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
/
Induction practices in four public school districts in northwest Washington State: Perceptions of new teachers, mentors, and principals
(USC Thesis Other)
Induction practices in four public school districts in northwest Washington State: Perceptions of new teachers, mentors, and principals
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INDUCTION PRACTICES IN FOUR PUBLIC
SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN NORTHWEST WASHINGTON STATE:
PERCEPTIONS OF NEW TEACHERS, MENTORS,
AND PRINCIPALS
by
Herbert Allison Speir III
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 2006
Copyright 2006 Herbert Allison Speir III
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
UMI Number: 3236552
Copyright 2006 by
Speir, Herbert Allison, III
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3236552
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
D e d i c a t i o n
To my wife, Mary Ann,
with my deepest gratitude.
Her love and encouragement supported me
throughout this journey, and her firm persistence
kept me on track and underway
from start to finish.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s
❖ I am indebted to Dr. Reynaldo Baca for his impressive subject matter expertise,
his sage advice at all points along the way, and his sustained encouragement
and support. He is a role model mentor and research director, and I am
fortunate to have had him as chair of my doctoral dissertation committee. In
many ways big and small, he enhanced the quality and clarity of my
dissertation. I am also grateful to Dr. Guilbert Hentschke and Dr. Lawrence
Picus for their committee membership and contributions to my dissertation.
❖ The superintendents of the four school districts included in my dissertation
were all visibly enthusiastic and instrumental in advertising my research to their
school principals, who in turn actively promoted the participation of their
teachers. I am grateful to all of these professionals, not only for supplying the
data for my dissertation, but also for their obvious day-in and day-out
dedication to excellence in public education. I especially salute the teachers
themselves for what they do and for what they sometimes have to endure.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Dedication ...................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables................................................................................................................. ix
Abstract............................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................1
The Problem.......................................................................................................................... 1
D efinitio ns............................................................................................................................ 4
Induction Period............................................................................................... 4
Teachers New to the Profession (NTs) and Veteran Teachers
VNTs.........................................................................................................5
Pu r p o se....................................................................................................................................6
Research Qu e st io n s......................................................................................................... 7
Significance of the Pro blem ........................................................................................ 9
Organization of the D issertation...........................................................................10
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................... 11
In tr o d uc tio n......................................................................................................................11
Early Research.................................................................................................................11
Induction Program Elements a nd Practices.....................................................13
iv
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Empirical St ud ies.............................................................................................................21
Participant Perceptions.............................................................................................. 23
Program A dm inistration............................................................................................. 26
M entoring...........................................................................................................................26
Stand a rd s-B ased In d u c t io n......................................................................................29
B eyond In d u c t io n............................................................................................................31
W ashington State’s Induction Program.............................................................31
The Teacher Assistance Program (T A P ).............................................................31
Program Establishment.....................................................................................31
TAP Funding.......................................................................................................32
State Standards...................................................................................................33
Professional Growth Plan................................................................................37
Teacher Supply and Demand in W ashington.................................................... 39
Chapter Su m m a r y........................................................................................................... 40
C H A PT E R 3: M E T H O D O L O G Y .................................................................................... 43
Research Qu e st io n s.......................................................................................................43
In str u m e n ts....................................................................................................................... 44
Interview V ersus Qu estio nn aire............................................................................ 45
Expanded Subject Po o l.................................................................................................46
Questionnaires................................................................................................................. 46
The Teacher Questionnaire......................................................................................46
The Mentor Questionnaire.......................................................................................47
The Principal Questionnaire................................................................................... 48
Preliminary Steps........................................................................................................48
Delivery and Collection o f Questionnaires......................................................... 49
v
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS.........................................................................................51
Introduction.......................................................................................................51
Response Rate......................................................................................................51
Principals............................................................................................................. 52
Mentors................................................................................................................ 52
New Teachers......................................................................................................54
Teachers New to the Profession (NTs)........................................................ 54
Veteran Teachers New to Their Schools (VNTs)........................................55
Research Question Themes..............................................................................55
Goals and Program Administration..............................................................55
Principals................................................................................................ 56
Mentors of NTs.......................................................................................58
Mentors of VNTs....................................................................................59
New Teachers (NTs).............................................................................. 61
Veteran New Teachers (VNTs).............................................................62
Introduction to Resources............................................................................. 62
New Teachers (NTs).............................................................................. 63
Veteran New Teachers (VNTs).............................................................64
Interactions with Mentorees......................................................................... 66
Principals................................................................................................ 67
Mentors of NTs.......................................................................................67
Mentors of VNTs....................................................................................68
New Teachers (NTs).............................................................................. 70
Veteran New Teachers (VNTs).............................................................72
Reduced Load, Released Time, and Stipends..............................................73
Principals................................................................................................ 74
Mentors of NTs.......................................................................................74
Mentors of VNTs....................................................................................75
New Teachers (NTs).............................................................................. 75
Veteran New Teachers (VNTs)............................................................ 75
Professional Development............................................................................ 75
Mentors of NTs.......................................................................................76
vi
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Mentors o f V N T s............................................................................................... 76
N ew Teachers (N Ts)......................................................................................... 77
Veteran N ew Teachers (V N T s)..................................................................... 78
Balance Between Evaluation and A ssistance.................................................... 79
Principals..............................................................................................................80
Mentors o f N T s................................................................................................... 80
Mentors o f V N T s............................................................................................... 80
N ew Teachers (N Ts)......................................................................................... 81
Veteran N ew Teachers (V N T s)..................................................................... 81
Sum m ary Self-Reports and Expectations for NT s .........................................82
Sum m ary Self-Reports a nd Expectations for V N T s .....................................83
Sum m ary of Fin d in g s......................................................................................................84
Principals...................................................................................................................... 84
M entors..........................................................................................................................85
N ew Teachers..............................................................................................................86
C H A PT E R 5: C O N C L U SIO N S..........................................................................................89
Research Qu e st io n s.......................................................................................................89
Research Question 1 ..................................................................................................89
Research Question 2 ..................................................................................................91
Research Question 3 ..................................................................................................92
Research Question 4 ..................................................................................................95
Research Question 5 ..................................................................................................95
Research Question 6 ..................................................................................................97
N ew Teacher Expectations........................................................................................ 98
Refer en c es................................................................................................................................ 100
v ii
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
A p p e n d ic e s..................................................................................................................107
Appendix A: Questionnaire Item Categories....................................................108
Appendix B: Teacher Questionnaire................................................................. 110
Appendix C: Mentor Questionnaire.................................................................. 119
Appendix D: Principal Questionnaire............................................................... 123
Appendix E: Draft Letter From Superintendents to Principals........................ 126
Appendix F: Draft Letter From Principals to Teachers...................................128
Appendix G: Information Sheet for Principals................................................ 130
Appendix H: Letter to New Teachers............................................................... 133
Appendix I: Information Sheet for New Teachers........................................... 134
Appendix J: Letter to Mentors...........................................................................137
Appendix K: Information Sheet for Mentors....................................................138
v iii
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
L i s t o f T a b l e s
Table 1. School Districts and Schools Studied........................................................ 7
Table 2. Questionnaire Return Rate by District, School, and Type of
Respondent................................................................................................ 53
ix
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
A b s t r a c t
The purpose of this study was to collect descriptive data about the new
teacher induction programs and practices in the elementary, middle, and high
schools of four public school districts in northwest Washington State. These
districts included eleven elementary schools, four middle schools, and three high
schools. The primary focus of the study was on the induction- and mentoring-
related experiences, perceptions, and recommendations of new teachers, their
mentors, and school principals.
Data was collected by using three questionnaires, one for each of the target
groups—new teachers, mentors, and principals. Questionnaire items were
developed by the author to address six key themes of new teacher induction that
emerged from the literature review. The six themes were (1) Goals and Program
Administration; (2) Introduction to Resources; (3) Interactions with Mentorees; (4)
Reduced Load, Released Time, and Stipends; (5) Professional Development; and
(6) Balance between Evaluation and Assistance.
Findings were analyzed separately for teachers new to the profession (NTs)
and teachers who were new to their schools but not new to the profession (VNTs).
x
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
In most cases the results were similar for the two groups. When asked to rate their
induction programs on a continuum from assistance-oriented to assessment-
oriented, principals and mentors thought their programs were more assistance-
oriented. The new teachers thought the opposite.
Although the study found some induction program deficiencies,
inconsistencies, and areas of noncompliance with requirements, the vast majority of
new teachers thought things had gone well for them during the year, and a majority
thought the next year would be even better. The finding that almost 90% of NTs
expect to still be teaching in five years is especially encouraging.
Dissertation Committee
Reynaldo R. Baca, Ph.D., Committee Chair
Research Professor
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
Guilbert C. Hentschke, Ph.D.
Professor & Richard T. and Mary Catherine Cooper Chair in Public School
Administration
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
Lawrence O. Picus, Ph.D.
Professor
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Chapter 1
I n t r o d u c t i o n
The Problem
Nationwide, about one third of teachers leave the profession within the first
five years. This results in a revolving shortage of teachers, disequilibrium for their
schools, and failure by society to reap an adequate return on its investment in
education. As noted by Wong and Asquith (2002), every new teacher who leaves
the profession within their first three years costs taxpayers an estimated $50,000 in
lost productivity and forfeited recruitment and personnel expenses. This monetary
loss excludes the even more critical but invisible cost of foregone student
achievement, lower school staff cohesion and morale, erosion of public confidence
in our schools, and increased difficulty recruiting new teachers (Fidelar &
Haselkom, 1999).
In general, the shortage of teachers does not result from the failure of our
universities to produce enough new teachers. Instead, it results chiefly from the
early departure of too many beginning teachers. In his research on teacher turnover
and shortages, Ingersoll (2002) found increased student enrollments, mandated
1
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
class size reductions, and teacher retirements to be only minor factors in teacher
attrition. Instead, persistent job dissatisfaction is a more significant factor
accounting for the departure of young teachers.
Not all new teachers start out intending to make teaching a lifelong career,
of course, but too many leave the field early out of frustration and disillusionment
(Peske, Liu, Johnson, Kauffman, & Kardos, 2001). New teacher induction
programs support and assist novice teachers in becoming more familiar,
comfortable, and self-confident in their job responsibilities, more readily adapted to
their work setting, and acculturated to professional norms and expectations. The
more new teacher induction programs help make the early teaching experience less
daunting, retention is more likely, and everyone benefits—the new teachers
themselves, their students, their schools, and society as a whole.
A new teacher’s first year on the job is an especially critical transition
period (McDonald, 1980; Ryan, 1979; Tisher, 1978). As McDonald (1980)
observes, "For most teachers, the initial experiences of teaching are traumatic
events out of which they emerge defeated, depressed, constrained, or with a sense
of efficacy, confidence, and growing sureness in teaching skills" (p. 5).
The absence of adequate induction support for new teachers is too often
exacerbated by their working conditions. As McLaughlin, Pfeifer, Swanson-
Owens, and Yee (1986) have observed,
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
[n]ew teachers are often given those students or courses
with which experienced teachers do not wish to deal.
Instead of giving beginning teachers a nurturing
environment in which to grow, we throw them into a war
zone where both the demands and the mortality rate are
excessively high. It is really not surprising that almost one-
third of teachers leave the profession within their first five
years of teaching, (p. 424)
McLaughlin et al. (1986) insist that districts need to revisit the manner in which
new teachers are inducted, noting that
[t]eachers whose initial assignments are frustrating or
stressful seem more likely to experience decreased
commitment, confidence, and satisfaction in later years
than those whose initial assignments are supportive and
satisfying. Thus, all the strategies designed to restructure
the workplace for teachers are even more important in the
case of the beginning teacher, (p. 426)
Clearly, schools can influence these critical early experiences through the way they
treat new teachers, most noticeably with helpful teacher induction programs.
Unlike most professions in which the newcomer’s assumption of
responsibilities is more gradual, schools expect new teachers to perform all the
same tasks as veteran teachers from their very first day on the job (Bartell, 2005;
Lortie, 1975).
Today’s generation of new teachers differs from those about to retire in
several ways, one of which is that more of them approach teaching tentatively or
conditionally and not as a lifelong commitment (Peske et al., 2001). This makes
quality induction programs even more important than ever.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
The school context in which new teachers find themselves has become
increasingly multicultural, especially in urban schools, and this represents a new
challenge to induction (Bartell, 2005). Although most teachers come from a white,
middle-class background, the increasing cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity among
their students results in a mismatch that teacher preparation and induction programs
must address.
Increasingly, new teachers are altemate-route teachers who have not gone
through a traditional college-based teacher preparation curriculum and lack formal
clinical or student teaching experience. Bartell (2005) notes that altemate-route
beginners may have unique induction needs that standard induction programs do
not address.
Definitions
Induction Period
The induction period is the time when the novice teacher becomes familiar
with his or her job responsibilities, the classroom and schoolwork setting, and
professional norms and expectations. According to Bartell (2005), the induction
period is generally the first one to three years of teaching. Similarly, Fidelar and
Haselkom (1999) defined induction as "the processes of socialization to the
profession, adjustment to the procedures and mores of the school site and school
system, and development of effective instructional and classroom management
4
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
skills that take place during the first three years of teaching" (p. 9). For this
dissertation, the induction period for new teachers is defined as the first three years
of teaching.
Teachers New to the Profession (NTs) and Veteran Teachers VNTs
Originally I intended to limit this dissertation to the induction of teachers
who were new to the teaching profession. However, several principals early in the
study suggested that teachers who were not new to the profession itself but were
new to their schools should also be part of the study. Although the schools did not
include these teachers in the full array of induction events and services, many had
assigned mentors and other school-specific support for adapting to their new school
and community environment. Other principals (and the researcher) agreed that
information from these veteran "new" teachers who were newcomers to their
schools might be useful. Therefore, I included these teachers in this study.
Principals were especially curious to know if this expanded category of new
teachers felt adequately welcomed and supported. For this dissertation, teachers
new to the profession are NTs, while veteran teachers who are new to their schools
but not new to teaching are VNTs. As noted by Odell and Ferraro (1992),
experienced teachers who are new to a school system are likely to need less
instructional and emotional support, over a shorter period of time, than a teacher
who is new to the profession itself.
5
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Purpose
The purpose of the dissertation is to present descriptive data about the new
teacher induction practices occurring in the elementary, middle, and high schools of
four public school districts in northwest Washington State. The dissertation
focuses on the perceptions of new teachers, their mentors, and their principals.
Table 1 shows the four school districts and their schools (all names are aliases):
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Table 1.
School Districts and Schools Studied
Gateway School District Midway School District
• Gateway High School
• Gateway Elementary School
• Curtis Elementary School
• Overlook Elementary School
• Midway Elementary School
• Midway Middle School
Pine Harbor School District Southside School District
• Pine Harbor High School
• Saratoga Middle School
• Pine Harbor Middle School
• Seaplane Elementary School
• Valley View Elementary School
• Cedar Cove Elementary School
• Dutch Hollow Elementary School
• Pine Harbor Elementary School
• Mountain View Elementary School
• Southside High School
• Southside Intermediate School
• Southside Primary School
Note. All names are aliases.
Research Questions
This dissertation inquires about the induction program practices for new
teachers that are occurring in the elementary, middle, and high schools of the
Gateway, Pine Harbor, Midway, and Southside school districts in northwest
7
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Washington State. Through questionnaires the experiences, perceptions, opinions,
and recommendations of new teachers, their assigned mentors, and their school
principals are identified.
Within that context, this dissertation focuses specifically on six research
questions that correspond to the six major themes that emerged from the literature
review. Each theme highlights a key area that has been consistently shown in the
literature to be important to the success of new teacher induction. The six research
themes and questions are as follows:
RQ 1: Goals and Program Administration — Are program goals and
objectives clearly articulated and communicated, and are
administrative actions by accountable agents conducive to program
success?
