools really
weren’t set up to provide that kind of support and there wasn’t good communication
on how to do it smoothly. I think Washington is pretty strong and we’ve got good
strong trainers. We’ve got somebody who realizes when teachers are giving you bad
feedback you need to make a change and bring in quality support. I don’t think
districts necessarily have that kind of support as part of their regular staffing. I think
that’s problematic. So I think the implementation has been difficult.”
Ultimately, embracing the induction process as a collaborative effort between
the district program and the school site will positively impact the hiring and retention
of the novice teachers. “It’s not looking to say, the teacher is better because of it
138
(induction), but that I’m willing to rehire the teacher and the teacher’s willing to
come back to my school because of it,” concluded one principal drawing together the
process and the school’s ultimate goal of hiring and retaining quality staffing. This
impact is described by Portner (2005) who writes, “Recognizing that induction and
mentoring addresses their self-interests is a characteristic of leaders committed to
embedding the program into their schools.”
In this sense of collaboration site participation in the design of the program
becomes very important, as it merges the process of developing a quality teacher
from both the learning and practical perspectives. Site concerns about the novice
teachers’ time and availability for site needs can be alleviated with greater
involvement of the school leadership both for gaining induction knowledge and for
contributing school level knowledge, helping novice teachers avoid having to decide
whether they will coach football this year or complete their credential. If the “intent
of induction is to really prepare them for the long haul,” as noted by one principal,
then the program must be closely imbedded within their classroom instruction
instead of removing them from this environment and supporting them as an add-on
activity. Another principal added, “Just talk to principals to see if this is making a
difference with their first-year teacher. Actually asking us what we see, what can we
help with, what are some things that would help a first year teacher, and working
together. I think asking the principals what would help you at your site makes it
well-rounded.” Conversations with the administrators as well as support providers
demonstrated the need for a more balanced focus within the WUSD Induction
139
Program that emphasized program quality as much as policy compliance. The
measure of program quality, according to the stakeholders interviewed for this study,
should be determined based on the development of the novice teacher within a
comprehensive induction system that is inclusive of the school site.
Summary
Analyses of the data from this study lead to the following Input-Output
Model of Beginning Teacher Induction shown in Figure 3.
At the center of the figure is the ultimate goal of induction, effective
instruction, which is supported through differentiated collaboration and reflection
time for participating teachers with differentiated guidance and assistance from the
support provider. The success of this process is assisted by the six components
leading into it: BTSA Induction Guidance, Program Quality Monitoring, Financial
Resources, Quality Professional Development, K-12 School Administrator
Collaboration and Support Provider Training. The qualitative data presented in this
chapter and summarized in the following section, demonstrate the important role
each component plays in a successful induction program that produces quality
teachers while shedding light on the challenges that districts must recognize and
address in order to develop this model.
140
Input-Output Model of Beginning Teacher Induction
Figure 3: Input-Output Model of Beginning Teacher Induction
Policy mandates laid out in the language of the Induction Standards are built
on various assumptions, such as induction program administration’s authority in
expecting the complete support and collaboration of local schools and their
administrators for the induction process. Findings from Washington USD
demonstrated the importance of establishing and recognizing this authority role as a
district rather than on a school-to-school basis. In addition, data demonstrated that
the varying perceptions and interpretations of the policy goals by the different
program stakeholders impaired the collaborative effort and commitment required for
effective implementation. When perceived as a “hoop to jump through” for the
purpose of obtaining the Professional Clear Credential, the program was portrayed as
141
a checklist of disconnected activities that had “hit-or-miss” outcomes. The
realization that the policy shifts the credentialing responsibilities from the university
to the local district and consequently strongly impacts the quality and quantity of the
incoming teaching workforce is a paradigm shift that most stakeholders have not
been prepared for, further widening the implementation gap.
The current induction program at Washington USD is a standards-based
comprehensive plan with numerous components that are aligned with each of the 20
Induction Standards. No single theme emerged from the analysis of the data
regarding the various stakeholders’ perception of this program due to the vast
opinions and attitudes, implying a chasm in communication and clarification of
standards, program components and goals. Study participants shared a number of
quality features of the program; however, this dissection also fragmented the overall
objective of the policy. In addition, the program’s reliance mainly on regional and
state level systems of evaluation for improving the program disengaged those that
had the most contribution to make to its enhancement, such as the support providers,
participating teachers and the site administrators. Recommendations for increased
local and regular quality monitoring structures offered by these key groups
highlighted their support and endorsement of the policy objectives.
In determining the key factors of a successful induction program five general
elements were stressed repeatedly: quality support providers and time for
collaboration, increased focus on performance rather than documentation,
individualized support structure, quality professional development, in-depth
142
guidance for K-12 administrator. These components are integral to the effective
implementation of the induction policy, as they guide the program and its
stakeholders towards the ultimate goal of staffing classrooms with quality teachers
who will stay in the profession for years to come. Based on their research on policy
implementation practices, Smylie and Evans (2006, p. 187) conclude that “the will
and capacity of local actors and local implementation contexts could compromise
even the most well-developed policies and delivery systems.” As seen in this
research study, the key factors of the successful implementation of California’s
induction policy are not more mandates and administrative accountability systems,
but rather the collaborative, systematic and performance oriented approaches taken
by all stakeholders which build and support the capacity for the induction of novice
teachers to take place.
Conclusion
This chapter presented the challenges and key factors for the successful
implementation of California’s Induction policy through a thorough analysis of
considerable data accumulated through observations, document reviews, and
interviews of stakeholders in the Washington Unified School District’s Induction
Program. Arranging and synthesizing the data within the framework of the research
question and its three sub-questions generated themes and guidelines that inform and
alert the practitioners and policymakers to the complexities and hurdles of the
implementation process, which often obstruct the efforts for maintaining fidelity to
the goals and objectives of the policy.
143
The next chapter will focus on correlating these findings to prior research and
determining the future direction that research in the field of teacher induction must
consider in support of effective beginning teacher development as well as statewide
policy implementation.
144
CHAPTER 5
CONNECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
Summary
The increasing accountability systems set into motion by the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) have compelled states to take a critical look at the quality of
instruction by deeming the Highly Qualified Teacher a requirement in every
classroom. A number of studies and reports raise an important awareness regarding
the “leaky bucket” syndrome of the teaching force across the United States, attesting
to the challenges of meeting this component of the NCLB mandate and elucidating
the critical need for producing and sustaining skilled teachers. New teacher
induction policies appear to be the logical solution for this dilemma, as they are
intended to guide and support novice teachers through the challenging beginning
stages of their career, while providing them with hands-on opportunities for
developing and enhancing effective instructional practices. Education reform
policies whose objective and purpose are grounded in good research intend to
positively impact student achievement until they fall into the perplexing gap that
exists between the policy and its implementation. As noted by Loeb and McEwan,
referencing McLaughlin (Honig, 2006, p. 169), “Implementation is fundamentally
determined by local implementers, such as teachers, principals, and students. Their
will to implement a policy, as well as their capacity to do so, determines the success
of implementation.” This study examined one district’s efforts in implementing
California’s Induction policy for beginning teachers by analyzing its stakeholder’s
145
perceptions of the policy and the program. The purpose of this qualitative research
was to shed a light on the challenges and key factors of developing a standards-based
induction program that meets the needs of all teachers.
The study focused on answering the following question and the three sub-
questions: How do districts implement California’s induction policy for beginning
teachers?
1. What are the assumptions of the induction policy and what is the
district’s interpretation of this mandate?
2. How do participating teachers, support providers, program directors
and administrators perceive the induction program offered by the
district?
3. What factors determine and influence the success of a district
induction program?
Using data gathered through interviews, document reviews and
meeting/workshop observations the study analyzed the goals and assumptions of
California’s Induction Policy, the stakeholders’ perceptions of one district’s current
program identifying the policy implementation gaps.