RQ 2: Introduction to Resources — Are new teachers introduced to
important school and community resources that will facilitate early
adaptation to their new environment?
RQ 3 : Interactions with Mentorees — What interactions are occurring, and
with whom, in the mentoring relationship, and what are the
perceptions, opinions, and recommendations of the new teachers and
other participants in that relationship?
8
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
RQ 4: Reduced Load, Released Time, and Stipends — Are mentors and
mentorees allotted adequate extra time and reduction in workload to
encourage and enable a meaningful mentoring relationship, and are
they compensated with appropriate extra pay to incentivize and
reward the extra work required for effective induction?
RQ 5: Professional Development — Are the induction program practices
successfully prompting and assisting new teachers to gain
certification and meet other mandated professional milestones?
RQ 6: Balance between Evaluation and Assistance — Are the induction
programs striking an appropriate balance between objectively
assessing the new teacher's performance on the one hand, and
psychologically supporting and unconditionally accepting him or her
on the other hand?
Significance of the Problem
Teachers new to the profession find themselves in a stressful, anxiety-
arousing environment in which their competence and self-confidence are tested.
Anything that can support and strengthen them to persevere and survive the first-,
second-, and third-year challenges will likely increase their competence and self-
confidence and encourage them to continue in the profession. Induction programs
9
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
are designed and intended to do just that. To the extent that they succeed, attrition
of new teachers is reduced and a more competent, self-confident teaching force is
the result.
This dissertation examines the characteristics and quality of induction
program practices in the elementary, middle, and high schools of four public school
districts in northwest Washington State.
Organization of the Dissertation
The dissertation is organized into five chapters. The next chapter, Chapter
2, summarizes the literature pertaining to new teacher induction programs and
practices. Included in this chapter is a description of Washington State's induction
program. Chapter 3 presents the study's research methods. Chapter 4 reports
findings from analysis of the data, and Chapter 5 discusses the significance and
implications of the findings.
10
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Chapter 2
L i t e r a t u r e R e v i e w
Introduction
The purpose of this literature review is to summarize the research on new
teacher induction. The first section highlights the historical perspective and cites
selected early research. Subsequent sections focus on the key elements and
practices of induction, empirical studies of induction, participant perceptions of
induction, mentoring as a key part of induction, standards-based induction, and
induction in pursuit of full teacher potential. Following a detailed description of
Washington State's induction program, a summary of the chapter highlights the key
research findings.
Early Research
There are over seven decades of research related to beginning teachers.
Most early research focused on the experiences and concerns of new teachers (Barr
and Rudisil, 1930; Cable, 1956; Flesher, 1945; Fuller, 1969). The difficulties most
frequently reported by beginning teachers were establishing and sustaining
classroom discipline, attending to individual student differences, and motivating
11
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
reluctant students. New teachers were also concerned with their own overall
adjustment as teachers. This concern was not only with the classroom environment
itself, but with everyday stresses and responsibilities experienced by all young
adults as they transition from student life to the working world. From their review
of the literature, Pataniczek and Isaacson (1981) found that beginning teachers are
concerned first with their own survival, then with mastery of teaching tasks, and
finally with their impact on their students' welfare. As noted by Ryan (1970) and
Johnston (1981), first-year teachers not only enter a profession, but start another
phase of life with the attendant emotional and financial stresses of moving from
home or school to a new community, finding a place to live, and making new
friends.
A major literature review by Veenman (1984) identified many studies from
1960 to 1984 dealing with problems faced by beginning teachers. Most of the
studies had used questionnaires. Interviews were the second most commonly used
method of investigation. The most pressing problem identified by new teachers
was classroom discipline, followed in order of concern by motivating students,
dealing with individual differences among students, assessing students’ work, and
dealing with parents. Note that these difficulties do not differ significantly from
those identified before 1960 by Barr and Rudisil (1930), Flesher (1945), and Cable
(1956). Times have changed in many ways, but the problems beginning teachers
face have generally remained the same.
12
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Induction Program Elements and Practices
Initially, most teacher induction models assumed that intense observation
and evaluation of the beginning teacher were more valid indicators of rudimentary
competence than the evaluations conducted during that teacher’s pre-service
training (Soar, Medley, & Coker, 1983). Educators designed subsequent models on
the belief that university credential programs had already screened and trained
newly hired teachers. Therefore, the primary purpose of induction was to ease and
support the new teacher’s transition from student to professional (Schlechty, 1985).
Nevertheless, as noted with concern by Fox and Singletary (1986), many induction
programs still consisted mainly of observations, ratings, and information sessions
instead of more personal and professional assistance and support.
Fessler and Christiansen (1992) regarded induction (1992) as the second of
eight teaching career stages characterized primarily by socialization into the
school’s and profession’s norms. Preservice training precedes the induction stage.
If induction is successful, it is followed by competency building.
Moir (1999) identified a sequence of psychological phases that most
beginning teachers go through as they navigate their first year. They start the
school year with high hopes and a somewhat romanticized view of teacher. New
teachers then descend into a “survival” mode as they collide with the reality of
overwhelming workload and the day-to-day frustrations of teaching, followed by a
13
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
further descent into “disillusionment” as they begin to seriously question their
competence and commitment. After a restful winter break, new teachers experience
a “rejuvenation” of their confidence and coping ability. They then enter a period of
“reflection” near the end of the school year as they look back over their successes
and ponder the lessons they can learn from their frustrations and failures during the
year. Finally during the summer break there is a renewed period of “anticipation”
as they look forward to the next year.
As noted by Conant (1963) and Swanson (1968), early efforts in the United
States to ameliorate the difficulties encountered by new teachers were consistent in
recommending certain practices. Among them are to reduce the beginner’s
teaching load, assign a more experienced teacher to observe and advise the
beginner, and reduce the more experienced teacher’s own teaching load to ensure
availability. Others include assigning to more experienced teachers those students
who are especially difficult to manage, teaching beginners how to find instructional
resources, and providing specific information about school policies, the student
body, and the community at large.
Induction studies in England and Australia subsequently identified similar
new-teacher adjustment difficulties and recommended similar remedies (Julius,
1976; Tisher, 1979). A teacher induction pilot project in Liverpool and
Northumberland, England, in 1974 included an additional item that new teachers
found especially useful: regularly scheduled, low-key discussion groups made up
14
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
of all new teachers. Attendees reported that these groups were especially
therapeutic and reassuring and eliminated their “sink or swim” sense of isolation
(Julius, 1976).
An Australian induction project suggested that the interpersonal atmosphere
can almost be of more importance than structural aspects of the program and, if
unfavorable, can become impediments to an otherwise well-designed program.
Critical respondents pointed out two counterproductive items: (1) feelings of
cavalier treatment and (2) lack of encouragement to share their own insights,
opinions, and recommendations with more senior teachers (Tisher, 1979).
Jacobi (1959) stressed that, to be successful, an induction program must
adhere to two fundamental concerns. It must bridge the gap between preservice
training and on-the-job performance by translating theory into practice. It must also
teach the new teacher how to do the immediate day-to-day job both effectively and
quickly.
Since the late 1950’s researchers have been promulgating guidelines to
assist school districts in designing teacher orientation/induction programs. Cable
(1957), Hill (1961), Schwalenberg (1965), Sigler (1972), and Badertscher (1978)
have each contributed such guidelines, and although they share much in common,
the highlights of each will be separately described.
Cable (1957) emphasized that everyone who w ill be affected by the
program should be included in designing it. Everyone should clearly and fully
15
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
understand the program’s goals, aims, and purposes. The district or school
authority should adapt any program to the unique needs and idiosyncrasies of the
individual school. School administrators should visibly support the program.
Finally, the program must be continuously evaluated and improved.
Hill (1961) conducted an extensive review of the literature and then worked
with a jury of school administrators to develop criteria for designing an effective
induction program. The district superintendent should ensure that all schools have
an effective program. The school principal is responsible for the school’s program.
The program should be school-specific and not a generic boilerplate product.
Finally, the program should be continuously evaluated.
Schwalenberg (1965) proposed key program design principles. The needs
of new teachers should be the basis of the program. Everyone involved in
conducting the program should participate in its design, and local community lay
people should be involved in planning and presenting it. The program should
complement the school’s regular inservice education, and the program should be
regularly evaluated.
From his own review of the literature and assorted orientation studies,
Sigler (1972) identified multiple criteria for building an ideal induction program.
Objectives should be specific and based on the identified needs of new teachers.
The school’s administration should be responsible for the program and provide
adequate financial support to sustain it. Experienced teachers should be involved in
16
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
planning and carrying out the program, and they should be given released time for
doing so. Designing, assessing, and updating the program should include everyone
impacted by it, including the new teachers themselves.
Interestingly, Sigler (1972) found that most principals tended to limit senior
teachers to an advisory role only, and only a small number were willing to reduce a
senior teacher’s workload for working with new teachers. Principals were also
reluctant to assign a lighter teaching load to beginning teachers, preferring to
lighten their extracurricular assignments instead.
Based on information provided by principals and beginning teachers,
Badertscher (1978) identified seven recommendations for designing a quality
induction program. Principals should not rely solely on their own judgment in
designing the program. They should confer with new teachers individually to
ensure the program includes elements that will meet their needs. The program
should orient the new teacher not only to the teaching position and to the school,
but to the district and community as well. The program should present need-to-
know information before nice-to-know information. Where possible, the program
should present information to relieve teachers’ apprehension, not to increase it.
The program should emphasize important policies, procedures, and processes
related to the teaching activity. Finally, planning the program should take
advantage of anyone with previous orientation program planning experience.
17
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Several studies have focused on released time and reduced loads as
elements of induction. Bradley and Eggleston (1978) found support for giving new
teachers 20 percent released time, either supervised or unsupervised, and teachers
so released reported higher confidence in their work. Hermanowicz (1966) found
from his interviews with beginning teachers that their number one wish during
induction is released time. Grant and Zeichner (1981) found that 81 percent of
beginning teachers surveyed received no more released time than other teachers,
and 82 percent said their teaching loads were also not lighter. In an experimental
investigation of the effects of reduced load on the classroom behavior of beginning
teachers, however, Hite (1966) found no significant differences between
experimental and control groups.
Morsink, Blackhurst, and Williams (1979) reported an interesting induction
program that gave tape cassettes to beginning learning disabilities teachers and told
them to record descriptions of the problems they encountered. The induction
program sent the tapes to university faculty who recorded their analyses and
recommendations and sent them back to the teachers. Participants found this
unique “remote” induction program to be helpful.
Schlechty (1985) reviewed the organizational sociology literature on
professional occupations and identified several characteristics of effective induction
systems. The two most critical characteristics were a reliance on intensive
supervision, demonstration, coaching, and constant corrective feedback from real
18
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
practitioners in real situations, and shared responsibility for evaluating new
members and providing corrective feedback and support throughout the group.
Group meetings are a common characteristic of most induction programs.
Hunt (1968) and Swanson (1968) found that the small group format allowed
flexibility and informality for delivering specific information and for providing
low-key emotional support. Oates (1971) evaluated a small-group induction
feature for promoting personal growth, openness, and cognitive growth in
beginning teachers. Feedback from participants was positive. Dooley (1970)
evaluated a project that used small group sessions for training and discussion.
Beginning teachers found the groups to be especially helpful for exchanging ideas
with other teachers, for providing a comfortable setting for beginning teachers to
listen to experienced teachers, and for reinforcing the feeling that other teachers
wanted to help. Lucas (1963) reported that new high school teachers found small
group sessions to be an ideal method for delivering most aspects of their induction.
A feature common to all the group programs reviewed is that each group had at
least one member who was not a beginning teacher. Oates (1971) evaluated the use
of intensive encounter group sessions intended to increase affective awareness
among beginning teachers. At the end of their first year of teaching, program
participants gave positive feedback about their encounter group experiences and
were more open and understanding of children than non-participants.
19
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
In their Rand-sponsored study of effective teacher selection, Wise, Darling-
Hammond, Berry, Berliner, Haller, Praskac, and Schlechty (1987) examined the
recruitment-to-retention policies and practices of six school districts: Mesa,
Arizona; Montgomery County, Maryland; East Williston, Long Island, New York;
Hillsborough County, Florida; Rochester, New York; and Durham County, North
Carolina. They found beginning teachers in all districts to value supervised
induction as a way of improving their teaching skills and learning the expectations
of the school district. They confirmed that supervised induction enhanced teachers’
feelings of efficacy, self-confidence, and propensity to remain in teaching. The
best induction programs included the formal, written designation of a “provider of
support” (e.g., department chair, other senior teacher, or subject matter expert) who
operates with a mandate to mentor the new teacher and is given adequate time and
other resources to do so. Where induction was found to be subpar, the major
reasons were poor communication, burdensome paperwork, inadequate planning, or
too few senior teachers for effective mentoring.
Wise et al. (1987) distilled from their study that the most critical resource
for successful induction is the expertise and experience that resides in the cadre of
senior teachers at the school. No matter how impressive the programs were in all
other respects, having too few senior teachers to mentor new teachers tended to
doom the program to failure. In schools where principals were overloaded with
other responsibilities or where senior teachers were consistently unavailable, first-
20
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
year teachers reported feeling “thrown to the wolves.” If teacher selection is
decentralized and includes a school’s senior teachers in deciding whom to hire,
those teachers are automatically invested in supporting and assisting new teachers
to succeed.
Wise et al. (1987) proposed a novel suggestion that districts consider
designating their high-tumover schools as “induction schools” to counteract a
frequently occurring tendency toward the misallocation of senior and beginning
teachers into different schools. By allowing senior teachers to transfer to their
schools of choice, the more “desirable” schools end up staffed by experienced staff,
while the less desirable or “difficult” schools become weighted with beginning and
less experienced teachers. That makes life more stressful for the new teacher who,
with the more difficult students to teach, has few senior teachers to rely on for
support and assistance and, therefore, becomes discouraged and disillusioned. As a
remedy, a more balanced mix of highly expert seasoned professionals and
beginning teachers would staff the designated “induction” school.
Empirical Studies
Empirical research findings generally support the notion that individual
schools and districts can improve their attractiveness to current and future teachers.
Researchers have evaluated several different ways of doing so, including
compensation enhancement, pre-service programs, and in-service programs such as
21
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
new teacher mentoring and induction. The Rand Review of the Research Literature
on Teacher Recruitment and Retention (Guarino, Santibanez, Daley, & Brewer,
2004) highlighted three rigorous empirical studies over the last twenty years that
evaluated the impact of mentoring and induction programs on teachers’ decisions to
quit or stay. These three studies, described below, support the conclusion that
schools providing mentoring and induction programs, particularly those
emphasizing collegial support, had lower rates of turnover among beginning
teachers.
Smith and Ingersoll (2004) analyzed data from the 1990-2000 Schools and
Staffing Survey (SASS) and its 2000-2001 Teacher Follow-up Survey. In a sample
of 3,235 beginning teachers, they found that teachers in a mentoring and induction
program in their first year were less likely to leave teaching. There was an inverse
association between induction/mentoring support and turnover (transfer to another
school or departure from teaching altogether). Four items had the strongest
positive impact on new teacher retention: a) having a mentor in the same field, (b)
having common planning time with other teachers in the same subject, (c) having
regularly scheduled collaboration opportunities with other teachers, and (d) being
part of an external network of teachers.
Johnson and Birkeland (2003) identified beginning teachers’ concerns and
reasons for staying in or leaving the teaching profession or transferring to another
school. They conducted a descriptive analysis of interviews with 50 first- and
22
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
second-year teachers from a diverse range of public schools in Massachusetts.
While they did not directly evaluate exposure to induction and mentoring support,
they found that most teachers who left teaching or transferred complained of too
little overall school support, felt left alone to “sink or swim,” and had too little
opportunity for school-wide collegial interaction with more experienced teachers.
Odell and Ferraro (1992) evaluated the impact of mentoring in New Mexico
by using a follow-up survey of 160 K-5 teachers who had begun teaching four
years earlier. They compared attrition rates for mentoring program participants to
published estimates of attrition rates for teachers nationwide and for teachers
statewide who had not taken part in the mentoring program. While comparison to
the nationwide data was statistically equivocal, comparison to the statewide data
showed that program participants had lower attrition rates than nonparticipants,
four percent annually for the former versus nine percent annually for the latter.
Participant Perceptions
Felder and Houston (1982) asked beginning teachers at the three- and nine-
week points in their first year what improvements they would recommend to their
pre-service training institution. As a direct reflection of the problems they faced,
they recommended several improvements: (a) preparation for “beginning of
school” procedures, (b) methods to deal with paperwork, (c) more courses in
psychology and child development, (d) protocols to deal with the principal, (e)
23
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
ways to deal with parents, (f) more practice in realistic classroom situations, (g)
methods to deal with low-income students, and (h) more sensible warnings about
how much pressure and responsibility a teacher faces.
Taylor (1971) surveyed beginning teachers and administrators in nine Los
Angeles County school districts for their views of the districts’ orientation and
inservice practices. The teachers tended not to perceive the programs as positively
as the administrators, nor did the teachers think their orientation needs had been as
adequately assessed or met as the administrators thought. In instances when
schools condensed these programs at the start of the school year and then
essentially discontinued them, teachers preferred a longer, more gradual
orientation.
Benson (1983) found similar results over a decade later in her study of
induction practices in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and
Texas. Beginning teachers and their principals had different perceptions and
opinions about several practices. Principals did not feel the orientation was as
important as beginning teachers did. Teachers thought the orientation should be
spread over the school year for beginning teachers instead of the two-week staff
development period prior to the school year. Principals provided too few
conferences with beginning teachers throughout the year. Finally, principals were
not only hesitant to assign beginning teachers lighter teaching loads, they were also
more likely to overload them with extracurricular duties.
24
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Wisley (1984) surveyed beginning elementary teachers and their principals
in Oklahoma during the 1983-84 school year for feedback about their schools’
orientation programs. She found that before the start of the school year that school
administrators did not visit many of their new teachers. Beginning teachers said
they regard such visits as far more helpful than their principals do. Principals also
overestimate the overall quality of their orientation programs compared to their
teachers’ appraisals.
Torgerson (1987) used focused-interviews to collect descriptive data on
induction practices and participant perceptions in elementary schools in the Puget
Sound area of Washington State. The most prevalent practices were (a) personal
contact at the start of the program, (b) notification of grade and building before the
first contract day, (c) a teacher’s handbook, (d) a district-wide orientation session,
(e) curriculum guides, (f) individual conferences with the principal, (g) assignment
of an experienced teacher to assist the new teacher, (h) principal observations and
feedback more than twice a year, and (i) additional time provided to prepare the
classroom. Those induction practices perceived by beginning teachers to be most
effective included (a) additional classroom preparation time, (b) notification of
grade and building assignment, (c) assigning an experience teacher to aide them,
and (d) opportunities to observe experienced teachers.
25
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Program Administration
Administrators are key players in orchestrating the conditions that
encourage new teachers to remain in teaching, including stability of the working
environment, compassionate assistance from administrators and senior teachers,
and easy access to school and school district resources.
The literature strongly supports the notion that primary responsibility for
ensuring a viable induction program rests with the administrative staff
(Badertscher, 1978; Gorton, 1973; Myers, 1981; Wisley, 1984). Badertscher
(1978) recommended that the local school board provide the foundation for
induction programs with a strongly written endorsement, that individual board
members participate in induction activities, and that the board allocate sufficient
money to fully support it. Gorton (1973) and Badertscher (1978) insisted that for a
school’s induction program to be credible and effective, the principal must be
emphatic and prominent in leading it.
Mentoring
As noted by Little (1990), teaching by its nature is an isolating profession,
with teachers spending most of the workday in their own classrooms, so
opportunities for collegial interaction are rare and not always conducive to
mentoring-type conversation. Even if not part o f a formal induction program, most
beginning teachers report that they get most of their teaching-related assistance and
26
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
emotional support from their colleagues (Grant & Zeichner, 1981; Hermanowicz,
1966; Matthews, 1976; Moller, 1968; Newberry, 1978; Tisher, 1979).
Moir, Gless, and Baron (1999) considered the mentor to be the most
important feature of a quality induction program. Some would argue that schools
should not force or formally structure the mentoring relationship between a new
teacher and the more senior one; rather, it should occur and evolve naturally.
Bartell (2005), however, insisted that the benefits of mentoring are too important to
leave to chance, and notes that without formal structure and assignment, schools
would neglect some new teachers altogether. Wesley (2003) cautioned mentors not
to regard new teachers as "objects" they must regulate, evaluate, and correct,
striving instead to be their supportive companions through the trials and tribulations
of being a new teacher.
Several studies have reviewed the use of more experienced teachers as
mentors during induction. Howey (1977) suggested that a teacher role model is
more beneficial to the beginning teacher if they work cooperatively rather than in a
senior-subordinate manner. Swanson (1968) and Compton (1979) made the same
point, calling the mentor a “cooperating teacher” and “compatible colleague,”
respectively, stressing the use of encouragement and positive reinforcement, and
insisting the mentor not be a part of the process that officially evaluates the
beginner’s performance. Felder and Houston (1982) and Julius (1976) studied
school systems with full-time mentors, called “teacher facilitators” and “teacher-
27
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
tutors.” They found significant benefits, although their responsibility for servicing
more than one school reduced their real-time availability to any one particular
teacher. Moir et al. (1999) noted that in one of California’s longest running
induction programs, schools release exemplary teachers from classroom duties to
become full-time new-teacher advisors for two or three years. In this role they
mentor 14 first- and second-year teachers with whom they are matched by grade
level and subject matter expertise. Fagan and Walter (1982) found that most
beginning teachers report having benefited from the guidance of at least one
mentor. They found also that the frequency of mentoring reported by beginning
teachers was not significantly different from that experienced by beginning police
officers and nurses.
Daresh (2003) recommended that matching mentors and teachers be based
on a careful analysis of their professional goals, interpersonal styles, and the
learning needs of both. For selecting mentors, Bartell (2005) cautioned that not
every outstanding teacher has the key characteristics needed to be an effective
mentor. Key interpersonal traits of good mentors are approachability, ability to
listen, openness, tactfulness, cooperativeness, and flexibility (DeBolt, 1992).
Besides intrinsic satisfaction, mentors deserve extrinsic rewards and
incentives as well (Odell & Ferraro, 1992). The most well-established, enduring
induction programs compensate mentors for their work, either by monetary stipend
or release from some portion of their teaching duties (Bartell, 2005).
28
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Bartell (2005) suggested that induction programs may be especially critical
for urban schools, which, because of their notoriety or undesirability, have special
difficulties attracting and retaining qualified teachers. Haberman (1994) believed
that new teachers who survive and thrive in urban schools are able to do so by
being in a mentoring relationship with a role model “star” teacher, many of whom
are themselves products of urban schools.
Hermanowicz (1966) found that most new teachers have a cautious respect
for administrators, based mainly on their status differential. The beginning teacher
also believes that administrators are more likely to evaluate than assist, and they
might see any new teacher’s request for support as a sign of weakness. New
teachers in elementary schools were more likely than their counterparts in
secondary schools to seek an administrator’s help.
Standards-Based Induction
Standards-based induction practices are relatively new (Bartell, 2005).
Induction programs in the 1980’s provided support and encouragement to
beginning teachers, with almost no specificity about content or connection to clear
standards. With strict new student achievement standards, the outcomes for which
teachers will be held responsible are now apparent. In addition, these professional
accountability standards are finding their way into new teacher induction programs
(Darling-Hammond, 1997).
29
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
In 1987, the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium
(INTASC) developed a set of standards that represents the essential components of
good teacher knowledge and performance. By 1997, at least twenty-four states
were using the INTASC standards to guide the training and induction of new
teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1997).
Many states, most notably California, have developed specific standards to
guide their teacher training and induction programs. Started in 1988, the California
New Teacher Project (CNTP) sponsored many pilot projects as part of a large-
scale, multiyear research and evaluation effort. This project later became the
foundation for California's Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program
(BTSA).
A decade of research in California has demonstrated that high-quality,
standards-driven induction programs that include mentoring, assessment, and
professional development deliver many benefits. These programs have (a) higher
retention of beginning teachers, (b) increased professional performance and
satisfaction, (c) earlier identification of weak teachers, and (d) better use of
reflective practice and critical self-examination by new teachers (Bartell, 1995;
Olebe, 2001).
3 0
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Beyond Induction
The major thrust of early induction programs was to support teachers so
they would not become discouraged and leave teaching. While teacher retention
remains a key goal, many have suggested that induction should go beyond that and
be a vehicle for helping new teachers reach their full potential (Feiman-Nemser,
2003). One aspect of that revolves around the concept of “reflective practice.” This
means teachers stand back from their own teaching behavior in an objective but
introspective way, take stock of their context, ponder their impact, and take
personal responsibility for what they do (Calderhead, 1992; Schon, 1983, 1987). In
contrast, the nonreflective teacher merely goes through the rote motions of teaching
in a routine, unexamined way.
Washington State’s Induction Program
The Teacher Assistance Program (TAP)
Program Establishment
At least twenty-eight states, including Washington, have established
requirements for new teacher induction programs (Bartell, 2005). The State
Department of Education established Washington’s program in 1987. The State
was not was having inordinate attrition or supply/demand problems among its new
teachers, but wanted an induction program to keep pace with the growing
31
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
nationwide and regional trend toward such programs to enhance teacher retention
and effectiveness. In Washington's program, school districts have the opportunity
to apply to the state's Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI)
each year for funding to assist their beginning teachers' induction into the
profession under the Teacher Assistance Program (TAP). District participation in
the TAP is not compulsory, but an increasing number of districts are participating
as they see the prospective benefits.
TAP Funding
The OSPI determines how much TAP funding goes to each school district
to subsidize its induction program by the number of new teachers in that district at
the beginning of the school year. The OSPI defines a new teacher as having fewer
than 90 consecutive days of classroom teaching experience. At their discretion,
districts and their schools may elect to include other "new" teachers in their
induction programs as well, such as those who have transferred into the district.
Although the state legislature has consistently increased the total TAP
appropriation annually, the allocation per beginning teacher has varied as the
number of new teachers changes from year to year. Over the past five academic
years, the allocation has nevertheless increased from about $700 per teacher to
about $1500 per teacher.
3 2
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
State Standards
By August 31, 2000, the State Board of Education required Washington's
colleges and universities to restructure their teacher preparation programs to meet
new state program approval and teacher certification standards. At that time of
transition to a standards-based environment for teachers, the TAP had no well-
defined program standards or performance-based teacher standards in place. While
some districts had developed their own robust versions of the TAP, others appeared
content merely to pass along the TAP-funded stipends to new teachers and their
mentors with a vague expectation that they "work together."
Prompted by this transition to a standards-based approach, the state
legislature and OSPI restructured the TAP to better align it with education reform,
new teacher certification standards, and emerging best practices. As a result,
districts taking part in the TAP must now include all of the following elements in
their induction of new teachers:
1. Assistance by mentor teachers for beginning teachers
2. Monetary stipends for mentors and beginning teachers
3. Training workshops for mentors and beginning teachers
4. Release time for observations
5. Development and implementation of a Professional Growth Plan
6. Strong collaboration with the principal
33
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
OSPI provides ample guidelines and examples to assist school districts in
rounding out each of these elements. The parameters recommended by OSPI for
each of the elements are as follows:
Assistance by mentor teachers fo r beginning teachers:
1. Responsibilities include (but are not limited to) constructive
feedback, modeling instructional strategies, and frequent meetings
and other contact.
2. Mentors must not be involved in evaluations, but may inform
principal of program content.
3. Mentors must be superior teachers, based on evaluations.
4. The bargaining unit must be involved in mentor selection.
At the school district's discretion, mentors may serve in this role in addition
to their teaching duties on a supplemental contract, or the district/school may
release them full- or part-time from teaching to be a mentor.
Monetary stipends for mentors and beginning teachers:
1. The stipends are not considered compensation for the purposes of
salary lid compliance.
2. The amounts need not be the same.
3 4
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Training workshops for mentors and beginning teachers:
1. New teachers must receive an orientation as well as individualized
assistance prior to the start of school to prepare them for the
beginning of the school year.
2. Mentors must be trained in observation strategies.
3. New teachers must receive training and/or assistance in the
following areas:
a. Classroom management
b. Student discipline
c. Curriculum management
d. Instructional skills
e. Assessment
f. Communication skills
g. Professional conduct
h. Incorporating requirements into instructional plans
i. Working with students from diverse backgrounds
In 2001, with new funding from the state legislature, OSPI offered four-day
mentor training academies. While attendance by prospective mentors remains
voluntary, mentors actively seek out and heavily subscribe to the academies.
3 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Release time fo r observations: This time provides opportunities for
mentors to observe new teachers, for new teachers to observe mentors, and for both
to observe other exemplary teachers.
Development and implementation o f a Professional Growth Plan (PGP):
The PGP is based upon the new teacher's self-evaluations and informal
performance assessments by the mentor and/or principal. Because the PGP uses
professional certification standards, it helps prepare the new teacher for
professional certification.
Strong collaboration with the principal: The new teacher, mentor, and
principal should collaborate in providing services to the new teacher. OSPI
cautions that the principal should not ask the mentor for information about the new
teacher's performance, as that could inappropriately influence the formal evaluation
process.
In addition, OSPI also provides extensive user-friendly resource material
for induction program leaders about the qualities of effective mentors, including
guidelines on how best to select, train, and support mentors. OSPI also provides a
panoply of resources for use by the beginning teachers themselves.
3 6
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Professional Growth Plan
The Professional Growth Plan (PGP) for new teachers is an integral part of
the TAP induction program and becomes key supportive documentation
downstream when the new teacher applies for the Professional Certificate. The
PGP is standards-based using the criteria under the Professional Certification I
(Effective Teaching) and II (Professional Development) standards. OSPI
emphasizes that the new teacher’s self-evaluation in conjunction with informal
performance assessments by the mentor and/or principal all serve as the basis for
the PGP.
The "Effective Teaching" standard is defined by the following nine criteria:
1. Using effective teaching practices, including classroom management.
2. Using assessment to monitor and improve instruction.
3. Establishing and maintaining a positive, student-focused environment.
4. Designing and/or adapting challenging curriculum that is
developmentally appropriate.
5. Demonstrating cultural sensitivity in teaching and in relationships with
students, parents, and community.
3 7
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
6. Using information about student achievement and performance to
advise and involve students, parents, and community members.
7. Integrating technology into instruction and assessment.
8. Informing, involving, and collaborating with parents and families as
partners in the educational process.
9. Incorporating democratic principles into his/her practice.
The following three criteria define the "Professional Development" standard
of the PGP: (a) evaluating the effects of his her teaching through feedback and
reflection; (b) designing and implementing personal professional growth programs;
and (c) remaining current in subject area(s), theories, practice, research, and ethical
practice.
The state of Washington recommends the following step-by-step process for
completing the PGP:
1. The new teacher first reviews each of the twelve criteria that cover the
"Effective Teaching" and "Professional Development" standards. For
each criterion, the new teacher then describes, in a mere two-word
summary, his or her own strengths and weaknesses and cites student
performance evidence to support the self-evaluation. OSPI suggests the
teacher do this in January or February, once the new teacher has settled
38
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
in and the mentor and principal have had several opportunities to
observe the new teacher.
2. Based on data gathered during observations of the new teacher, the
mentor then adds input to further clarify which criteria need the most
attention.