A synthesis of the findings lead to the development of the Input-Output
Model of Beginning Teacher Induction, seen in Figure 3, where the ultimate target is
Effective Instruction which occurs within an environment of Differentiated
Collaboration and Reflection as guided and assisted by trained support providers.
This process is further deeply imbedded within a system that incorporates K-12
146
School Administrator Collaboration, Quality Professional Development, Support
Provider Training, Financial Resources, BTSA Induction Guidance, and Program
Quality Monitoring providing all stakeholders with the capacity to achieve the target.
By determining the patterns and themes from the examination of the data gathered
within each subquestion these components were considered as the most critical.
Participant data regarding the assumptions and interpretations of the state
policy highlighted two important areas that currently create significant
implementation gaps for a district. First, there is a definite lack of site level
collaboration and support for new teacher induction which is attributed mainly to the
misinterpretations of roles and responsibilities within the policy. This is further
exacerbated by the paradigm shift in teacher licensure, a process still indistinct and
perplexing to many stakeholders.
An evaluation of the program stakeholder’s perceptions of the current district
program demonstrated a gap in communication and clarification which has led to
misalignment of goals and a shift in focus from implementation to compliance.
Furthermore, by emphasizing the fulfillment of requirements for the purpose of
maintaining this status, attention has diverted from quality of the components to
documentation, deeming local program quality monitoring systems necessary.
When discussing the key elements of a high quality induction program,
responses from stakeholders stressed five significant areas of need: quality support
providers and time for collaboration, increased focus on performance rather than
documentation, individualized support structure, quality professional development
147
and in-depth guidance for K-12 administrators. It was evident from the data that
these components played an important role in providing a comprehensive system of
support for novice teachers.
In summary, a significant finding from this research is that California’s
Induction Policy has a vital impact on participating teachers as it is tied to their
licensure requirement, but it also sets high demands on the district program and most
importantly the school site where novice teachers are employed.
Connections to Prior Research
The findings of this study relate closely to the key points drawn from the
expansive literature research presented in Chapter 2. By looking at numerous
exemplary programs, it was determined that a comprehensive induction program,
which is critical to developing high quality teachers, is a product of financial and
human resources and well as school leadership and culture, as designed based on
careful and consistent interpretations of policy objectives and goals by all
stakeholders. These correlations are expanded in the next section.
Common Features of Successful Induction Programs
Comprehensive Approaches to Induction
Studies of national and international induction and mentoring programs for
novice teachers demonstrated the impact they have on the performance of beginning
teachers when they are “comprehensive, coherent, and sustained” (Wong, 2005, p.
148
42). These “state-of-the-art induction programs” as described by Wong, emphasize
student work, professional development dedicated to lifelong learning, school-based
mentors, collaboration and administrative assistance. Studies of programs in
Colorado, Chicago and New York City demonstrated the importance of mentoring
and communities of learning where novice teachers are able to enhance their
instruction (Kapadia et al., 2007; Basile, 2006, Ashdown et al., 2006).
These findings align closely with the findings of this qualitative study, in
which stakeholders shared the importance of mentoring or support and school site
collaboration as demonstrated in Figure 3. In addition, as suggested through the
interview data, support provider training was an additional key component of this
comprehensive induction plan, supporting the findings from the research conducted
by Flores who emphasized the need for a “novice-centered and context-dependent”
program which offers mentors and school leaders extensive training that develops a
“collaborative culture within schools” in partnership with university programs
(Flroes, 2006, p. 62).
Designing and Implementing Quality Induction Programs
Research findings described in Chapter 2 offered a list of key issues to be
considered when developing a quality induction program. This list included
considerations for the program leadership, the standards guiding it, participants’
characteristics, mentor qualifications, length of program, evaluation and alignment of
the program with the teaching profession (Ganser, 2006). These components were
149
also highlighted in this research study as addressed through interviews and
documentation. Furthermore, the framework of important elements presented by the
literature research helped identify the gaps in Washington USD’s induction program,
supporting the development of the Input-Output Model of Beginning Teacher
Induction (Figure 3), which identifies effective instruction as the core outcome
within a system of differentiated collaboration and time for reflection as well as
differentiated guidance and assistance from the support provider closely supported
by a comprehensive system that includes financial resources, BTSA Induction
guidance, program quality monitoring, quality professional development, K-12
school administrator collaboration, and support provider training.
Challenges in the Implementation of Induction Programs
Financial and Human Resources
Preparing and training quality teachers is a costly enterprise both in terms of
finances and the manpower it requires, as seen through the research discussed in
Chapter 2. Studied and discussed extensively by various researchers, the excessive
financial cost requires serious commitment on the state and district’s part which
California’s Induction Policy has established and maintained since its inception.
This financial assurance is critical to the design of a high quality program and the
type of support it is able to offer, aiming the focus on the outcome at the end of the
two-year period. The current state of policy implementation, as seen through the
analysis of the data, is at the compliance level, causing much concern from the
150
financial perspective, since teachers, compliant with all the induction requirements
set by the district, although may qualify for a Professional Clear Credential, may not
necessarily demonstrate high quality instruction, since the system is not built to
monitor that. In addition, beginning teacher induction at the district level limits the
services to those unique to the district, as described in a recent study conducted by
University of Riverside, “These programs operate as state sponsored monopolies,
individual teachers have no choice as to which BTSA program they will participate
in, and all new teachers are required to participate in the program serving their
school and district” (UCR, 2007, p. V). These limitations can be financially harmful
to districts, in that teachers inducted in district A might not be prepared with all
necessary skills that are required in district B, and although this “monopoly”
supports the goal of the Policy for retaining teachers, it fails to consider teacher
mobility which is highly dependent on school enrollment and changes in family
commitments. New teachers, hired on a temporary one-year contract, represent a
highly mobile workforce in WUSD, which continues to suffer from a significant
drop in enrollment. Will this Policy ultimately cause the receiving district more if it
needs to further prepare the teacher inducted at a different district to meet the
requirements of the new district’s system, is a matter for further research.
The human resource challenge further complicates the full implementation of
the policy, due to the numerous personnel demands required to carry out the
mandates. As this study and other research demonstrated, program and site
administrators as well as the support providers have a critical role in the induction
151
process, however these also tend to represent the staff that is already “stretched thin”
due to other responsibilities. The Washington USD Induction Program is currently
suffering critical shortages in the support provider pool, deeming it necessary for the
District to consider various recruitment options, maybe even reconsidering
compensation and time allotment.
School Leadership and Culture
As demonstrated through the myriad of research analyzed in Chapter 2,
organizational gaps challenge the implementation of the induction policy as they
represent a chasm between the goals and objectives of the program and the district or
the school (Odell, 2006, Portner, 2005). The findings of this study showed that
program stakeholders, administrators, participating teachers and support providers,
varied on their understanding of the objectives of tasks and activities and viewed the
program according to their own interpretations, often missing its intentions. They
shared a lack of understanding of the policy, the standards and its requirements
therefore demonstrating varying levels of commitment to its actualization.
The Input-Output Model of Beginning Teacher Induction presented in Figure
3 incorporates all players into the ultimate goal of developing effective instruction,
where K-12 administrators, the BTSA Induction program and the support providers
collaborate on developing the program, while the latter, the closest link to the novice
teachers, bridge the gap between the program and the classroom. This
152
comprehensive model addressed the challenges presented by the school leadership
and the school culture by incorporating these key players into the program.
As evident in prior research as well as the data gathered through this study,
the quality of the induction program is determined through its impact on the
development of high quality teachers, as part of a comprehensive process operating
within the context of a system that is supported through financial and human
resources as well as school leadership and culture.
Future Research
The results of this study demonstrate the challenges presented in the
implementation process highlighting the key factors that are critical to its success.
Conducted at a larger scale, such as several districts from every BTSA region in the
state, this type of study will help determine the implementation gaps across the state
which can be incorporated into revisions considered by the state currently or in the
future.