3. The new teacher’ s principal may also suggest areas of focus, based on
his or her observations of the new teacher.
4. With all of this information, the new teacher and mentor select one
criterion to focus on first, and together they develop an itemized action
plan and time line.
5. When the process is complete for that criterion, the new teacher and
mentor select the next criterion to address.
The schools encourage new teachers to keep all products of this PGP
process for presentation during their pre-assessment seminar for Professional
Certification.
Teacher Supply and Demand in Washington
According to Bergeson (2002), Washington's overall supply and demand of
teachers by specialty has been fairly consistent over time and reflects national
3 9
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
trends rather than Washington-specific difficulties. Shortages are not a result of
universities producing too few new teachers, nor are they likely a result of
deficiencies or poor targeting in the induction of new teachers.
Teaching areas in which there is considerable shortage include special
education, mathematics, and physics. Teaching areas in which there is some
shortage include chemistry, biology, Japanese, English as a second language,
bilingual education, early childhood special education, instrumental music, and
choral music. Teaching areas where there is a balance between supply and demand
include visual arts, reading, dance, drama, English, early childhood education,
elementary education, and social studies. The one area that has a surplus of
teachers is history.
Chapter Summary
The most comprehensive recent research reviews on new teacher induction
(Bartell, 1995; Odell and Huling, 2000; Olebe, 2001; Tushnet, Briggs, Elliot, Esch,
Haviland, Humphrey, Rayyes, Reihl, & Young, 2002) have concluded that
successful induction programs have the following key elements:
1. Clarity of purpose and intended outcomes
2. Strong leadership and administration
3. Collaboration among all providers of induction services
4. Support of well-informed site administrators
40
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
5. Familiarity and linkage with the teacher’s college preparation program
6. Attention to the new teacher’s work setting and assignments
7. Involvement of carefully selected and trained senior teachers
8. Scheduled structured time together for beginning and senior teachers
9. Targeted professional development opportunity for new teachers
10. Individual follow-up by experienced teachers to ensure new skill
acquisition
11. Frequent feedback to beginning teachers about their progress
12. Evaluation of the program and its impact on teachers and students
These findings essentially corroborate the other induction-related research
covered by this literature review. These key program elements are also part of
Washington State's Teacher Assistance Program (TAP).
Other key findings that are consistent over time and among researchers
include the following:
1. The problems and challenges faced by beginning teachers today are in
many ways the same as those confronted by their predecessors —
maintaining discipline in the classroom, motivating refractory students,
and accommodating and engaging students of different ability. An
increasing challenge for today's beginning teacher is how to make the
classroom experience equally meaningful and productive for an
41
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
increasing number of students from diverse ethnic and cultural
backgrounds.
2. An effective induction program must strike a suitable balance between
the objective but often anxiety-arousing scrutiny applied to the new
teacher's performance, and the nonjudgmental support and assistance so
necessary for building the new teacher's self-confidence. Too much of
either runs the risk of undermining program success.
3. Adequate released time and reduced teaching load for new teachers, as
well as for their mentors, help avoid demoralizing overload and afford
beginning teachers time for self-reflective processing and regular
growth-inducing interaction with mentors and colleagues.
Effective induction programs can help new teachers become competent,
comfortable, and self-confident early in their initial employment. This helps reduce
the premature departure of new teachers from the profession, and it translates into a
stronger, more committed workforce for teaching and influencing our students.
4 2
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Chapter 3
M e t h o d o l o g y
Research Questions
This dissertation was designed to answer six research questions, each
corresponding to a key theme that emerged from the literature review. These
themes and corresponding research questions are the following:
RQ 1: Goals and Program Administration — Are program goals and
objectives clearly articulated and communicated, and are
administrative actions by accountable agents conducive to program
success?
RQ 2: Introduction to Resources — Are new teachers introduced to
important school and community resources that will facilitate early
adaptation to their new environment?
RQ 3: Interactions with Mentorees — What interactions are occurring, and
with whom, in the mentoring relationship, and what are the
perceptions, opinions, and recommendations o f the new teachers and
other participants in that relationship?
43
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
RQ 4: Reduced Load, Released Time, and Stipends — Are mentors and
mentorees allotted adequate extra time and reduction in workload to
encourage and enable a meaningful mentoring relationship, and are
they compensated with appropriate extra pay to incentivize and
reward the extra work required for effective induction?
RQ 5: Professional Development — Are the induction program practices
successfully prompting and assisting new teachers to gain
certification and meet other mandated professional milestones?
RQ 6: Balance between Evaluation and Assistance — Are the induction
programs striking an appropriate balance between objectively
assessing the new teacher's performance on the one hand, and
psychologically supporting and unconditionally accepting him or her
on the other hand?
Instruments
The author developed three structured interview instruments to address the
research questions, one for each research target group (new teachers, mentors, and
principals). The instruments themselves include items that target and address all the
key aspects of new teacher induction identified in the literature review (see
Appendix A). Items specific to Washington's TAP were also included.
44
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Some of the items were quantitative in nature, with responses on a
numerical point scale. Other items were open-ended and more subjective to give
each subject an opportunity to elaborate or to add his or her own personal input.
Interview Versus Questionnaire
The researcher designed the instruments to conduct individual one-on-one
interviews. After reviewing the interview instruments at the request of the
researcher, one superintendent and two principals recommended that subjects be
invited instead to fill them out as self-administered questionnaires. Individual
interviews would be offered as a back-up option for those who might prefer an
interview. Their recommendation sprang from a common concern that
participation in the study was voluntary. Hence, teachers would likely be far more
amenable to filling out a questionnaire at their own pace rather than carving out 30
to 45 minutes or more to accommodate an individual interview. The researcher
concurred. Since the nature of the interview instrument made it equally suitable for
use as a self-administered questionnaire, and to optimize the voluntary participation
of prospective subjects, the researcher redesignated the three interview instruments
as questionnaires.
4 5
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Expanded Subject Pool
This research was targeted primarily to teachers who were new to the
teaching profession. Several principals suggested that teachers who were not new
to the profession but were new to their schools should have the opportunity to
participate. Although the schools did not include these teachers in the full array of
TAP-related induction events and services, many had assigned mentors and other
school-specific support for adapting to their new school and community
environment. Other principals (and the researcher) agreed that information from
these veteran teachers who were newcomers to their schools might be useful.
Hence, the researcher added them to the study. Principals were especially curious to
know if this expanded category of new teachers felt adequately welcomed and
supported. For this dissertation, the researcher designated teachers new to the
profession as NTs, and veteran teachers who were new to their schools but not new
to teaching as VNTs.
Questionnaires
The Teacher Questionnaire
The researcher used the Teacher Questionnaire (see Appendix B) for each
teacher who was in his or her first, second, or third year of teaching, and for those
teachers who, though not new to the profession, were new to that school. The
46
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
questionnaire opened with a series of demographic identifiers and items about
educational background and teaching credentials and experience.
Part I of the formal questionnaire consisted of subjective questions about
their backgrounds, their reasons for becoming teachers, their current motivators,
and their positive and negative experiences as new teachers.
Part II of the questionnaire consisted of items related to their own specific
induction experiences and invited them to identify and appraise the variety of
different induction practices to which the program had exposed them.
Part III of the questionnaire invited the teacher to reflect on the school year
so far and to ponder what he or she expected for the next year.
The Mentor Questionnaire
The researcher used the Mentor Questionnaire (see Appendix C) for each
teacher formally assigned as a mentor to one or more new teachers. The
questionnaire opened with a series of demographic identifiers and questions
regarding educational background, teaching credentials and experience, and prior
mentoring experience. The remainder of the interview explored the mentor's
interactions and relationship with their mentoree, and invited the mentor to identify
strengths and weaknesses in the induction program.
4 7
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
The Principal Questionnaire
The researcher used the Principal Questionnaire (see Appendix D) for each
school principal who had a new teacher in his or her school. The questionnaire
opened with a series of demographic identifiers and questions on educational
background and amount of experience as a principal. The rest of the questionnaire
addressed the induction program's structure and administration, including the
principal’s role.
Preliminary Steps
The researcher met individually with each of the superintendents of the four
school districts that this study targeted. They were all enthusiastic about the
proposed study, expressed their commitment to effective induction for new
teachers, and promised the support of their schools. Before the start of data-
gathering from new teachers, their mentors, and school principals, the following
sequence of events occurred:
1. District superintendents introduced the researcher and his study to their
school principals by letter, e-mail, or verbal communication. The
researcher prepared a recommended template for this communication
and provided it to the superintendents (see Appendix E).
4 8
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
2. From their records, district human resource personnel provided the
researcher with the names of new teachers in each of the schools in their
district. In some cases they were also able to provide the names of
assigned mentors.
3. The researcher held an introductory courtesy call with each of the
school principals. The researcher asked each principal to introduce the
researcher and his study to his new teachers and their mentors. The
researcher prepared and provided the principal with a recommended
template for this communication (see Appendix F).
4. At each school, the researcher reconfirmed the accuracy of the district's
roster of new teachers for that school, adjusting the roster if necessary,
and reconfirmed or ascertained the names of their assigned mentors.
Delivery and Collection o f Questionnaires
As part of the researcher's introductory meeting with each principal, the
researcher provided each principal a questionnaire (see Appendix D) to be filled out
at his or her leisure and convenience. The researcher also provided an information
sheet about the voluntary nature of the research and its human subject protections
(see Appendix G), and a self-addressed stamped envelope to return the completed
49
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
questionnaire to the researcher. Two principals opted to be interviewed by the
researcher during the meeting instead of filling out the questionnaire.
The researcher hand-delivered to their schools’ administrative offices
questionnaires for new teachers. Individual, personalized by-name packets
contained a cover letter from the researcher (see Appendix H), their questionnaire
(see Appendix B), an information sheet specifically for new teachers about the
voluntary nature of the research and its human subject protections (see Appendix I),
and a self-addressed stamped envelope. Two teachers opted instead to be
interviewed in person rather than fill out the questionnaire themselves, and one
teacher asked to be interviewed by phone.
The researcher also hand-delivered mentor questionnaires to their schools’
administrative offices. The questionnaires were in individual, personalized by
name packets that contained a cover letter from the researcher (see Appendix J),
their questionnaire (see Appendix C), a mentor-specific information sheet about the
voluntary nature of the research and its human subject protections (see Appendix
K), and a self-addressed stamped envelope for the completed questionnaire.
5 0
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Chapter 4
F i n d i n g s
Introduction
This chapter presents the findings of the dissertation. I start with tabular
information on the questionnaire return rate, broken down by school, district, and
respondent category. Following that, I present self-reported demographic and
experiential information about the respondents. Then the major part of the chapter
follows where I present my analysis of all questionnaire responses in six sections
that match the six key research question themes that I distilled from the literature
review. I break up each theme section into subsections according to respondent
category. I conclude with two sections that summarize teachers' subjective self-
reports about how they are doing and their career expectations for the future.
Response Rate
Across all four school districts, I distributed questionnaires to 18 principals
(Ps), 21 teachers who were new to the teaching profession (NTs), 54 veteran
teachers who were new to their current schools (VNTs), and 50 mentors (M).
51
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Table 2 depicts the distribution breakdown and return rates by district, school, and
type of respondent.
Principals
Of the 16 principals who completed their questionnaires, 8 (50%) were
male and 8 (50%) were female, all 16 (100%) were Caucasian, and the median
number of years as principal aboard their school was three years. Three were in
their first year as principal, and two had been principal in their school for more than
ten years.
Mentors
Of the 28 mentors who completed their questionnaires, 5 (18%) were male
and 23 (82%) were female. Twenty-one (75%) identified themselves as Caucasian,
two (7%) as mixed, one (4%) as Hispanic, one (4%) as Native American, and three
(11%) elected not to declare their race. Thirteen (46%) had their master's degree,
and one (4%) had a doctorate. Their median number of years in teaching was 17,
with a range from 4 to 35 years.
Of the 28 mentors, 13 (46%) were mentors to teachers who were new to the
teaching profession (NTs), while 15 (54%) were mentors to veteran teachers who
were new to their schools (VNTs). Anticipating that their experiences, practices,
and opinions might differ, I separately analyzed the two groups' responses to the
same questionnaire.
52
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Table 2.
Questionnaire Return Rate by District, School, and Type of Respondent
Type of Respondent
District P NT VNT M
School n % n % n % n %
Gateway 4/4 100 3/3 100 0/6 0 4/6 67
Gateway High 1/1 100 2/2 100 0/3 0 2/3 0
Gateway Elem. 1/1 100 1/1 100 0/1 0 0/1 0
Curtis Elem. 1/1 100 0/0 0 0/1 0 2/2 100
Overlook Elem. 1/1 100 0/0 0 0/1 0 0/0 0
P in e H a r b o r 9/9 100 7/15 47 21/40 53 21/38 55
Pine Harbor High 1/1 100 1/5 20 9/10 90 7/13 54
Saratoga Middle 1/1 100 0/4 0 1/6 17 4/9 44
Pine Harbor Middle 1/1 100 3/3 100 5/7 71 4/6 67
Seaplane Elem. 1/1 100 1/1 100 3/5 60 0/0 0
Valley View Elem. 1/1 100 1/1 100 0/2 0 2/3 67
Cedar Cove Elem. 1/1 100 0/0 0 1/1 100 1/1 100
Dutch Hollow Elem. 1/1 100 1/1 100 1/4 25 Ml 50
Pine Harbor Elem. 1/1 100 0/0 0 0/3 0 2/4 50
Mountain View Elem. 1/1 100 0/0 0 1/2 50 0/0 0
Midway 1/2 50 1/1 100 1/3 33 2/2 100
Midway Elem. 1/1 100 0/0 0 0/1 0 0/0 0
Midway Middle 0/1 0 1/1 100 1/2 50 HI 100
SOUTHSIDE 2/3 67 2/2 100 1/5 20 1/4 25
Southside High 0/1 0 2/2 100 1/1 100 1/3 33
Southside Intermed. 1/1 100 0/0 0 0/1 0 0/1 0
Southside Primary 1/1 100 0/0 0 0/3 0 0/0 0
Total 16/18 89 13/21 62 23/54 43 28/50 56
Note. P = principals; NT = teachers new to the teaching profession; VNT = veteran teachers new to their
current schools; M = mentors.
53
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
New Teachers
Of the 36 new teachers who completed their questionnaires, 13 (36%) were
new to the teaching profession, i.e., in their first, second, or third year of teaching.
The other 23 new teachers (64%) were not new to the teaching profession but were
new only in the sense that they were in their first, second, or third year aboard that
school. I designated the first group, teachers new to the profession, as NTs for
purposes of this study. I designated the second group, veteran teachers new to their
schools, as VNTs. Anticipating that their experiences, perceptions, and opinions
might differ in certain respects, the two groups' responses to the same questionnaire
were analyzed separately.
Teachers New to the Profession (NTs)
Of the 13 NTs who completed their questionnaires, 7 (54%) were male and
6 (46%) were female. Twelve (92%) identified themselves as Caucasian, and one
(8%) elected not to declare her race. Three (23%) had their master's degree. Five
(38%) were teaching in high school, four (31%) in middle school, and four (31%)
in elementary school. Four (31%) were in their first year of teaching, eight (62%)
were in their second, and one (8%) was in her third.
5 4
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Veteran Teachers New to Their Schools (VNTs)
Of the 23 VNTs who completed their questionnaires, 9 (39%) were male
and 14 (61%) were female. Twenty-two (96%) identified themselves as Caucasian,
and one (4%) elected not to declare her race. Fourteen (61%) had their master's
degree. Ten (43%) were teaching in high school, seven (30%) in middle school,
and six (26%) in elementary school. Seven (30%) were in their first year at the
school, eleven (48%) were in their second year, and five (22%) were in their third
year. Their median number of total years in teaching was 9, with a range from 4 to
27 years.