In addressing the impact of induction on effective instruction, these findings
determine the need for a longitudinal study of a random sample of beginning
teachers that can provide a more reliable data on the impact of the program over
time. Since not all educators agree on the validity of standardized test scores for
students, other measures of student achievement must be considered in order to make
an appropriate correlation to the success of the program on improving student
performance.
153
To further expand and enhance the statewide induction policy
implementation it is recommended that future research address the following
questions which impact all levels of implementation:
• Is there a correlation between formative assessment and student
achievement? What instruments would be required to produce a valid
data on this topic?
• How does induction impact the development of a highly qualified
teacher?
• How does beginning teacher success depend on mentor selection,
training and compensation?
• Is there a correlation between the quantity and the quality of the
mentorship experience?
• How successful is the BTSA Induction program in helping teachers
with insufficient and alternative preservice training?
• How does the time commitment of the program correlate to its success
in teacher induction?
• What is the impact of the school leadership and culture on the
beginning teacher’s induction process?
• What district infrastructures are critical for the full and effective
implementation of induction policies that support quality instruction?
The full impact of the induction policy is a combination of its influences at
all levels of implementation; state, district, school and classroom. Although data
154
from this study and prior research identifies numerous key elements that represent a
comprehensive program, some of these components, as expressed in the questions
above, require further research to determine their true effect on new teacher
induction and ultimately teacher performance.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The effective implementation of induction policies will be determined by its
impact on teacher retention and classroom instruction. These outcomes will become
evident with the development and improvement of local and statewide program
quality monitoring measures that analyze the effectiveness of its components and the
roles and responsibilities of its stakeholders. In addition, full implementation will
require the incorporation of the key elements at all levels of implementation
summarized in Table 9.
155
Table 9: Critical Elements Required at Different Levels of Implementation
Implementation
Level
Critical Elements for Inducting Highly Qualified Teachers
Classroom
• participating teacher responsibility to meet licensure requirements
• participating teacher professional development progress monitoring
procedures
• participating teacher collaboration with site staff
• participating teacher collaboration with support provider
• participating teacher development in the formative assessment process
for professional growth and practice
• participating teacher development in data-driven decision making
• participating teacher development in understanding the impact of
instruction on student performance
• participating teacher development in curriculum planning and pedagogy,
classroom management, time management, parent support, professional
responsibilities
• participating teacher support in understanding the school and the district
(teacher social capital)
School
• participating teacher professional development progress monitoring
procedures
• schoolwide support for participating teacher to meet licensure
requirements
• site administrator and participating teacher collaboration on the
induction process
• site administrator and support provider collaboration
• support and incentive for onsite support providers
• schoolwide participating teacher induction support structure (e.g., time,
grade level mentors, consideration for reduced duties)
• participating teacher teacher-leadership opportunities within the context
of induction
District
• participating teacher professional development progress monitoring
procedures
• participating teacher support to meet licensure requirements
• support provider development, support, incentive and evaluation
• school and site administration support in supporting induction
• induction program quality review
• induction program components
• induction program design
State
• regional directors for individual district support and guidance
• district credentialing procedures review and evaluation
• induction program quality evaluation
• induction program review
• district support for interpreting individual TPEs and developing
individualized support and intervention
• collaboration and communication with university teacher preparation
programs
• standards and guidelines
• policy
156
Public policy is often an outcome of grand intentions and desires for a
positive change in an environment that demonstrates gaps in peak performance. The
implementation of the policy, however, often falls in the chasm that exists between
the policy and its interpretation as it filters through various levels of bureaucracy,
and in the case of education from the federal and state level legislature down to the
classroom level. Impacting the goals and actual outcomes of the policy these
interpretations are especially detrimental in the case of teacher credentialing policies,
as these influence the most critical aspect of education – classroom instruction. As
demonstrated in the UCR (2007) research, the California’s Induction Policy has
serious unintended consequences on the generally contested arena of teacher
education. Without transparent guidelines, specific and frequent local quality
monitoring procedures and collaborative efforts of well-trained people in this
context, the impact of this well-intentioned policy is significantly limited and may
ultimately have adverse effects on the incoming cadre of teachers. BTSA Induction
like many other large scale school reform efforts such as Learning Communities and
Response To Intervention intend to replace “private practice teaching” with
comprehensive schoolwide systems that rely on collaboration and reflection to
improve performance. In order for California’s Induction Policy to be implemented
effectively and uniformly, similar changes in collaborative practice must occur
across districts, so that teachers who obtain their credential in District A smoothly
transition to District B without the penalty of having had a less than perfect
induction.
157
Honig (2006, p. 2) writes that “‘Implementability’ and ‘success’ are still
essential policy outcomes, but they are not inherent properties of particular policies.
Rather implementability and success are the product of interactions between policies,
people, and places – the demands specific policies place on implementers; the
participants in implementation and their starting beliefs, knowledge, and other
orientations toward policy demands; and the places or contexts that help shape what
people can and will do. The essential implementation question then becomes not
simply ‘what’s implementable and works,’ but what is implementable and what
works for whom, where, when and why?” implying the critical role of collaboration
and differentiation in the actualization of policy objectives.
California has already begun working towards this goal of addressing “what
works for whom, where, when and why,” as evident in the research by UCR which
was commissioned by the State, as well as the revisions of the Induction Standards,
currently available for review by all interested stakeholders. In addition, by
reinstating the TPAs as a university requirement for the Preliminary Credential, CTC
is working on aligning the TPEs, representing teacher preparation, with the CSTPs,
representing induction. Finally, the State is moving to a new formative assessment
system, Formative Assessment for California Teachers (FACT), for the 2008-2009
year, currently being reviewed by program administrators and directors. This new
system is geared towards providing greater flexibility on the district’s part to mold
the program for its constituents’ needs.
158
The changes put in motion by the CTC and CDE during the past few months
are certainly commendable, however as Dumas and Anyon (2006) note “To
understand education policy implementation, it is crucial to examine the contexts
within which it is ‘done’,” reinforcing the importance of the capacity building that
must occur for these changes to yield the desired outcomes, otherwise it is back to
imposing new responsibilities on old infrastructures that lack the capacity to carry it
out, compelling the question, “Was the problem the curriculum or the poor
conditions for implementation?” (Honig, 2006, p. 3).
Regarding the implementation complexities and variations among BTSA
programs, the researchers at UCR wrote that these are caused by the “professional
beliefs about the nature of professional development, educational system
improvement and standards-based accountability. Of these the most potent variable
is the view of accountability held by the program leaders. Overall there is significant
pressure generated by BTSA program design structures for program participants to
view accountability as a matter of responsibility for good faith implementation of
program requirements. In tension with this view are two more complex views – one
emphasizing the importance of accountability for actual teaching performances and
the other emphasizing the importance of focusing on the development of teacher
capacity and professionalism” (UCR pg. V). Closing the gap between “good faith
implementation” and “development of teacher capacity and professionalism”
requires a better understanding and integration of induction policy goals by all
program stakeholders and a program focus that emphasizes effective instruction in
159
the classroom, reiterating Datnow’s point that, “Capacity building for reform policies
is needed” (2006, p. 121).
Conclusion
The effective implementation of the California’s induction policy is a critical
matter in the state’s attempts to alleviate teacher attrition while delivering quality
instruction to every classroom. This process is presented by numerous challenges at
the district level, where the varying perceptions and impressions of the policy and its
goals result in an environment concerned mainly with compliance rather than
performance. Considering the key factors of a successful induction program
identified through this study will provide districts with a comprehensive framework
to use when designing or modifying their own induction programs. Expanding this
study to include several districts across the state will support the state in
incorporating the key factors into all policy and program revisions.
160
REFERENCES
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004). Tapping the Potential: Retaining and
Developing High-Quality New Teachers. Washington D.C.: Author.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2005). Teacher Attrition: A Costly Loss to the
Nation and to the States. Retrieved April 30, 2007 from
http://www.all4ed.org/publications/TeacherAttrition.pdf#search=%22alliance
%20for%20excellent%20education%20cost%20of%20turnover%22
Alpert, D. & Mazzoni, K. (1998). Senate Bill 2042, Teacher credentialing. Retrieved
September 30, 2006 from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities. (2006, October). Teacher
Induction Programs: Trends and Opportunities. Policy Matter, 10(3).
Ashdown, J., Hummel-Rossi, B. & Tobias, R. (2006). Linking teacher induction,
teacher development, and student learning. In J.R. Dangel (Ed.). Research on
Teacher Induction: Teacher Education Yearbook XIV (pp. 19-36). Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Assuncao, M. F. (2006). Induction and mentoring. In J.R. Dangel (Ed.). Research on
Teacher Induction: Teacher Education Yearbook XIV (pp. 37-66). Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Barnes, G., Crowe, E. & Schaefer, B. (2007). The Cost of Teacher Turnover in Five
School Districts. Washington, D.C.: National Commission on Teaching and
America’s Future. Retrieved on May 15, 2007 from http://www.nctaf.org.
Bartell, C., & Ownby, L. (1994). Report on implementation of the Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment program (1992–94): report to the
Legislature pursuant to Education Code 44279.2. Sacramento, CA:
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Interagency Task Force.
Basile, C. (2006). From mentoring to the Colorado new educator consortium. In J.R.
Dangel (Ed.). Research on Teacher Induction: Teacher Education Yearbook
XIV (pp. 5-18). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment. (2006). BTSA. Sacramento, CA:
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Retrieved May 24, 2006,
from http://www.btsa.ca.gov/
161
Bird, T., St. Clair, G., Little, J.W., & Shulman, J. (1984). Expanded Teacher Roles:
Mentors and Masters an Interim Report on Mini Case Studies in Ten
California Districts Implementing the Mentor Teacher Program. Far West
Labs, San Francisco, CA.
Bower, M. (2005). Developing a district’s mentoring plan: From vision to reality. In
H. Portner (Ed.), Teacher Mentoring and Induction: The State of the Art and
Beyond (pp. 21-40). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Breaux, A.L., & Wong, H.K. (2002). New Teacher Induction: How to Train,
Support, and Retain New Teachers. Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong
Publications.
Brown, F. C. III. (1987, January 15). Recruiting Drive: Shortage of Teachers
Prompts Talent Hunt By Education Officials - Enticements Include Loans,
Scholarships, Free Rent; The Search Moves Abroad - Career Change for a
Farmer. The Wall Street Journal, p. 1.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1997). California Standards for
the Teaching Profession. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing. Retrieved May 24, 2006, from
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/cstpreport.pdf
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2000). Teacher Supply in
California 2000-2001: A Report to the Legislature. Retrieved January 20,
2007 from www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/TS_2000_2001.pdf
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2002). Preliminary Report On
Teacher Retention In California. Retrieved February 7, 2006 from
http://134.186.81.70/reports/PrelimRptOnTeacherRetInCA.pdf.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2004). CCTC Commission
Meeting: September/October 2004 Agenda Item 6B. Retrieved March 19,
2007 from www.ctc.ca.gov/commission/agendas/2004-2009/september-2004-
6B.pdf
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2005). Standards of Quality and
Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs. Sacramento, CA:
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Retrieved February 7,
2006 from http://www.btsa.ca.gov/BTSA_basics.html
162
California Department of Education. (2006). Dataquest: Teacher and Staff Data
2006-2007. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Retrieved
February 17, 2008 from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2002). California’s Teaching
Force: Key Issues and Trends in 2002. Santa Cruz, CA: Author.
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2004). California’s Teaching
Force: Key Issues and Trends in 2004. Santa Cruz, CA: Author.
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (2006). California’s Teaching
Force: Key Issues and Trends in 2006. Santa Cruz, CA: Author.
CFASST Guidebook. (2001). Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing.
Clark, T., Fairgood, M., McKibbin, M., & Tyson, S. (2002, June). A report on
teacher development programs. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing.
Dangel, J.R. (Ed.). (2006). Research on Teacher Induction: Teacher Education
Yearbook XIV. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, January). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A
Review of State Policy Evidence. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching
and Policy.
Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B. & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does Teacher Certification
Matter? Evaluating the Evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 23(1), 57-77.
Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D. J., Gatlin, S. J., & Heilig, J. V. (2005). Does
teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for
America, and teacher effectiveness. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
13(42). Retrieved May 25, 2007 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n42/.
Darling-Hammond, L. & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A National Teacher Supply
Policy for Education: The Right Way to Meet the Highly Qualified Teacher
Challenge. Educational Policy Analysis, 33(11).
163
Datnow, A. (2006). Connections in the policy chain: The “Co-construction” of
implementation in comprehensive school reform. In Honig, M. I. (Ed.), New
Directions in Education Policy Implementation: Confronting Complexity (pp.
105-124). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Dumas, M.J. & Anyon, J. (2006). Toward a critical approach to education policy
implementation: Implications for the (battle) field. In Honig, M. I. (Ed.).
New Directions in Education Policy Implementation: Confronting
Complexity (pp. 149-168). Albany, New York: State University of New York
Press.
Eaton, A.J., Chong, S.B., Burstein, N., Ericson, B., & Filbeck, M. (2006). New
Directions in Teacher Induction: Emerging Strategies from the Teachers for
a New Era Initiative. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
EDSource. (1999, April). How California Recruits, Prepares, and Assists New
Teachers. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from
http://www.edsource.org/pub_edfct_recruits.cfm
Empey, D.W. (1984, November). The greatest risk: Who will teach? The Elementary
School Journal, 85(2), pp. 167-176. Retrieved on January 12, 2007 from
http://www.jstor.org.
Esch, C. E. et al. (2005). The status of the teaching profession 2005. Santa Cruz, CA:
The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
Flores, M. A. (2006). Induction and mentoring. In J.R. Dangel (Ed.). Research on
Teacher Induction: Teacher Education Yearbook XIV (pp. 5-18). Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Fulton, K., Yoon, I., Lee, C. (2005). Induction into Learning Communities. National
Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Retrieved January 25, 2007,
from http://www.nctaf.org/documents/NCTAF_induction-paper-2005.pdf.
Futrell, M.H. (1988, Summer). Selecting and compensating mentor teachers: A win-
win scenario. Theory into practice, 27(3), 223-225. Retrieved January
12, 2007 from http://www.jstor.org
Ganser, T. (2005). Learning from the past – building for the future. In H. Portner
(Ed.), Teacher Mentoring and Induction: The State of the Art and Beyond
(pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
164
Goldhaber, D.D. & Anthony, E. (2004). Can Teacher Quality Be Effectively
Assessed? University of Washington. Retrieved March 21, 2007 from
www.crpe.org/workingpapers/pdf/NBPTSquality_report.pdf
Goldhaber, D.D., & Brewer, D.J. (2000). Does Teacher Certification Matter? High
School Teacher Certification Status And Student Achievement. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 129-145.
Guarino, C. M., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G.A. (2006). Teacher Recruitment and
Retention: A Review of the Recent Empirical Literature. Review of
Educational Research, 76(2), 173-208.
Guin, K. (2004, August 16). Chronic Teacher Turnover in Urban Elementary
Schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(42). Retrieved November
18, 2006 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n42/.
Guskey, T. R. (Fall 1998). The Age Of Our Accountability: Evaluation Must
Become An Integral Part Of Staff Development. Journal of Staff
Development, 19 (4).