Research Question Themes
Goals and Program Administration
Induction programs with clearly articulated goals, objectives, and
administrative procedures are more likely to succeed than those that are well-
intended but lack specificity. Key initial administrative actions include
notifications to new teachers, selection and training of suitable mentors, and
clarification of responsibilities. Assignment of overall accountability for program
operation is essential.
Questionnaire Items: (P) 1-7, 10, 14, 16
(M) 1-6, 9, 10, 19
(T) 1-3, 5,6,30,31
55
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Principals
Ten of the 16 principals (63%) did not know when their school's induction
program had been established. Of the 6 (37%) who did know, half had set up the
program themselves. Six of the 16 principals (37%) thought their school had at
least an informal induction program before the state's Office of the Superintendent
of Public Instruction (OSPI) issued their guidelines for the Teacher Assistance
Program (TAP).
Seven of the 16 principals (44%) said their program's goals and objectives
were stated in writing, five (31%) said they were not, and the remaining four (25%)
did not know. All of those who said they were in writing identified the school
district as the author. The primary goals and objectives included professional
support and pointers on how to be successful, meaningful mentoring, a strong bond
between mentor and mentoree, and reduced attrition among new teachers.
In terms of primary responsibility for the induction program, seven of the
16 principals (44%) said it resides at the district level, and five (31%) said at the
individual school level. The remaining four (25%) said it was a shared
responsibility, with TAP funding, administrative oversight, and start-of-year
workshops managed at the district level, while day-to-day delivery and current
mentoring are managed at the school level.
5 6
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
All principals said the formal induction program starts before classes begin
each year, with district and school meetings for new staff, and continues through
the rest of the school year. One principal noted that informal induction starts
during the initial interview of prospective hires, and two principals commented that
informal induction, especially for NTs, may continue into their second or third
years.
Six of the 16 principals (38%) said their school's program is only for NTs.
The remaining 10 principals (62%) said their program also invites VNTs to
participate.
Only three of the 16 principals (19%) said funding for their school's
program was sufficient. Ten (62%) said it was not sufficient, and the remaining
three (19%) were not sure. Two of the 16 principals (13%) said they get more
induction funds from the district over and above those provided by OSPI from the
TAP funds, but the remaining 14 principals (87%) said they do not.
Fourteen of the 16 principals (88%) said that each new teacher is assigned a
mentor. Of the remaining two principals (12%), one said she did not have enough
veteran teachers to assign as mentors, and the other said she expects all of her
same-grade teachers to collaborate as a team in mentoring the new teacher. All
principals identified similar preferences and protocol for selecting the mentor for a
new teacher. They seek a volunteer from among veteran teachers of the same grade
and subject matter specialty; if none are available, they consider other veteran
57
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
teachers in the school or perhaps someone from another school. Fourteen of the 16
principals (88%) excluded mentors from actively engaging in the formal appraisal
of their mentorees.
Only four of the 16 principals (25%), all from the Pine Harbor District, said
the district sought their feedback and recommendations for improving the induction
of new teachers.
Mentors of NTs
Among the 13 mentors of NTs, seven (54%) had previously been mentors.
Two had previously mentored three teachers in the same school or district within
the past five years. Two others had each mentored one teacher the previous year in
the same school, and one had mentored two teachers four years earlier while
employed in another state. One teacher with over 35 years' teaching experience
had mentored 18-20 new teachers over the course of her career in three different
states.
Ten of the 13 mentors of NTs (77%) had volunteered, and three (23%) felt
selected without an option to refuse. One (8%) was notified early in the summer
before school started, 10 (77%) during the two weeks prior to school, and two
(15%) during the first two weeks after school started. Only six (46%) thought the
notification was timely. Nine (69%) were notified by their principal, three (23%)
by the district human resource office, and one (8%) by his mentoree. Nine (69%)
58
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
of the notifications were in writing. Four (31%) of the notifications did not include
information on how to contact the mentoree. Ten (77%) had only one mentoree,
three (23%) had two. All mentors understood that their responsibilities lasted for
the entire academic year.
Nine (69%) of the mentors, all from the Pine Harbor District, were provided
training on how to be an effective mentor. The training was a one-day program at
the district headquarters during the week before school started. Four of the nine
attendees (44%) brought their mentorees with them to this training. It consisted of
an overview of the TAP, rudimentary principles of mentoring, observation
techniques, certification and professional growth assistance, and basic pointers on
how to be supportive without being intrusive. Five of the nine mentors (56%) rated
the training extremely helpful, and four (44%) moderately helpful. One mentor
thought the training lacked specificity regarding duties and responsibilities.
Only five of the 13 mentors of NTs (38%) had been asked for suggestions
about how to improve the induction program for the next year's beginning teachers
and their mentors.
Mentors of VNTs
Among the 15 mentors of VNTs, eight (53%) had previously been mentors.
Four of the eight (50%) had each previously mentored one teacher in the same
school or district within the past two years. Two others (25%) had each mentored
59
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
five teachers over the last ten years in the same school or district, and two (25%)
had each mentored several teachers 5-10 years earlier while teaching in other states.
Ten of the 15 mentors of VNTs (67%) had volunteered, and five (33%) felt
selected without an option to refuse. Five (33%) were notified early in the summer
before school started, seven (47%) during the two weeks prior to school, and three
(20%) during the first two weeks after school started. Nine (60%) thought the
notification was timely. Ten (67%) were notified by their principal, and five (33%)
by the district human resource office. Eight (53%) of the notifications were in
writing. Seven (47%) of the notifications did not include information on how to
contact the mentoree. Each mentor had only one mentoree. All mentors
understood that their responsibilities lasted for the entire academic year.
Eleven (73%) of the mentors of VNTs were provided training on how to be
an effective mentor. The primary training was a one-day program at the district
headquarters during the week before school started, although the Pine Harbor
District also sponsored an abbreviated workshop one afternoon after hours at one of
their schools. Three of the attendees (27%) brought their mentorees with them to
this training. Key topics identified by the trainees included an overview of the
TAP, rudimentary principles of mentoring, observation techniques, certification
and professional growth assistance, and an introduction to the resources available
for support of mentors and mentorees. One of the attendees (9%) rated the training
6 0
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
extremely helpful, nine (82%) moderately helpful, and one (9%) only somewhat
helpful.
Only one of the mentors of VNTs (7%) had been asked for suggestions
about how to improve the induction program for the next year's beginning teachers
and their mentors.
New Teachers (NTs)
Among the 13 NTs, seven (54%) were first told about the induction
program when they were hired, three (23%) within two weeks before school
started, and three (23%) not until after classes were already underway. Only eight
(62%) thought the notification was timely. Four of the NTs (31%) were notified in
person, three (23%) by phone, and six (46%) by letter. Eleven (85%) were notified
of their grade, building assignment, and room number before their first contract
day, but two (15%) were not notified and had to search out the information for
themselves. Six (46%) of the teachers rated the overall notification process
extremely helpful, four (31%) moderately helpful, and three (23%) totally
unhelpful.
Three of the NTs (23%) said their grade assignment did not match their
student teaching experience and preference. Only five of the NTs (38%) had been
asked for suggestions about how to improve the induction program for the next
year's beginning teachers.
61
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Veteran New Teachers (VNTs)
Among the 23 VNTs, 11 (48%) were first told about the induction program
when they were hired, nine (39%) within two weeks before school started, and
three (13%) not until after classes were already underway. Eighteen (78%) thought
the notification was timely. Eight of the 23 VNTs (35%) were notified in person,
seven (30%) by phone, and eight (35%) by letter. Seventeen (74%) were notified
of their grade, building assignment, and room number before their first contract
day, but six (26%) were not notified and had to search out the information for
themselves. Six of the teachers (26%) rated the overall notification process
extremely helpful, 12 (52%) moderately helpful, and five (22%) somewhat helpful.
Five of the VNTs (22%) said their grade assignment did not match their
student teaching experience and preference. Only six of the VNTs (26%) had been
asked for suggestions about how to improve the induction program for the next
year's beginning teachers.
Introduction to Resources
It is important that new teachers be actively alerted, directed, and
introduced to the various key resources that are available to them, not only in their
schools, but in their communities as well. These resources, which typically include
other people, local agencies and businesses, available technologies, and printed
62
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
booklets and guides, are intended to assist the new teachers in learning about their
new schools and communities.
Questionnaire Items: (T) 4, 7-9, 11,12
New Teachers (NTs)
Six of the 13 NTs (46%) received, without asking, printed information
regarding housing, banking, grocery stores, health clinics, and recreation and
entertainment opportunities. Primary suppliers were mentors, principals, pre
school induction workshops, and the chamber of commerce. Four (31%) rated the
materials extremely helpful, two (15%) moderately helpful, and seven (54%)
somewhat helpful. Several teachers thought additional realty information was
needed.
Eight of the NTs (62%) received a curriculum guide before school started.
Three (38%) found it extremely helpful, two (25%) moderately helpful, and three
(38%) somewhat helpful.
Twelve of the NTs (92%) said there was a district-wide orientation session
for new teachers during the week before school started. Topics included salary and
benefit information, safety/security/first aid, blood borne pathogens, and district
administrative procedures. Five of the attendees (42%) rated the session
moderately helpful, four (33%) somewhat helpful, and three (25%) not at all
helpful. Topics recommended for better coverage in the future included curriculum
63
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
writing, sick day policy, and the Washington Assessment of Student Learning
(WASL).
Ten of the 13 NTs (77%) were given a guided tour of their school, eight
(80%) escorted by their principal, and two (20%) by a veteran teacher. Eight (80%)
rated the tour extremely helpful, two (20%) moderately helpful. Several teachers
thought the tour was too brief.
Ten of the 13 NTs (77%) were given a teacher's handbook about routine
procedures and schedules before the first day of school, the remaining three (23%)
during the first few days of school. Six (60%) received it from their principal, two
(20%) from other front office personnel, one (10%) from her mentor, and one
(10%) on-line. Three (30%) rated the handbook extremely helpful, and seven
(70%) rated it moderately helpful. Ideas for improving the handbook included to
simplify it, update it, improve the index and cross-referencing, and add more on
grading policies and emergency procedures.
Only six of the NTs (46%) thought they were given adequate time to
prepare their classrooms for the opening of school.
Veteran New Teachers (VNTs)
Sixteen of the 23 VNTs (70%) received, without asking, printed
information regarding housing, banking, grocery stores, health clinics, and
recreation and entertainment opportunities. Primary suppliers were mentors,
64
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
principals, pre-school induction workshops, and friends and neighbors in the
community. Seven (44%) rated the materials extremely helpful, four (25%)
moderately helpful, and five (31%) as somewhat helpful. Several teachers thought
better maps, employment announcements for spouses, a list of teacher-
recommended rental agents, and more information about local healthcare resources
were needed.
Fifteen of the 23 VNTs (65%) received a curriculum guide before school
started. Six (40%) found it extremely helpful, five (33%) moderately helpful, and
four (27%) somewhat helpful.
Twenty-two of the 23 VNTs (96%) said there was a district-wide
orientation session for new teachers during the week before school started. Topics
included salary and benefit information, safety/security/first aid, retirement options,
unions, and district administrative procedures. Eight of the attendees (36%) rated
the session moderately helpful, seven (32%) somewhat helpful, and seven (32%)
not at all helpful. Topics recommended for better coverage in the future included
software grading programs and regulations regarding fundraisers. Several teachers
commented that too much material was covered in too short a time.
Fifteen of the 23 VNTs were given a guided tour of their school, 11 (73%)
escorted by their principal and four (27%) by a veteran teacher. Twelve (80%)
rated the tour extremely helpful, three (20%) moderately helpful. Several teachers
recommended the tour be conducted at a more leisurely pace.
65
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Seventeen of the 23 VNTs (74%) were given a teacher's handbook about
routine procedures and schedules before the first day of school, the remaining six
(26%) during the first few days of school. Fifteen (65%) received it from their
principal, three (13%) from other front office personnel, three (13%) from their
mentor, and two (9%) on-line. Fourteen (61%) rated the handbook extremely
helpful, nine (39%) moderately helpful. Several teachers suggested it be made
more user-friendly by eliminating excess verbiage.
Sixteen of the 23 VNTS (70%) thought they were given adequate time to
prepare their classrooms for the opening of school.
Interactions with Mentorees
For the new teacher, the mentoring relationship involves a variety of
interactions, primarily with the assigned mentor, but often with other teachers,
school staff members, principals, and school district personnel as well. These
interactions may include observations of classroom teaching, regularly scheduled
and impromptu meetings, attendance at training workshops, and off-campus social
engagements. It is the quality of these various mentoring interactions that largely
determine the successful induction of the new teacher.
Questionnaire Items: (P) 8, 9
(M) 7, 8, 11, 14-16
(T) 10, 13-16, 20-23,25,26
66
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Principals
Two of the 16 principals (13%) had regularly scheduled meetings with their
new teachers, nine (56%) met with them only on an ad lib basis, and five (31%) did
both. Several in the last group said they insisted on weekly meetings for the first
month or two, after which they tapered off toward ad lib get-togethers only. Every
principal reported observing their new teachers in the classroom, with 12 (75%)
doing so at least weekly, the remaining four (25%) about once a month.
Mentors of NTs
Among the 13 mentors of NTs, nine (69%) had first met their mentorees at
the district's training session during the week before school started. Three (23%)
had first met their mentorees earlier in the summer as members of the district's
interview panel during the hiring process, and the remaining one (8%) had first met
her mentoree the previous school year when she hosted her as a student teacher in
her classroom. Ten (77%) were introduced to their mentorees by their principal,
three (23%) by the district's human resource specialist. Nine (69%) reported a
general meeting attended by all new teachers and their mentors before school
opened.
All mentors of NTs felt well-matched to their mentorees. Key qualities
were same or similar grade level, same or similar subject, same gender, and good
67
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
interpersonal compatibility. Problem areas that were mentioned included a
significant age difference between the mentor and mentoree, classrooms too far
apart to permit frequent spontaneous interaction, and irreconcilable schedule
conflicts that precluded interaction during regular school hours. Only one of the 13
mentors of NTs (8%) had a standing appointment to meet with her mentoree, five
(38%) met only on an informal basis, and seven (54%) did both.
Among the 13 mentors of NTs, 11 (85%) observe their mentoree's
classroom teaching. Of these, one (9%) does so about twice a week, one (9%) once
a week, two (18%) about every other week, four (36%) about once a month, and
three (27%) at least quarterly. According to the 13 mentors of NTs, eight of the
NTs (62%) observe the mentor's classroom teaching, about once a week for two
(25%) of the mentorees, about once a month for three (38%), every other month for
one (13%), and quarterly for two (25%).
Mentors of VNTs
Among the 15 mentors of VNTs, five (33%) had first met their mentorees at
the district's training session during the week before school started. Two (13%)
had first met their mentorees earlier in the summer as members of the district's
interview panel during the hiring process, two (13%) had first met their mentorees
the previous school year when they hosted them as student teachers in their
classrooms, while six (40%) first met their mentorees within the first two weeks
68
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
after school started. Three (20%) were introduced to their mentorees by their
principal, one (7%) by the district's human resource specialist, and one (7%) by a
fellow teacher. The remaining ten (67%) sought out and introduced themselves to
their mentorees. Ten (67%), all from the Pine Harbor District, reported a general
meeting attended by all new teachers and their mentors before the start of school.
All mentors of VNTs felt well-matched to their mentorees. Key attributes
were same or similar grade level, same or similar subject, good interpersonal
compatibility, and similar extracurricular interests. Problem areas that were
mentioned included classrooms too far apart to permit frequent informal
interaction, different lunch and planning periods, and teaching different subjects
than their mentorees. Ten of the mentors of VNTs (67%) met only on an ad lib
basis, and five (33%) had both unscheduled and scheduled appointments.