Hall, J.L. (2005). Promoting quality programs through state-school relationships. In
H. Portner (Ed.), Teacher Mentoring and Induction: The State of the Art and
Beyond (pp. 213-224). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Hare, D., Heap, J., & Raack, L. (2001). Teacher Recruitment and Retention
Strategies in the Midwest: Where are They and Do They Work? NCREL
Policy Issues. 8. Retrieved February 8, 2007 from
http://www.ncrel.org/policy/pubs/issues.htm.
Hayes, J.L. (2006). A longitudinal study of the effects of a mentoring program on
teacher performance, efficacy and retention. In J.R. Dangel (Ed.). Research
on Teacher Induction: Teacher Education Yearbook XIV (pp. 213-242).
Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Heyns, B. (1988, April). Educational defectors: A first look at teacher attrition in the
NLS-72. Educational Researcher, 17(3), 24-32. Retrieved January 12,
2007 from http://www.jstor.org.
Honig, M. I. (Ed.). (2006). New Directions in Education Policy Implementation:
Confronting Complexity. Albany, New York: State University of New York
Press.
165
Huston, D.L. & Hendrick, L.S. (2006). Teacher Retention Report: A Nine-Year
RIMS-BTSA Longitudinal Study of the California Basic Educational Data
System (CBEDS). Retrieved May 22, 2006 from
http://rimsbtsa.ucr.edu/publications/presentationdocs/Teacher_Retention_199
7-2004.ppt
Ingersoll, R. (2001, Fall). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational
analysis. American Education Research Journal, 38, 499–534.
Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is There Really a Teacher Shortage? Washington: WA: Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Ingersoll, R. & Kralik, J.M. (2004). The Impact of Mentoring on Teacher Retention:
What the Research Says. ECS Research Review, Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States. Retrieved February 20, 2007 from
http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/50/36/5036.htm.
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2004). Do Teacher Induction and Mentoring Matter?
NASSP Bulletin, 87(638), 28-40.
Janesick, V.J. (2000) The Choreography of Qualitative Research Design: Minutes
Improvisations, and Crystallization. In N.K. Danzin and Y.S. Lincoln (Ed.),
Handbook of Qualitative Research (2d ed.) (pp. 379-399). Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage.
Joftus, S. & Maddox-Dolan, B. (2002). New-Teacher Excellence: Retaining Our
Best. Washington D.C.: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Johnson, S.M. (Ed.). (2004). Finders and Keepers: Helping New Teachers Survive
and Thrive in Our Schools. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Kapadia, K., Coca, V. & Easton, J.Q. (2007). Keeping New Teachers: A First Look
at the Influences of Induction in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago, Il:
University of Chicago, Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Kardos, S.M. & Johnson, S.M. (2007) On Their Own and Presumed Expert: New
Teachers’ Experiences with Their Colleagues. Teachers College Record,
109(12), Retrieved March 19, 2007, from
http://www.tcrecord.org/printcontent.asp?contentID=12812.
166
Kenny, W.R. & Grotelueschen, A.D. (1980) Making the Case for Case Study.
Occasional Paper, Office for the Study of Continuing Professional Education.
Urbana-Champaign. In S.B. Merriam (1998). Qualitative Research and Case
Study Applications in Education. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Kerchner, C.T. (1984, July-August). Shortages and gluts of public school teachers:
There must be a policy problem here somewhere. Public Administration
Review, 44(4), 292-298. Retrieved January 12, 2007 from
http://www.jstor.org
Koppich, J. (2005). Addressing Teacher Quality Through Induction, Professional
Compensation, and Evaluation: The Effects on Labor-Management
Relations. Educational Policy, 19(1), Retrieved March 19, 2007 from
http://epx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/1/90.
Lazovsky, R. & Reichenberg, R. (2006 February). The New Mandatory Induction
Programme for All Beginning Teachers in Israel: Perceptions of Inductees in
Five Study Tracks. Journal of Education for Teaching, 32(1), 53-70.
Liu, C. (2004). Senate Bill 2210, Marian Bergeson beginning teacher support and
assessment system. Retrieved September 30, 2006 from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.
McCann, T.M. & Johannessen, L.R. (2004). Why do Teachers Cry? Clearing House,
77(4), 138.
McDavid, J.C. & Hawthorn, L. R. (2006). Key concepts and issues in program
evaluation and performance measurement (Chapter 1). In Program Evaluation
and Performance Measurement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McLaughlin, M.W. (1991). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy
implementation. In A.R. Odden (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp.
185-196). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
McLaughlin, M.W. (2006). Implementation research in education: Lessons learned,
lingering questions and new opportunities. In Honig, M. I. (Ed.). New
Directions in Education Policy Implementation: Confronting Complexity (pp.
209-228). Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
McNulty, J. (2005, March 21). New Teacher Center Wins $1.5 Million Contract to
Participate in Federal Study of Support Programs. UC Santa Cruz Currents
Online, 29(9). Retrieved February 10, 2007, from
http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/03-21/contract.asp
167
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
Milanowski, A. & Odden, A. (2007). A New Approach to the Cost of Teacher
Turnover. Center on Reinventing Public Education, Working Paper 13.
Retrieved April 3, 2007 from http://www.schoolfinanceredesign.org/
pub/pdf/wp13_milanowskiodden.pdf.
Mitchell, D.E., Scott, L.D., Hendrick, I.G. & Boyns, D.E. (1998). The California
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program. 1998 Statewide
Evaluation Study. Riverside, California: University of California, Riverside,
California Educational Research.
Mitchell, D.E. et al. (2007). California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
and Intern Alternative Certification Evaluation Study: Technical Report.
Riverside, CA: University of California Riverside. Retrieved on November
14, 2007 from www.btsa.ca.gov.
Moir, E. (2004, Fall). On the Move with Formative Assessment. Reflections, 7(2),
1-6.
Moir, E. (2005) Launching the next generation of teachers: The new teacher center’s
model for quality induction and mentoring. In H. Portner (Ed.), Teacher
Mentoring and Induction: The State of the Art and Beyond (pp. 59-74).
Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Moir, E. (2005, Fall). Beyond Buddies: Mentoring New Teachers to Instructional
Excellence. Reflections, 8(1), 1-2.
National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What Matters Most:
Teaching for America’s Future. New York, New York: Teachers College,
Columbia University. Retrieved December 5, 2006, from
http://www.nctaf.org/resources/archives/ProgramsFeaturedinWhatMattersMo
st.htm
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425
(2002). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act as Reactivated by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved June 3, 2006
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02.
Odell, S.J. (1991). Mentor Teacher Programs. What Research Says to the Teacher.
West Haven, CT: NEA Professional Library.
168
Odell, S.J. (2006). Designing and implementing quality mentoring programs:
Overview and framework. In J.R. Dangel (Ed.). Research on Teacher
Induction: Teacher Education Yearbook XIV (pp. 203-212). Lanham,
Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Olebe, M. (2001). A decade of support for California’s new teachers: The beginning
teacher support and assessment program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28
(1).
Patton, M. Q. (1985 April). “Quality in Qualitative Research: Methodological
Principles and Recent Development.” Invited address to Division J of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). Creative Evaluation. (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, California.
Portner, H. (2005). Embedding induction and mentoring into the school’s culture. In
H. Portner (Ed.), Teacher Mentoring and Induction: The State of the Art and
Beyond (pp. 75-92). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Public Education Network. (2004). The Voice of the New Teacher. Washington, DC:
Author.
Quinn, R.J. & Byllie D’Amato, A. (2004). The Struggles of First-Year Teachers
Investigating Support Mechanisms. Clearing House, 77(4), 164.
Raymond-Burch, C. (1993). A Study of the Conditions Affecting Retention of
Beginning Teachers, a dissertation, University of LaVerne.