Among the 15 mentors of VNTs, seven (47%) observed their mentoree's
classroom teaching. Of those, one (14%) of them did so about once a week, three
(43%) about once a month, and the remaining three (43%) no more than once a
quarter. According to the 15 mentors of VNTs, seven (47%) observed their
mentor's classroom teaching, almost daily for one (14%) of the mentorees, about
twice a month for one (14%), once a month for three (43%), and quarterly for two
(29%).
6 9
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
New Teachers (NTs)
Among the 13 NTs, only seven (54%) had an individual introductory get-
together with their principal. Of those, two (29%) met early in the summer before
school, and five (61%) during the first week of school. Five (71%) rated the
meeting as extremely helpful, and two (29%) rated it as moderately helpful.
Twelve of the 13 NTs (92%) reported a range of additional interactions with
their principals, including incidental hallway chats, issue-related and sociable e-
mail conversations, standard staff meetings, special meetings about problem
students, and formal evaluations. Three (25%) rated these interactions extremely
helpful, seven (58%) moderately helpful, and two (17%) somewhat helpful.
Eleven of the 13 NTs (85%) had an experienced teacher assigned to them as
a mentor. The other two NTs (15%) had mentors but felt that their mentors were
not yet sufficiently experienced to be good mentors. Six of the 13 NTs (46%)
assisted in selecting their mentor. Ten of the NTs (77%) rated their mentor-
mentoree compatibility as extremely high, and three (23%) as moderately high.
Key recommendations from the NTs were to ensure same grade matching,
compatible schedules to allow ample free time together, and a mentor who is not
only older but is also more familiar with the teaching profession and the school.
Six (46%) said their mentors had adequate free time to meet during regular school
hours, and two (15%) had attended training with their mentor.
7 0
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Among the 13 NTs, eight (62%) said their mentors observed their
classroom teaching, daily for one (13%), twice a week for three (38%), twice a
month for two (25%), twice a semester for one (13%), and only once thus far for
one (13%). Three of these eight NTs (38%) rated their mentor's observations as
extremely helpful, four (50%) as moderately helpful, and one (13%) as somewhat
helpful. Twelve of the 13 NTs (92%) had been observed in their classrooms by
their principals, the majority about three or four times. Four (33%) found these
principal’ s observations extremely helpful, five (42%) moderately helpful, and three
(25&) percent somewhat helpful. Only six of the 13 NTs (46%) had observed their
mentor's classroom teaching, three (50%) about twice a week, two (33%) about
twice a month, and one (17%) about once a month. Three (50%) rated these
observations as extremely helpful, and three (50%) as moderately helpful. Six of
the 13 NTs (46%) said they had observed the classrooms of teachers other than
their mentors, and a hundred percent rated that as moderately to mostly helpful.
Four of the 13 NTs reported regularly scheduled group meetings of all NTs
in the school, usually chaired by the principal or mentors. One NT (25%) found
these meetings extremely helpful, one (25%) moderately helpful, and two (50%)
totally unhelpful because they were for passing information only and not for
problem solving or group discussion of common issues.
71
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Veteran New Teachers (VNTs)
Among the 23 VNTs, 18 (78%) had an individual introductory get-together
with their principal. Of those, four (22%) met early in the summer before school,
and 14 (78%) during the first week of school. Eleven (61%) rated the meeting as
extremely helpful, and seven (39%) as moderately helpful. Twenty of the 23 VNTs
(87%) reported various additional interactions with their principals, including
incidental hallway chats, issue-related and sociable e-mail conversations, standard
staff meetings, special meetings about problem students, and formal evaluations.
Ten (50%) rated these interactions as extremely helpful, eight (40%) as moderately
helpful, and two (10%) as somewhat helpful.
Twenty of the VNTs (87%) had an experienced teacher assigned to them as
a mentor. The other three VNTs had nominal mentors assigned but felt they were
not experienced teachers. Only three of the VNTs (13%) participated in selecting
their mentor. Thirteen of the VNTs (56%) rated their mentor-mentoree
compatibility as extremely high, six (26%) as moderately high, three (13%) as
adequate, and one (4%) as unsatisfactory. A key recommendation from the VNTs
was to ensure that the mentor was at least as familiar with the local area as the
mentoree. Thirteen (57%) said their mentors had adequate free time to meet during
regular school hours, and three (13%) had attended training with their mentor.
The VNTs reported that only four of their mentors (17%) observed their
classroom teaching, and none more often than monthly. Two of these VNTs (50%)
72
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
rated their mentor's observations as extremely helpful, two (50%) as moderately
helpful. Seventeen of the VNTs (74%) had been observed in their classrooms by
their principals, the majority only once or twice. Six (35%) found these principal's
observations extremely helpful, eight (47%) moderately helpful, and three (17%)
somewhat helpful. Only three of the 23 VNTs (13%) said they observed their
mentor's classroom teaching, most no more than once a month. Two (67%) rated
these observations as extremely helpful, one (33%) as moderately helpful. Seven
of the 23 VNTs (30%) said they had occasionally observed the classrooms of
teachers other than their mentors, and the majority found it helpful.
Nine of the VNTs (39%) reported regularly scheduled group meetings of all
VNTs in the school, usually chaired by the principal. As a forum for problem
solving, information exchange, and candid discussion of common issues, five
(56%) found these meetings extremely helpful, four (44%) moderately helpful.
Reduced Load, Released Time, and Stipends
Effective induction programs recognize that mentoring a new teacher is a
time-consuming addition to the mentor's plate of responsibilities. Thus, and where
possible, compensation is generally offered to the mentor through released time,
reduced teaching load, and/or monetary stipends. These same benefits are often
given to the new teachers too as a way of ensuring adequate time and incentive to
engage in mentoring activities.
73
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Questionnaire Items: (P) 11-13
(M) 12, 13
(T) 17-19, 24
Principals
Fourteen of the 16 principals (88%) said their new teachers (NTs) and their
mentors were paid an extra monetary stipend. Both principals comprising the
remaining 12% said they did not know.
According to their principals, no teachers are given a lighter classroom
teaching load than other teachers. Fourteen of the principals (88%) said their
mentors' teaching loads were not reduced to make time for meeting with mentorees
during regular school hours. Four of the principals (25%) said their schools were
consistently unable to implement released time for new teachers and their mentors
as required by the TAP.
Mentors of NTs
Among the 13 mentors of NTs, 12 (92%) said they were paid an extra
monetary stipend. The one mentor who comprised the remaining 8% said she did
not know. None had had their classroom teaching loads reduced to make time to
meet with their mentorees.
74
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Mentors o f VNTs
Among the 15 mentors of VNTs, 12 (80%) said they were paid an extra
monetary stipend, and three (20%) said they were not. None had had their
classroom teaching loads reduced to make time to meet with their mentorees.
New Teachers (NTs)
Ten of the 13 NTs (77%) said that they and their mentors were paid an extra
monetary stipend. Twelve (92%) said their teaching loads and those of their
mentors had not been reduced. Four (31%) of NTs said they were given fewer non-
instructional duties (e.g., playground supervision) than more experienced teachers.
Veteran New Teachers (VNTs)
Eighteen of the 23 VNTs (78%) said that they and their mentors were paid
an extra monetary stipend. Twenty (87%) said their teaching loads had not been
reduced, and a hundred percent said their mentors' loads had not been reduced.
Only four VNTs (17%) said they were given fewer non-instructional duties (e.g.,
playground supervision) than more experienced teachers.
Professional Development
One of the key features of any induction program for new teachers is to
assist in their development from novice to fully competent, self-confident
75
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
professional. This includes their achieving the required licenses and credentials,
which unassisted can be a daunting task for young professionals who may already
be feeling overwhelmed and exhausted by the myriad day-to-day challenges of
their new vocation. In Washington State, the Teacher Assistance Program (TAP)
requires new teachers to develop, in conjunction with their mentors, a Professional
Growth Plan.
Questionnaire Items: (M) 17, 18
(T) 27-29
Mentors o f NTs
Among the 13 mentors of NTs, seven (54%) had assisted their mentorees in
understanding and working on their Professional Growth Plans. Six (46%) had not
assisted their mentorees.
Among the mentors of NTs, four (31%) said they had assisted their
mentorees in completing their professional certification. Nine (69%) said they had
not assisted their mentorees.
Mentors of VNTs
Among the 15 mentors of VNTs, only one (7%) had assisted his mentoree
with a Professional Growth Plan. Fourteen (93%) said they had not, pointing out
that VNTs either do not require Professional Growth Plans or do not require
76
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
assistance in developing them. Among the mentors of VNTs, all 15 (100%) said
they had not assisted their mentorees in becoming certified, noting that their VNTs
were already certified.
New Teachers (NTs)
Among the 13 NTs, only three (23%) had begun working on their
Professional Growth Plan. Current mentors and former university teaching faculty
were identified as providing assistance, with one (33%) describing the assistance as
extremely helpful, one (33%) as moderately helpful, and one (33%) as slightly
helpful. Among the comments made by NTs for improving the assistance were
"eliminate the requirement and permit self-directed study instead," "if someone
who understands it would just show an interest in helping us novices," and "I don't
even know what it is."
Among the 15 NTs, two (15%) said their professional certification was
progressing at an outstanding pace, one (8%) at a good pace, two (15%) slowly,
and eight (62%) said they had not yet started. Among the five NTs who had begun
the certification process, two (40%) said others were helping them with it,
primarily coworkers, mentors, and, in one case, the principal. One (50%) said the
assistance was extremely helpful, one (50%) said moderately helpful. For
improving the process, one NT commented that "a better explanation of exactly
what it is and why we're doing it might make it less confusing and burdensome."
77
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Six of the 13 NTs (46%) reported that inservice conferences, courses, and
workshops had been made available for them to attend. One of the six attendees
(17%) described these opportunities as extremely helpful, four (67%) said they
were moderately helpful, and one (17%) said slightly helpful.
Veteran New Teachers (VNTs)
Among the 23 VNTs, three (13%) said they had been working on their
Professional Growth Plan, 13 (57%) said they had not, and seven (30%) said it was
not required. Principals, current mentors, and former university teaching faculty
were identified by the VNTs as providing assistance, with one (33%) describing the
assistance as extremely helpful, one (33%) as moderately helpful, and one (33%) as
slightly helpful.
Among the comments made by VNTs about the Professional Growth Plan
were "the requirement is a major frustration and demoralizer that distracts teachers
from the more meaningful things they should be doing with their students," "to
require this of veteran teachers with solid certificates from other states is absurd
and a real disincentive to move here," and "I may retire instead of enduring the
inordinate time and tuition expense to renew my certificate when it expires."
Among the 23 VNTs, two (9%) percent said their professional certification
was progressing at an outstanding pace, four (17%) said at a good pace, four (17%)
said slowly, eight (35%) had not yet started, and five (22%) said it was not
78
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
applicable. Among the 10 VNTs who had begun the certification process, seven
(70%) said others were helping them with it, mainly coworkers, mentors,
principals, university faculty, and OSPI personnel. One (14%) said the assistance
was extremely helpful, four (57%) moderately helpful, and two (29%) slightly
helpful. Recommendations from VNTs for improving the process were to
"have a subject matter expert at the district level who can clarify precisely what the
requirements and procedures are," and "make boilerplate templates available so
teachers won't have to keep reinventing the wheel."
Fourteen of the 23 VNTs (61%) reported that inservice conferences,
courses, and workshops had been made available for them to attend. Five of the 14
attendees (36%) described these opportunities as extremely helpful, eight (57%) as
moderately helpful, and one (7%) as slightly helpful.
Balance Between Evaluation and Assistance
Induction programs for new teachers should try to strike a suitable balance
between evaluating or scoring their performance and psychologically supporting
them in improving it. Objective assessment, if done in a low-threat, nonjudgmental
manner, provides key feedback that a new teacher can use as a springboard toward
improved performance and self-confidence. Effective programs always convey a
measure of unqualified acceptance, reassurance, and emotional support.
7 9
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Questionnaire Items: (P) 15
(M) 20
(T) 32
Principals
Eleven of the 16 principals (69%) described their school's induction
program as "heavily assistance oriented." Four (25%) said "slightly more
assistance than assessment," and one (6%) said it was an equal balance of
assessment and assistance.
Mentors of NTs
Among the 13 mentors of NTs, six (46%) described their roles in relating to
their mentorees as "heavily assistance oriented," six (46%) said "slightly more
assistance than assessment," and one (8%) said "equal measures of both assistance
and assessment."
Mentors of VNTs
Among the 15 mentors of VNTs, 10 (67%) described their roles in relating
to their mentorees as "heavily assistance oriented," and five (33%) said "slightly
more assistance than assessment."
8 0
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
New Teachers (NTs)
Among the 13 NTs, three (23%) found their induction programs to be
"heavily assistance oriented," four (31%) found them "slightly more assistance than
assessment," two (15%) found them equally balanced between assistance and
assessment, one (8%) found it to be "slightly more assessment than assistance," and
three (23%) found them to be "heavily assessment oriented." In terms of how the
NTs thought the ideal program ought to be, three (23%) said "heavily assistance
oriented," six (46%) said "slightly more assistance than assessment," two (15%)
suggested an equal balance between the two, and two (15%) suggested it be
assistance oriented at the beginning of the year but gradually shift toward
assessment as the year progresses.
Veteran New Teachers (VNTs)
Among the 23 VNTs, two (9%) found their programs to be "heavily
assistance oriented," eight (35%) "slightly more assistance than assessment," nine
(39%) "slightly more assessment than assistance," and four (17%) "heavily
assessment oriented." In terms of how the VNTs thought the optimal program
ought to be, six (26%) said "heavily assistance oriented," 12 (52%) "slightly more
assistance than assessment," three (13%) an equal balance between the two, and
two (9%) suggested "slightly more assessment than assistance."
81
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Summary Self-Reports and Expectations for NTs
On Part I of the Teacher Questionnaire, the 13 NTs were asked to rate
overall how things were currently going for them, using a 10-point scale from 1 =
Dreadfully to 10 = Incredibly Great. The median score was 8, with a range from
5.5 to 9.5. On the same 10-point scale, they also rated themselves on how excited
and upbeat they were most days about going to school. The median score was 8,
with a range from 5.5 to 10.
On Part III of the Teacher Questionnaire, the NTs were asked to use the
same 10-point scale to rate overall how their school year had been so far. The
median score was 7, with a range from 5 to 9. Using the same scale, they were then
asked to estimate and score how they thought the following year would be. For
that the median score was 8, with a range from 5 to 10. Among the 13 NTs, five
(38%) predicted the same rating for next year as for this year, seven (54%)
predicted that next year would be better (two by one-half a point, four by one point,
and one by two points), and one (8%) predicted that next year would be worse by
one point.
In terms of downstream expectations, eleven (85%) of the thirteen NTs are
fully intending to still be teaching in five years. One (8%) is already certain that he
will be in a different career, and one (8%) is ambivalent about staying in teaching.
82
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Summary Self-Reports and Expectations for VNTs
On Part I of the Teacher Questionnaire, the 23 VNTs were asked to rate
overall how things were currently going for them, using a 10-point scale from 1 =
Dreadfully to 10 = Incredibly Great. The median score was 8, with a range from 2
to 9. On the same 10-point scale, they also rated themselves on how excited and
upbeat they were most days about going to school. The median score was 8, with a
range from 1 to 10.
On Part III of the Teacher Questionnaire, the VNTs were asked to use the
same 10-point scale to rate overall how their school year had been so far. The
median score was 7.5, with a range from 3 to 9. Using the same scale, they were
then asked to estimate and score how they thought the following year would be.
For that the median score was 8.75, with a range from 4.5 to 10. Among the 23
VNTs, eight (35%) predicted the same rating for next year as for this year, fourteen
(61%) predicted that next year would be better (one by one-half a point, six by one
point, six by two points, and one by 3 points), and one (4%) predicted that next
year would be worse by two points.
In terms of downstream expectations, 21 (91%) of the 23 VNTs expect to
still be teaching in five years. One (4%) is already certain that she will be leaving
teaching for a different career, and one (4%) is ambivalent about staying in
teaching.
83
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Summary of Findings
The response rate among all categories of subjects in this study was
adequate. There was good gender balance among participants. Mentors were
somewhat racially diverse, but the new teachers were predominantly Caucasian.
Whether this represents a trend toward diminishing racial diversity is uncertain.
Principals
Principals were very supportive of their new teachers, but their familiarity
with the TAP and mentoring program details was variable. Several did not know if
their school's program goals and objectives were given to new teachers in writing.
Most principals agreed that program policy was made at the state or district level,
but they were split on whether primary responsibility for execution resides at the
district level or at the school site itself. The majority thought state funding for
mentoring was insufficient, and it was rare that schools were able to supplement it.
Only a minority of principals had ever been asked by their districts for feedback
and recommendations about the mentoring program.
All principals scheduled periodic meetings with their new teachers, and all
observed their classroom teaching at least occasionally. All principals reported too
few resources to comply consistently with the TAP requirement that new teachers
and their mentors be given lighter classroom teaching loads.
84
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
The majority of principals described their programs as heavy on assistance
and light on assessment, although several saw them as balanced between the two.
None thought their programs emphasized assessment over assistance.
Mentors
Although the research results were analyzed and reported separately for
mentors of NTs and mentors of VNTs, the findings for both groups were
comparable in all but a few cases; consequently, the summary that follows applies
to both groups except where indicated.
About half of the mentors had not previously been mentors. Most had
volunteered to be mentors, but about a fourth felt selected without an option to
refuse.
There was some inconsistency in the timing and manner in which mentors
were notified of their selection and introduced to their mentorees. The
inconsistencies and delays were greater for VNTs than for NTs. In a few cases the
pairings did not occur until after school had started, and in others the mentorees
were left to initiate the contact. This was frustrating for the affected mentors and
new teachers alike.
The training offered to mentors was considered moderately helpful by the
majority, but improvements were recommended. Fewer than half of the mentors
85
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
took their mentorees with them to the training. Only a minority of mentors was
asked for feedback about the training.
Most mentors felt well-matched to their mentorees. The vast majority of
mentors of NTs frequently observed their mentoree's classroom teaching, and most
NTs reciprocated by observing their mentors' classroom teaching. Understandably,
such observations were less frequent between the VNTs and their mentors.
For mentors of NTs, about half had assisted their mentorees with their
Professional Growth Plans, and a third had assisted with their professional
certification. For mentors of VNTs, these numbers were 1 of 15 and none,
respectively, primarily because VNTs are already certified and proven
professionals.
All mentors agreed that their programs gave more emphasis to assisting the
new teachers than to assessing them.
New Teachers
Although the research results were analyzed and reported separately for
NTs and VNTs, the findings for both groups were comparable in all but a few
cases; consequently, the summary that follows applies to both groups except where
indicated.
Most new teachers were satisfied with their packets of material about
community resources, although some had to ask for them. The majority received
86
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
helpful curriculum guides and school-specific information, but some found them
outdated or too complex. No new teachers rated their one-day district-sponsored
orientation sessions better than moderately helpful, and more than one in four rated
them not helpful.
Surprisingly, only half of the NTs had individual introductory meetings
with their principal, while more than three-fourths of the VNTs did. Guided tours
of their schools were helpful, but some found them too impromptu, cursory, and
hurried.
The majority of new teachers were satisfied with their mentors, but there
were exceptions. Some NTs thought their mentors were no more experienced than
themselves, and some VNTs thought their mentors were less experienced. About
half of the NTs but only one-tenth of the VNTs assisted in selecting their mentors.
The NTs felt more compatible with their mentors than did the VNTs. Most NTs
said they had been observed in classroom teaching by their mentors, but even more
had been observed by their principals. Most had also observed their mentor's
classroom teaching. Not surprisingly, the VNTs were not observed as regularly.
Though required by the TAP, no new teachers were given lighter classroom
teaching loads. About a third of the NTs were given fewer non-instructional
collateral duties.
Only a fourth of the NTs had begun working on their TAP-required
Professional Growth Plan. Most found it to be a daunting, no-value-added
87
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
distraction. Less than half of the NTs had started on their professional certification.
In terms of applicability to VNTs, there appeared to be different interpretations or
inconsistent enforcement of these requirements.
In contrast to the perceptions of principals and mentors, who saw their
programs as predominantly assistance-oriented, over a third of NTs and more than
half of VNTs saw them as more assessment-oriented.
Using a 10-point scale, most new teachers reported that things had gone
well for them during the year. A majority predicted improvement in the following
year, and the vast majority of both NTs (85%) and VNTs (91%) expected to still be
in the teaching profession in five years.
8 8
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Chapter 5
Conclusions
This chapter includes the conclusions, implications, and recommendations
that I derived from the findings that were itemized and summarized in the previous
chapter. I organized this chapter according to the six thematic topics and research
questions.
Research Questions
Research Question 1
RQ 1: Goals and Program Administration — Are program goals and objectives
clearly articulated and communicated, and are administrative actions by
accountable agents conducive to program success?
Guidelines and requirements for the mentoring of new teachers are
promulgated in Washington State by the Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction (OSPI) under the Teacher Assistance Program (TAP). Although school
districts have oversight and coordinating responsibilities for TAP implementation,
day-to-day execution is expected to occur primarily at the school site itself. Some
89
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
principals in this study appeared uncertain about that, however, and some were
unfamiliar with the details of the TAP. That does not necessarily mean that their
school's mentoring programs were deficient as a result, but full awareness of their
role as the primary accountable agent would likely give mentoring a more visible
and emphatic profile at their school.
Initial communications to new teachers regarding the TAP and the school's
mentoring program were sometimes untimely, which does not project a warm
reception and positive first impression to the new teacher. In most cases mentors
were volunteers, and the majority felt well-matched to their mentorees. Training
for mentors was considered helpful, but more should have taken their mentorees
with them to the training. Too few mentors and mentorees were asked for their
feedback and recommendations about the training.
Key recommendations include the following:
1. District superintendents and school principals should collaborate closely
to clarify and articulate the goals, roles, and responsibilities of the local
new teacher induction program, and these should be fully
communicated to mentors and mentorees alike.
2. Mentors and mentorees should attend induction program training as a
team in order to ensure common understanding and to reinforce their
bonding.
3. Principals should fully familiarize themselves with the TAP.
90
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Research Question 2
RQ 2: Introduction to Resources — Are new teachers introduced to important
school and community resources that will facilitate early adaptation to
their new environment?
For the most part, new teachers were adequately introduced to the key
resources in their schools and local communities, although sometimes they had to
seek out information that should have been routinely provided. Information
packets and chamber of commerce presentations highlighted important community
businesses and recreational opportunities.
District-wide orientation sessions for new teachers were found helpful to
most but not to others. Some thought too much material was packed into too little
time, and topics recommended for expanded coverage included the Washington
Assessment of Student Learning (WASL), sick day policy, software grading
programs, and fundraising regulations.
Curriculum guides and teacher's handbooks were distributed by the schools
to most new teachers, but not always in a well-organized and timely manner. Some
thought they needed to be updated and simplified. Most new teachers were given
escorted tours to acquaint them with their new schools, but some responded that the
tours were too brief and should be conducted in a more relaxed, leisurely manner.
91
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Key recommendations include the following:
1. Where possible, mentors should be encouraged to attend all orientation
and community awareness sessions with their mentorees.
2. Districts and schools should be proactive in providing school and
community information to new teachers.
3. Printed guides and handbooks should be up-to-date and user-friendly.
4. School tours should not be hurried and are best conducted by the
principal, if possible.
Research Question 3
RQ 3: Interactions with Mentorees — What interactions are occurring, and with
whom, in the mentoring relationship, and what are the perceptions,
opinions, and recommendations of the new teachers and other
participants in that relationship?
Formal and informal interactions with a variety of different people
contributed to the new teachers' induction to the profession. Several new teachers
had done their student teaching in the same schools where they were now
employed. District personnel and teacher panels involved in hiring interviews were
the first local points of contact for most prospective new hires. Principals were key
players in formally welcoming the new teachers to their school and sustaining that
92
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
welcome through informal follow-on interactions and supportive classroom
observations. Fellow teachers and school staff also help determine the new
teacher's induction experience. The key and recurrent interactions that are most
influential, however, are those that the new teachers have with their mentors.
Unfortunately, only half of the NTs and about three-fourths of the VNTs
had an individual introductory meeting with their principal. Not being invited to
meet your new boss cannot help but convey an avoidable negative connotation. All
principals reported meeting informally but regularly with their new teachers and at
least occasionally observed their classroom teaching.
For the most part, new teachers felt well-matched to their mentors and
positive about their interactions. Factors that were noted by both mentors and
mentorees to impede optimal interaction include teaching different subjects, having
classrooms too far apart to permit easy access for ad lib interaction, and having
schedules that are not synchronized to permit regular get-togethers during the
school day.
The mentor's observation and constructive critique of the new teacher's
classroom teaching were especially helpful, and most mentorees were given
frequent opportunity to reciprocate by observing their mentor's classroom teaching.
Meetings of all new teachers in the school were considered helpful if they
had a problem-solving focus and permitted free, nonjudgmental discussion of
93
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
issues. If they were only for passing information to the group, it was not
considered time well spent.
Key recommendations include the following:
1. Superintendents and principals should emphasize to their staffs the
importance of being proactively helpful and supportive to new teachers.
This helps create a welcoming and caring atmosphere within which the
new teacher can thrive.
2. Mentors should be carefully selected, using input and preferences of the
new teacher where possible, and then introduced to the mentoree at the
earliest opportunity.
3. At the earliest opportunity, principals should meet individually with
each of their new teachers. This reflects to the new teacher that he or
she is an important and valued professional.
4. Despite scheduling difficulties, mentors must make time to meet
regularly with their mentorees, even if it is on a no-agenda basis.
9 4
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Research Question 4
RQ4: Reduced Load, Released Time, and Stipends — Are mentors and
mentorees allotted adequate extra time and reduction in workload to
encourage and enable a meaningful mentoring relationship, and are they
compensated with appropriate extra pay to incentivize and reward the
extra work required for effective induction?
All NTs and their mentors were being paid the standard TAP-required,
TAP-funded stipend. Most VNTs and their mentors reported that they, too, were
paid a stipend, though apparently primarily from local district funds.
No schools had granted released time or reduced the classroom teaching
loads of any of its mentors, citing too few teachers and too many classes to permit
it. This represents non-compliance with the TAP, but it is reported to be so
widespread in the state that it cannot be reasonably enforced. Only about one-tenth
of the new teachers reported reduced workload, and several others said they had
been given fewer non-instructional collateral duties such as playground
supervision.
Research Question 5
RQ 5: Professional Development — Are the induction program practices
successfully prompting and assisting new teachers to gain certification
and meet other mandated professional milestones?
95
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
This appeared to be an area of low activity, slow progress, and significant
frustration for most NTs, and many VNTs thought the requirements either did not
or should not apply to them. Even though they were seven months into the
academic year, only one-fourth of the NTs had started to work on their Professional
Growth Plans. Many thought the prescribed process duplicated much of what they
had already accomplished while still in college, and they complained that creating
the Plan was a laborious, low-value-added paper-intensive exercise that distracted
them from other, more important things they needed to do to improve their teaching
skills. Those who were underway with their Plans reported that their mentors and
other school staff personnel offered good advice and sympathetic support.
One assistant superintendent anecdotally shared his concern that if VNTs
were forced to complete Professional Growth Plans, they might decide either not to
move into the area or not to teach here. In either case we could end up keeping
experienced, high-quality teachers from joining our teacher pool.
The key recommendation is as follows:
1. The requirement for new teachers to complete Professional Growth
Plans should be carefully reviewed and clarified by OSPI, with a focus
on reassessing its rationale, simplifying the process if it is retained, and
clarifying the circumstances, if any, under which it should be required
of VNTs. The goal should be to reduce or eliminate burdensome, user-
unfriendly, low-value-added, or duplicative requirements.
96
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Research Question 6
RQ 6: Balance between Evaluation and Assistance — Are the induction
programs striking an appropriate balance between objectively assessing
the new teacher's performance, on the one hand, and psychologically
supporting and unconditionally accepting him or her on the other hand?
The key finding in this area is one of disagreement and opposing
perceptions between the principals and mentors, on the one hand, and their new
teachers on the other. While principals and mentors saw their induction programs
and practices as predominantly assistance-oriented, over a third of NTs and more
than half of VNTs saw them as more highly assessment-oriented.
If school leaders are not aware of how their programs are seen and received
by the intended beneficiaries, then the probability of full program success is likely
reduced. In this study, the identified failure of leaders to solicit candid feedback
from new teachers may be a culprit, along with their failure to systematically
include new teachers in the design of those programs. It may also be that while the
programs are structurally sound and well-designed, the deliveiy of those programs
by principals and mentors might somehow convey an unwitting air of assessment
more than support.
9 7
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Key recommendations include the following:
1. New teachers should be invited to participate in the design of the
mentoring program, and their feedback should be sincerely and
systematically solicited and then appreciated.
2. Training for mentors should emphasize that their attitude during
program delivery and interactions with mentorees are just as important,
if not more so, than technical perfection.
New Teacher Expectations
It is interesting and encouraging to note that the vast majority of new
teachers in this study felt very good about how things had gone for them during the
year. In addition, the majority predicted that things the next year would be even
better for them.
An even more exciting finding is the very high percentage of new teachers
who anticipate that they will still be teaching in five years, 85% for NTs and 91%
for VNTs. The finding for VNTs may not be unexpected, since many of them are
older, made their career commitment to teaching years earlier, and are staying the
course during the latter stages of their careers.
However, the high percentage for NTs (85%) is perhaps somewhat
surprising and is definitely very encouraging, since they are younger, brand new to
the profession, and could more freely opt to leave it. Even though their mentoring
98
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
was clearly not the only career-affecting influence in their new professional lives, it
likely played at least a partial role in their adapting to the point of intending to stay
for at least five more years. It may be that even with the deficiencies and areas of
non-compliance identified in this study, the induction programs were nevertheless
effective in binding the newcomer to the teaching profession and, thereby, reducing
attrition. It should also be noted that these self-reported data were collected from
the new teachers during the "rejuvenation" part of the academic year described by
Moir (1999), so their optimism and enthusiasm about the future could have been
enhanced by that.
9 9
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
References
Badertscher, J. A. (1978). Inducting newly placed teachers: Orientation
responsibilities o f the school administrator. (U. S. Educational Resources
Information Center, ERIC Document No. ED 155 805)
Barr, A., & Rudisill, M. (1930). Inexperienced teachers who fail - and why.
Nation's Schools, 5(2), 30-34.
Bartell, C. A. (1995). Shaping teacher induction policy in California. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 22(4), 27-43.
Bartell, C. A. (2005). Cultivating high-quality teaching through induction and
mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Benson, S. K. (1983). Beginning teacher orientation programs utilized by high
school principals o f the states o f Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State
University, Commerce.
Bergeson, T. (2002). Educator supply and demand in Washington state—2002
report. Olympia, WA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Bradley, H. W., & Eggleston, J. F. (1978). An induction year experiment.
Educational Research, 20, 89-97.
Cable, P. (1956). Problems of new teachers. Educational Administration and
Supervision, 42, 170-177.
Cable, P. (1957). Basic principles for new teacher orientation. American School
Board Journal, 134, 41-42.