Reed, D., Rueben, K.S. & Barbour, E. (2006). Retention of New Teachers in
California. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
Riggs, I. M. (2000). The Impact of Training and Induction Activities upon Mentors
as Indicated through Measurement of Mentor Self-Efficacy. (Report No. SE-
063-604). San Bernardino, CA: California State University of San
Bernardino. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED442639)
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A. & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, Schools and Academic
Achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
169
Roark, A.C. (1988, March 13). Popularity low teaching – poor marks as a career
series: making better teachers. Los Angeles Times, p. 1.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Workplace Conditions That Affect Teacher Quality
And Commitment: Implications For Teacher Induction Programs. The
Elementary School Journal, 89(4). University of Chicago
Sanders, W.L., & Rivers, J.C. (1996, November). Cumulative And Residual Effects
Of Teachers On Future Student Academic Achievement. Knoxville, TN:
University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
Schlechty, P.C. & Vance, V. (1983). Recruitment, Selection, Retention: The
Shape of the Teaching Force. The Elementary School Journal, 83, Retrieved
February 8, 2007, from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0013-
5984%28198303%2983%3A4%3C469%3ARSARTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H .
Sclan, E. & Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Beginning Teacher Performance
Evaluation: Overview of State Policies. ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher
Education.
Scott, J. (2006). Senate Bill 1209. Teachers: Teacher credentialing. Retrieved March
20, 2007 from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.
Smethem, L., & Adey, K. (2005, August). Some Effects of Statutory Induction on
the Professional Development of Newly Qualified Teachers: A Comparative
Study of Pre- and Post-Induction Experiences. Journal of Education for
Teaching, 31(3), 187-200.
Smith, S. et al. (1983). Improving the attractiveness of the K-12 teaching profession
in California. Sacramento: California Round Table on Educational
Opportunity, California State Department of education. Retrieved January 20,
2007 from http://www.jstor.com.
Smith, T.M. & Ingersoll, R.M. (2004, Fall). What are the Effects of Induction and
Mentoring on Beginning Teacher Turnover? American Educational
Research Journal, 41(3), 681-714.
Smollar, D. (1987, June 22). New teachers learn skills to help keep them on job:
Project matches beginning and veteran educators to handle problems such as
discipline in the classroom. Los Angeles Times, p. 1.
170
Smylie, M.A. & Evans, A.E. (2006). Social capital and the problem of
implementation. In Honig, M. I. (Ed.). New Directions in Education Policy
Implementation: Confronting Complexity (pp. 187-208). Albany, New York:
State University of New York Press.
Spillane, J. (2005, June). Standards Deviation: How Schools Misunderstand
Education Policy. (Policy Briefs RB-43). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for
Policy Research in Education. Retrieved March 4, 2006, from
http://www.cpre.org/publications/rb43.pdf.
SRI International. (2002). California’s Teaching Force: Key Issues and Trends 2002.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED477174).
SRI International. (2004). Review of Research on the Impact of Beginning Teacher
Induction on Teacher Quality and Retention. Washington, DC: SRI
International (SRI Project P14173).
Stansbury, K. (2001, Spring). The Role of Formative Assessment in Induction
Programs. Reflections, 4(2), 1-3.
Stroble, E. & Cooper, J.M. (1988, Summer). Mentor teachers: Coaches or referees?
Theory into practice, 27(3), 231-236. Retrieved January 12, 2007, from
http://www.jstor.org/
Strong, M. (2006, January). Does New Teacher Support Affect Student
Achievement? Research Brief, 6(1), 1-4.
Strong, M. & Pultorak, E. (2004). Induction, Mentoring and Teacher Retention: A
Summary of the Research. Paper presentation at the Association of Teacher
Educators of Europe, October, 2004, Agigento, Italy. Retrieved February 5,
2007, from http://www.ate1.org/pubs/Report_of_the_Comm.cfm.
Sykes, G. (1983). Contradictions, ironies, and promises unfulfilled: a contemporary
account of the status of teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 7-93.
Texas Center for Educational Research. (2000, November). The cost of teacher
turnover. Austin, TX: Texas State Board for Educator Certification.
Retrieved November 5, 2006, from
www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/txbess/turnoverrpt.pdf
171
Thompson, M., Goe, L., Paek, P., & Ponte, E. (2004, August). Beginning Teachers’
Engagement with BTSA/CFASST. (CFASST Report 1, ETS RR-04-30).
Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Thompson, M., Goe, L., Paek, P., & Ponte, E. (2004, August). Beginning Teachers’
Engagement and Teacher Practices. (CFASST Report 2, ETS RR-04-31).
Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Thompson, M., Goe, L., Paek, P., & Ponte, E. (2004, August). Beginning Teachers’
Engagement and Student Achievement. (CFASST Report 3, ETS RR-04-
32). Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
Thompson, M., Goe, L., Paek, P., & Ponte, E. (2004, August). Methodological
Considerations and Recommendations for Future Research. (CFASST
Report 4, ETS RR-04-34). Sacramento, CA: California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing.
Villar, A. & Strong, M. (2007). Is Mentoring Worth the Money? A Benefit-Cost
Analysis and Five-Year Rate of Return of a Comprehensive Mentoring
Program for Beginning Teachers. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California,
Santa Cruz, New Teacher Center.
Wagner, L.A. (1984). The California mentor teacher program. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 249595.
Walsh, K. & Tracy, C.O. (2004). Increasing the Odds: How Good Policies Can Yield
Better Teachers. National Council of Teacher Quality.
Wenglinsky, H. (2002, February 13). How Schools Matter: The Link Between
Teacher Classroom Practices And Student Academic Performance. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved March 20, 2007 from
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/.
Wong, H.K. (2005). New teaching induction: The foundation for comprehensive,
coherent, and sustained professional development. In H. Portner (Ed.),
Teacher Mentoring and Induction: The State of the Art and Beyond (pp. 41-
58). Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
Woo, E. & Churm, S. (1985, June 13). Recruiters struggle to fill demand: Teacher
glut over. Los Angeles Times, p. 1.
172
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke-Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the
early years of teaching: A Comparison of four measures. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.
Youngs, P. (2007). District Induction Policy and New Teachers’ Experiences: An
Examination of Local Policy Implementation in Connecticut. Teachers
College Record, 109(4), Retrieved March 19, 2007, from
http://www.tcrecord.org/printcontent.asp?contentID=12872.
Yusko, B., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Embracing Contraries: Combining
Assistance and Assessment in New Teacher Induction. Teachers College
Record, 110(7). Retrieved March 20, 2007, from
http://www.tcrecord.org/printcontent.asp?contentID=12789
173
APPENDIX A
Administrator Interview Protocol
1. How long have you been an administrator?
a. Elementary, junior, senior high school?
b. In other districts or schools?
2. On the average, how many beginning teachers do you hire each year?
a. Why? (retirements, personal leave, etc.)
3. How many beginning teachers do you have this year?
a. How many are induction, BTSA, early completion, other candidates?
4. Describe your experience with any beginning teacher support programs.
5. RESEARCH QUESTION: Please define induction.
6. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is your understanding of California’s
induction policy?
a. What are the assumptions of the policy?
b. What are the goals of the policy?
7. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are your opinions and impressions of the
induction policy?
a. Does it support novice teachers?
b. In what ways does it support novice teachers’ needs during the first
two years of their work?
c. What are the advantages of the induction program for novice
teachers? What are the disadvantages?
174
d. What is the impact of this program on the school where the novice
teachers are employed?
e. How has this policy changed your work with the novice teachers?
8. RESEARCH QUESTION: Please describe your role in the induction of the
beginning teachers at your site.
9. Do any of your staff members work as support providers in the induction
program?
a. If no, who provides support to your novice teachers? (other district
mentors, school site support, etc.)
b. Describe their role in the induction of new teachers.
c. Describe your expectations of their work with the novice teachers.
10. RESEARCH QUESTION: Describe the district’s induction program to the
best of your ability?
a. What are the key components of the program? (mentor support,
professional development, resources, etc.)
b. What are the requirements for participation in the program?
c. What is the purpose of the program?
d. To your understanding, does the district meet the goals of the policy?
e. Describe your impression of the program’s design
i. Do you have any input on this?
ii. How effectively is it aligned with your school site goals?
175
f. In your opinion, what is the most critical issue for novice teachers that
must be addressed by the induction program?
g. Is the district’s program an effective strategy for acclimating novice
teachers to the job?
h. Describe any changes that you may have noticed in the performance
or attitudes of your novice teachers who participate in the induction
program.
11. RESEARCH QUESTION: According to the induction policy, local
induction programs recommend candidates for the Professional Clear
Credential upon completion of the program.
a. What is your impression of this credentialing process?
b. How much input do you have in this recommendation?
12. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the challenges in designing a high
quality standards based program that meets all new teachers’ needs?
13. RESEARCH QUESTION: In what ways can the district’s program be
improved to support beginning teachers in meeting the induction standards?
14. RESEARCH QUESTION: In what ways can the district’s program be
improved to support providers in their work with their mentees?
176
APPENDIX B
Program Director/Coordinator Interview Protocol
1. How long have you been a director/coordinator of the program?
a. Length of experience as a director/coordinator
b. Previous positions/experiences with new teacher support programs
c. Other district leadership responsibilities
d. Educational background
2. Are you familiar with California’s Mentor Teacher Program (before BTSA
and induction)? If yes, describe your experiences with that program.
3. Describe the personnel served by the district’s program. (new teachers, out-
of-state/country teachers, interns, paraprofessionals, referred veteran
teachers, etc.)
4. On the average, how many beginning teachers do you hire each year?
a. Why? (retirements, personal leave, etc.)
5. How many beginning teachers do you have this year?
a. How many are induction, BTSA, early completion, other candidates?
6. RESEARCH QUESTION: Please define induction.
7. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is your understanding of California’s
induction policy?
a. What are the assumptions of the policy?
b. What are the goals of the policy?
177
8. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are your opinions and impressions of the
induction policy?
a. How does it support novice teachers?
b. In what ways does it support novice teachers’ needs during the first
two years of their work?
c. What are the advantages of the induction program for novice
teachers? What are the disadvantages?
d. What is the impact of this program on the school where the novice
teachers are employed?
e. How has this policy changed your work with the novice teachers?
9. RESEARCH QUESTION: Please describe your role in the induction of the
beginning teachers.
10. How many support providers are employed in the district?
a. Describe the types of support providers (full time, part time, retiree,
etc.)
b. Describe their role in the induction of new teachers.
c. Describe your expectations of their work with the novice teachers.
11. Please describe the support provider selection process.
a. The initial training in CFASST
b. Length and quality of training pertaining to working with novice
teachers
178
c. Continued support to stay updated with research and policy
d. Input on the mentor training program
12. Describe how mentors and mentees are matched? What type of input do you
have on this process?
13. RESEARCH QUESTION: Describe the district’s induction program to the
best of your ability?
a. What are the key components of the program? (mentor support,
professional development, resources, etc.)
b. How are the resources to address these components selected and
monitored for effectiveness?
c. What are the requirements for participation in the program?
d. What is the purpose of the program?
e. What measures are used to make sure the program meets the
induction standards?
f. Describe the process of designing the district program
i. Which stakeholders have input on this?
ii. How effectively is it aligned with district and individual
school site goals?
g. In your opinion, what is the most critical issue for novice teachers that
must be addressed by the induction program?
h. Is the district’s program an effective strategy for acclimating novice
teachers to the job?
179
i. Describe any changes that you may have noticed in the performance
or attitudes of your novice teachers who participate in the induction
program.
14. RESEARCH QUESTION: According to the induction policy, local
induction programs recommend candidates for the Professional Clear
Credential upon completion of the program.
a. What is your impression of this credentialing process?
b. Which stakeholders have input in this recommendation?
c. What accountability measures are in place to monitor the
effectiveness of this process?
15. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the challenges in designing a high-
quality standards-based program that meets all new teachers’ needs?
16. RESEARCH QUESTION: In what ways can the district’s program be
improved to support beginning teachers in meeting the induction standards?
17. RESEARCH QUESTION: In what ways can the district’s program be
improved to support providers in their work with their mentees?
180
APPENDIX C
Participating Teacher Interview Protocol
1. Describe your teaching experiences.
a. District, school, grade level
2. What type of credential do you currently hold?
3. Please describe your teacher preparation program.
a. institution type, accreditation
b. length of program
c. length of student teaching practicum
d. Teacher Performance Assessment?
4. When were you informed of California’s induction policy?
a. teacher preparation program
b. district of employment
c. support provider
5. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is your understanding of the induction
policy?
a. What are the assumptions of the policy?
b. What are the goals of the policy?
181
6. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are your opinions and impressions of the
induction policy?
a. Does it support beginning teachers?
b. In what ways does it support novice teachers’ needs during the first
two years of their work?
c. What are the advantages of the induction program for novice
teachers? What are the disadvantages?
d. Has your participation in the program influenced your classroom
instruction? How?
7. RESEARCH QUESTION: Describe the district’s induction program to the
best of your ability?
a. What is the purpose of the program?
b. Does the district meet the goals of the policy?
c. Describe your impression of program’s design
d. Is the district’s program an effective strategy for acclimating novice
teachers to the job?
8. As a participant in the induction program, when were you assigned a support
provider?
9. Please describe your experience in working with your support provider.
10. Is your mentor at your site? (if applicable) If not, what is the average distance
you travel to meet with your mentor?
182
11. Do you and your mentor teach in the same content area? If not, what do you
and what does your mentor teach? What is your impression of this
assignment?
12. How often do you and your mentor meet? Who decides the need for
meetings?
13. How long are the average meetings?
14. Describe the content of a typical meeting.
15. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the challenges in designing a high
quality standards based program that meets all new teachers’ needs?
16. RESEARCH QUESTION: In what ways can the district’s program be
improved to support beginning teachers in meeting the induction standards?
17. RESEARCH QUESTION: In what ways can the district’s program be
improved to support participating teachers in their work with their mentors?
183
APPENDIX D
Support Provider Interview Protocol
1. How long have you been a support provider?
2. Are you familiar with California’s Mentor Teacher Program (before BTSA
and induction)? Describe your experiences with that program.
3. Describe your job experience relating to novice teachers.
a. Length of experience as support provider
b. Type of mentor (full time, part time, retired)
c. Other teacher leadership responsibilities
d. Describe your activities as a support provider
e. Educational background
4. Please describe the support provider selection process.
a. The initial training in CFASST
b. Length and quality of training pertaining to working with novice
teachers
c. Continued support to stay updated with research and policy
d. Input on the mentor training program
5. How many participating teachers do you currently work with?
a. How many are induction, BTSA, early completion, other candidates?
b. What is the average number of participating teachers you work with
during a year?
184
6. Describe how mentors and mentees are matched? What type of input do you
have on this process?
7. Are your current mentees at your site? (if applicable) If not, what is the
average distance you travel to meet with your mentee?
8. Do you and your mentee teach in the same content area? If not, what do you
and what do your mentees teach? What is your impression of this
assignment?
9. How often do you and your mentee meet? Who decides the need for
meetings?
10. How long are the average meetings?
11. Describe the content of a typical meeting. (observation, conference,
analyzing student work, etc.)
12. RESEARCH QUESTION: Define induction.
13. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is your understanding of the induction
policy?
a. What are the assumptions of the policy?
b. What are the goals of the policy?
14. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are your opinions and impressions of the
induction policy?
a. Does it support novice teachers?
b. In what ways does it support novice teachers’ needs during the first
two years of their work?
185
c. What are the advantages of the induction program for novice
teachers? What are the disadvantages?
d. What is the impact of this program on the school where the novice
teachers are employed?
e. How has this policy changed your work with the novice teachers?
15. RESEARCH QUESTION: Describe the district’s induction program to the
best of your ability?
a. What are the key components of the program? (mentor support,
professional development, resources, etc.)
b. What are the requirements for participation in the program?
c. What is the purpose of the program?
d. To your understanding, does the district meet the goals of the policy?
e. Describe your impression of the program’s design
i. Do you have any input on this?
ii. How effectively is it aligned with the school site goals?
f. In your opinion, what is the most critical issue for novice teachers that
must be addressed by the induction program?
g. Is the district’s program an effective strategy for acclimating novice
teachers to the job?
h. Describe any changes that you may have noticed in the performance
or attitudes of novice teachers who participate in the induction
program.
186
16. RESEARCH QUESTION: According to the induction policy, local
induction programs recommend candidates for the Professional Clear
Credential upon completion of the program.
a. What is your impression of this credentialing process?
b. How much input do you have in this recommendation?
17. RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the challenges in designing a high
quality standards based program that meets all new teachers’ needs?
18. RESEARCH QUESTION: In what ways can the district’s program be
improved to support beginning teachers in meeting the induction standards?
19. RESEARCH QUESTION: In what ways can the district’s program be
improved to support providers in their work with their mentees?
187
APPENDIX E
Meeting and Professional Development Observation Protocol
Background Information
Title of Event: _____________________________________________________
Date of Observation: _______________ Time: ________________________
Objectives ________________________________________________________
Contextual Background and Activities:
1. Demographics:
• What is the total number of participants attending this session?
• Participants’ position?
• What subject(s)/grade level(s)/audience is this for?
2. Which induction standard(s) is being addressed?
3. Describe the presenters/facilitators.
4. Indicate the number of presenters/facilitators and their affiliation?
Session Context
5. Describe the session observed. Include: (a) whether the observation covered a
partial or complete session, (b) whether there were multiple break-out
sessions, and (c) where this session fits in the program’s sequence of
meeting/professional development for those in attendance.
188
Session Focus
6. Indicate the primary intended purpose(s) of this meeting/professional
development session based on the information provided by the program staff
or session organizer/facilitator. (Identify the relevant Induction Standard)
Professional Development Activities
7. Indicate the major activities of participants in this session and amount of time
for each.
8. Indicate the major professional development approaches used in this session.
9. Describe the extent to which most or all participants in the professional
development session/meeting engage in activities and/or discussions.
Ratings
10. Rate extent to which:
• Presentations/activities in the session/meeting were appropriate (accessible
yet challenging) for the participants
• Participants were intellectually engaged with important ideas relevant to the
intended content
• Session/meeting provided opportunities for sense-making of the intended
induction standard/content
• Learning environment promoted an open exchange of ideas
• Learning environment encouraged rigor
• There were opportunities for participants to consider application to practice
189
11. Other general observations about the design of the professional
development/meeting
12. Other general observations of the group culture, interactions, attitudes, or
activities apparent during the session/meeting
190
APPENDIX F
Qualitative Data Analysis Code List
Sub-Question 1: What are the assumptions of the induction policy and what is the district’s
interpretation of this mandate?
Initial Coding Focused Coding
PT, SP, Admin definition of induction policy
Policy alignment with novice teachers’
critical needs
Changing roles and responsibilities for
program and site Admins. and SPs
PTs, SPs, Admins. are/(not) aware of policy
requirements
Induction policy advantages (induction vs.
5
th
year)
Induction policy disadvantages (induction
vs. 5
th
year)
Identifying district program goals
Alignment of district program goals to
policy goals
Policy assumptions
Misinterpreting induction policy goals
Admin lack of clarity on change in the
credentialing process
Misunderstanding K-12 administration roles
and responsibilities
Misalignment between induction goals and
PT classroom performance
PT, SP, Admin. perception of induction’s
impact on school of employment
Lack of clarity on district program goals
Lack of clarity on district level program
design
Sub-Question 2: How do participating teachers, support providers, program directors and
administrators perceive the induction program offered by the district?
Initial Coding Focused Coding
District program focus on novice teacher
critical needs
Novice teacher expectations of district
program
Monitoring the quality of novice teacher’s
work on induction
PT, SP, Admn. identification of key
components of the district program
Identifying criteria for selecting key
components
Monitoring quality of implementation of
components
Description of SP role
Monitoring quality of SP’s work with PT
Selection of professional development
Monitoring quality of professional
development
District induction program advantages
District induction program disadvantages
Lack of communication on induction
o Program/school site Admin
o Program/SP
o Program./PT
o Site Admin./PT
Need for clarification
o Program goal
o Program components
o Program outcome
o Credentialing process
Local level of quality monitoring of
components
Regular and consistent feedback to and from
SPs, PTs, Admins.
191
Sub-Question 3: What factors determine and influence the success of a district
induction program?
Initial Coding Focused Coding
Defining a successful induction program
Identifying critical components of a
successful induction program
Challenges of developing a standards-
based program that meets all teacher’s
needs
Improvements to credentialing process
o Clear guidelines/rubrics
o Depth/inquiry
o Observing veteran teachers
o Less documentation
o More time for collaboration
o Smaller chunks
o Sharing with colleagues
o More follow-up
o Admin input
Improvements that support PTs
o Specific feedback
o Knowing background/experiences of
PTs
o Relevant to classroom
o More independence
o Personalized
o Collaboration
o Differentiation
o Alignment of induction to classroom
needs
Improvements that support SPs
o Building morale
o Rigorous training
o Time for collaboration
o Feedback to and from
Quality support providers
Time for collaboration
Focus on performance rather than
documentation
Individualized support structure
Quality professional development
In-depth guidance for K-12
administrators
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This case study examines how a school district defines and implements California 's Induction Policy for novice teachers, identifying the challenges and key elements of a high quality program.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
The impact of induction: a study of program designs and teacher quality outcomes
PDF
A comparative study of novice and veteran teachers in response to principal initiated efforts to cultivate a positive school culture
PDF
No teacher left behind: an examination of beginning teachers' preconceptions and attitudes about induction
PDF
Standards based report card: teachers' perception on the development, transition, and implementation
PDF
BTSA and California's beginning teachers: how technology affects California's teacher induction process
PDF
The role of the principal in new teacher development under the California Beginning Teacher Support & Assessment Program
PDF
Mentoring new teachers of color: how induction mentors characterize their preparation and practices that support new teachers of color
PDF
A school's use of data-driven decision making to affect gifted students' learning
PDF
Examining the implementation of district reforms through gap analysis: making two high schools highly effective
PDF
Collaborative team approach to mentoring beginning teachers: a case study of a collaborative elementary school
PDF
Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor
PDF
A lighthouse at risk: combating the life-cycle of the innovative high school
PDF
Beyond the numbers chase: how urban high school teachers make sense of data use
PDF
Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support
PDF
Student achievement and teacher effectiveness in an era of heightened accountability
PDF
The challenges teachers face effectively implementing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) curricula: an evaluation study
PDF
The successes and challenges of response to intervention: a case study of the impact of RTI implementation
PDF
Investigating how general education middle school teachers support the social inclusion of students with special needs
PDF
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from a high-performing, high-poverty urban school
PDF
School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high-poverty urban schools
Asset Metadata
Creator
Avagyan, Marine
(author)
Core Title
District implementation of California's induction policy: key elements and challenges of developing a high quality program
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
07/14/2008
Defense Date
05/28/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Beginning Teacher support,leadership for induction,new teacher,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,teacher induction
Place Name
Los Angeles County
(counties)
Language
English
Advisor
Datnow, Amanda (
committee chair
), Coleman, Rhoda (
committee member
), Pensavalle, Margo T. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
avagyanconsulting@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1346
Unique identifier
UC1390029
Identifier
etd-Avagyan-20080714 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-88655 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1346 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Avagyan-20080714.pdf
Dmrecord
88655
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Avagyan, Marine
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
Beginning Teacher support
leadership for induction
new teacher
professional development
teacher induction