Calderhead, J. (1992). The role of reflection in learning to teach. In L. Valli (Ed.),
Reflective teacher education: Causes and Critiques. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
1 0 0
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Compton, R. S. (1979). The beginning high school teacher: Apprentice or
professional? American Secondary Education, 9(3), 23-29.
Conant, J. B. (1963). The Education o f American Teachers. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Daresh, J. D. (2003). Teachers mentoring teachers: A practical approach to
helping new and experienced staff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
DeBolt, G. (1992). Teacher induction and mentoring. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Dooley, H. R. (1970). A program to study the skills, understandings, and
professional commitment o f new teachers to work with poverty-stricken
Mexican-American pupils in South Texas schools. A Director's Report.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 045 564)
Fagan, M., & Walter, G. (1982). Mentoring among teachers. Journal o f
Educational Research, 76(2), 112-118.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 25-29.
Felder, B. D., & Houston, W. R. (1982). Break horses, not teachers. Phi Delta
Kappan, 63, 457-460.
Fessler, R., & Christiansen, J. (1992). The teacher career cycle: Understanding and
guiding the professional development o f teachers. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fidelar, L., & Haselkom, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction
programs and practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting
New Teachers, Inc.
Flesher, W. (1945). The beginning teacher. Educational Research Bulletin, 24, 14-
18.
Fox, S. M., & Singletary, T. J. (1986). Deductions about supportive inductions.
Journal o f Teacher Education, 37, 12-15.
101
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization.
American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-225.
Gorton, R. A. (1973). Comments on research: The beginning teacher. NASSP
Bulletin, 57, 100-108.
Grant, C., & Zeichner, K. (1981). Inservice support for first year teachers: The state
of the scene. Journal o f Research and Development, 14(2), 99.
Guarino, C., Santibanez, L, Daley, G., & Brewer, D. (2004). A review o f the
research literature on teacher recruitment and retention. Santa Monica,
CA: RAND Corporation, TR-164-EDU.
Haberman, M. (1994). Gentle teaching in a violent society. Educational Horizons,
72(3), 1-13.
Hermanowicz, H. J. (1966). The real world o f the beginning teacher: The
pluralistic world o f beginning teachers. Washington, DC: National
Education Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No ED 030
616)
Hill, S. D. (1961). The development o f criteria for orientation programs fo r new
teachers. Doctoral dissertation: University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
Hite, F. H. (1966). Effects o f reduced loads and intensive inservice training upon
the classroom behavior o f beginning elementary teachers. Cooperative
Research Project No. 2973 (Bureau No. 5-0360) of the Office of Education,
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Howey, K. R. (1977). Preservice teacher education: Lost in the shuffle? Journal o f
Teacher Education, 28(6), 25-28.
Hunt, D. (1968). Teacher induction—A key to excellence. NASSP Bulletin,
52(330), 68-78.
Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong
prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86, 16-31.
Jacobi, F. H. (1959). Ladder of professional improvement. NEA Journal, 48.
10 2
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a 'sense of success': New
teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research
Association, 40(3), 581-617.
Johnston, J. (1981). A knowledge base fo r teacher induction. Detroit, Michigan.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 198 142)
Julius, A. K. (1976). Britain's new induction plan for teachers. Elementary School
Journal, 76, 350-357.
Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in
teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509-536.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Lucas, J. A. (1963). The orientation o f high school teachers. Doctoral dissertation:
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Matthews, R. (1976). An assessment o f problems reported by selected first-year
secondary teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South
Carolina, Columbia.
McDonald, F. (1980). The problems of beginning teachers: A crisis in training.
(Vol. 1), Study o f Induction Programs for Beginning Teachers. Princeton,
NJ: Educational Testing Service.
McLaughlin, M. W., Pfeifer, R. S., Swanson-Owens, D., & Yee, S. (1986). Why
teachers won't teach. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(6), 420-425.
Moir, E. (1999). The stages of a teacher's first year. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better
beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers (pp. 19-23). Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Moir, E., Gless, J., & Baron, W. (1999). A support program with heart: The Santa
Cruz project. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better beginning: Supporting and
mentoring new teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Moller, G. (1968). A comprehensive study o f the problems o f beginning teachers in
selected larger senior high schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
103
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Morsink, C. V, Blackhurst, A. E., & Williams, S. (1979). SOS: Follow-up support
to beginning learning disabilities teachers. Journal o f Learning Disabilities,
12, 50-54.
Myers, P. E. (1981). A crucial challenge: The principal and the beginning teacher.
NASSP Bulletin, 4, 70-75.
Newberry, J. (1978). The barrier between the new and experienced teacher. Journal
o f Educational Administration, 61(1), 46-55.
Oates, M. (1971). The mid-coast Maine project in the affective education o f
teachers: An evaluation. Newton, Massachusetts: Education Development
Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 091 359)
Odell, S. A., & Ferraro, D. P. (1992). Teacher mentoring and teacher retention.
Journal o f Teacher Education, 43(3), 200-205.
Odell, S. J., & Huling, L. (Eds.). (2000). Quality mentoring fo r novice teachers.
Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Olebe, M. G. (2001). A decade of policy support for California's new teachers: The
beginning teacher support and assessment program. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 25(1), 71-84.
Pataniczek, D., & Isaacson, N. S. (1981). The relationship of socialization and the
concerns of beginning secondary teachers. Journal o f Teacher Education,
32, 14-17.
Peske, H. G., Liu, E., Johnson, S. M., Kauffman, D., & Kardos, S. M. (2001). The
next generation of teachers: Changing conceptions of a career in teaching.
Phi Delta Kappan, 55(4), 304-311.
Ryan, K. (1970). Don't smile until Christmas: Accounts o f the first year o f
teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ryan, K. (1979). Toward understanding the problem: At the threshold of the
profession. In K. Howey & R. Bents (Eds.), Toward meeting the needs o f
beginning teachers. Minneapolis, MN: U. S. Department of Education/
Teacher Corp.
1 0 4
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Schlechty, P. C. (1985). A framework for evaluating induction into teaching.
Journal o f Teacher Education, 36, 37-41.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design
fo r teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwalenberg, R. J. (1965). Teacher orientation practices in Oregon secondary
schools. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Sigler, E. A. (1972). An analysis o f current teacher orientation programs and
practices in selected Texas secondary schools with implications for
program planning and assessment. Doctoral dissertation, North Texas State
University, Denton.
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Reducing teacher turnover: What are the
components of effective induction? American Educational Research
Journal, 41(2).
Soar, R., Medley, D., & Coker, H. (1983). Teacher evaluation: A critique of
currently used methods. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 239-246.
Swanson, P. (1968). A time to teach and a time to learn. NASSP Bulletin, 52, 74-84.
Taylor, S. (1971). Orientation and inservice education programs fo r beginning
teachers. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.
Tisher, R. P. (Ed.). (1978). The induction o f beginning teachers in Australia.
Melbourne, Australia: Monash University.
Tisher, R. P. (1979). Teacher induction: An aspect o f the education and
professional development o f teachers. Victoria, Australia: ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 200 515.
Torgerson, L. M. (1987). Teacher induction: A study o f practices involving
beginning elementary teachers in the greater Puget Sound area with a
recommended model fo r implementation. Doctoral dissertation: Seattle
University, Seattle, Washington.
105
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Tushnet, N. C., Briggs, D., Elliot, J., Esch, C., Haviland, D., Humphrey, D. C.,
Rayyes, N., Reihl, L. M., & Young, V. (2002). Final Report o f the
independent evaluation o f the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
Program (BTSA). Los Alamitos, CA: WestEd.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review o f
Educational Research, 54(2), 143-178.
Wesley, D. C. (2003). Nurturing the novices. Phi Delta Kappan, 2, 466-470.
Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., Berliner, D. C., Haller, E., Praskac,
A., & Schlechty, P. C. (1987). Effective teacher selection: From
recruitment to retention. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, R-3462-
NIE/CSTP.
Wisley, E. A. (1984). A comparison o f the perceptions o f beginning elementary
teachers and their principals o f the forms o f assistance fo r beginning
teachers. Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.
Wong, H. K., & Asquith, C. (2002). Supporting new teachers. American School
Board Journal, 12, 22-24.
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
A p p e n d i c e s
Appendix A: Questionnaire Item Categories
Appendix B: Teacher Questionnaire
Appendix C: Mentor Questionnaire
Appendix D: Principal Questionnaire
Appendix E: Draft Letter From Superintendents to Principals
Appendix F: Draft Letter From Principals to Teachers
Appendix G: Information Sheet for Principals
Appendix H: Letter to New Teachers
Appendix I: Information Sheet for New Teachers
Appendix J: Letter to Mentors
Appendix K: Information Sheet for Mentors
1 0 7
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Appendix A: Questionnaire Item Categories
Q u est io n n a ir e I tem C a t eg o r ie s
Teacher Questionnaire Items (from Part II)
Topic Question #
Notifications 1,2,5
Introduction to Community Resources 4
Introduction to District/School Resources 7-9, 11, 12
Support from Mentor/Other Teachers 13-17, 20-22, 25
Support from Principal 10, 23, 26
Released Time/Reduced Load 18, 19, 24
Professional Development 27-29
Evaluation vs. Assistance 32
Administrative Support/Other 3, 6, 31, 33
108
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Mentor Questionnaire Items
Topic
Program Administration
Prior Experience/Training
Interactions with Mentoree
Teaching Observations
Stipend/Released Time/ Reduced Load
Mentoree's Professional Development/Certification
Evaluation vs. Assistance
Other
Principal Questionnaire Items
Topic
Program History/Goals/ Objectives
Program Administration
Interactions with Mentorees
Evaluation vs. Assistance
Program Improvement
Other
Question #
2-6,19
1,9, 10
7, 8, 11, 14
15, 16
12, 13
17, 18
20
21
Question #
1,3
2, 4-7, 10-13
8,9
14, 15
16
17
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Appendix B: Teacher Questionnaire
T e a c h e r Q u estio n n a ir e
Name__________________________ Sex: M F Date of Interview_________
Racial/Ethnic Background_________ Location of _Interview____________________
School________________________ Grade_____Subject(s)__________________
Type of Credential at Entry___________________________
Degree/College/Y ear______________________
Prior Teaching Experience? YES NO
If YES, when/where/what grade?___________________________
Years in District_____ + Years Elsewhere______ = Total Years Teaching__________
Mentor's name________________
* * * * * * * * * * *
Part I Date of Interview
1. When did you first think you might want to become a teacher? Were you especially
influenced by a particular teacher or perhaps by someone in your family?
2. As you thought more and more about becoming a teacher, what pros and cons did you
identify and think about w hile trying to make up your mind?
3. As you thought about becoming a teacher, what did you think would be the most
gratifying and rewarding aspect of being a teacher?
110
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4. What did you think would be the biggest challenge or difficulty about teaching?
5. How did you decide to go to (specific college/university)? Did you go there intending
to get a teaching degree, or did you start out intending to major in some other field? If
the latter, how did you happen to switch over to teaching?
6. How and when did you decide what grade and what subject(s) you wanted to teach?
7. At this point in your first/second/third year of teaching, how are things going for you?
Dreadfully Incredibly
1_— 2 ----- 3 ------ 4 ------ 5 ------ 6 ------ 7 ------- 8 ------- 9 ------- 10
For example:
8. On the following scale, how excited and upbeat are you about going to school most
days?
Not at all Incredibly
1------ 2 ------3 ------ 4 ------ 5 ------6 ------- 7 ------- 8 ------- 9 ------- 10
Why?
9. In what two or three ways is teaching more difficult than you had thought it would be?
How have you dealt with those difficulties?
10. In what ways, if any, is teaching easier than you had thought it would be?
11. For you, what is the most frustrating recurrent thing about teaching? How have you
been able to deal with that?
12. If you can recall the very best day you have ever had as a teacher, what made it so
special?
13. If you can recall the very worst day you have ever had as a teacher, what happened that
made it so dreadful? How did you deal with it?
Ill
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
14. Ideally, what would you like to be doing in 5 years? in 10 years?
* * * * * * * * * * *
Part II Date of Interview___________
1 . When were you first told about the induction/orientation program for new teachers?
Was this notification timely? YES NO
2. How were you told about the induction/orientation program?
in person? by whom?___________________________
by phone call? from whom?______________________
by personal letter? from whom?____________________
by form letter? from whom?_______________________
by a general bulletin or announcement?
other?
Overall rating of the notification process: N/A 1 ---- 2 -----3 ------ 4
1 = totally lacking or not at all helpful or effective
2 = somewhat helpful or effective, but could definitely be improved
3 = moderately to mostly helpful or effective
4 = extremely helpful or effective
3. When did your induction/orientation program actually begin?
112
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4. Did you receive any information regarding non-school related needs such as a map of
the community or local information regarding housing, banking, grocery stores, health
clinics, or recreation and entertainment opportunities?
YES NO N/A
If YES, what types of information and from whom?
Was it provided without your asking, or did you have to ask for it?
Overall rating of this information: N/A------1 -----2 -----3 ----- 4
What other information regarding non-school related resources might have been
helpful?
5. When and by whom were you notified of your grade and building assignment and
room number?
before your first contract day? YES NO
if NO, when?__________
6. Does your grade assignment match your student teaching experience and preference?
YES NO
7. Were you given a curriculum guide before school began? YES NO
If YES, to what extent was it helpful? 1---- 2 ----- 3 ----- 4
8. Was there a district-wide orientation session for new teachers? YES NO
When?__________
What key topics were covered?
What items o f interest to you were not covered or were not covered adequately?
Overall rating of this session: N/A 1---- 2 ----- 3 --- 4
113
Reproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
9. Were you given a guided tour of your school? YES NO
By whom?__________________
Overall rating of this tour: N/A---- 1----- 2 -------3 ----4
How might this tour have been improved?
10. Did you have an individual get-together with the school principal? YES NO
When?__________
Overall rating of this meeting: N/A 1---- 2 ----- 3 ----- 4
How might this meeting have been more helpful?
11. Were you given a teacher's handbook about routine procedures and schedules?
YES NO
If so, when and by whom?________________________
Overall rating of this resource: N/A 1 ---- 2 ----- 3 ----- 4
How might this handbook be improved as a resource for new teachers?
12. Were you given adequate additional time to prepare your classroom for the opening of
school?
YES NO
Overall rating of this item: N/A-----1----- 2 -----3 ------4
13. Was an experienced teacher formally assigned as a mentor to assist you?
YES NO
Did you participate in selecting your mentor? YES NO
114
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
14. To what extent are you and your mentor well matched and compatible (e.g., teaches
same grade)?
N/A -— 1 -— 2 -— 3 -— 4
How might the assignment and matching of mentors to new teachers be improved?
15. Does your mentor have adequate free time to meet with you during regular school
hours?
YES NO
16. Have you and your mentor attended any training together about the mentoring
relationship?
YES NO
If YES, what training was especially helpful, and what additional training should be
added?
17. Are you and your mentor paid an extra monetary stipend? YES NO
18. As a new teacher, was your classroom teaching load reduced so that you would have
extra time available for meeting with your mentor?
YES NO
If so, will the reduced load/released time continue throughout the school year?
YES NO
19. Is your mentor's classroom teaching load reduced so that he/she will have extra time
for meeting with you?
YES NO
115
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
20. Does your mentor observe your classroom teaching? YES NO
If so, how often?_____
How helpful is his/her feedback and advice?-----N/A---1 -----2 ----- 3 ----- 4
21. Do you observe your mentor's classroom teaching? YES NO
If so, how often? and how helpful has that been for you? 1 — 2 — 3 — 4
22. Have other teachers provided you opportunities to observe their classroom teaching?
YES NO
If so, how helpful has that been for you? 1------- 2 ---3 ----- 4
23. Has your principal observed your classroom teaching? YES NO
If so, how often?______and how helpful has that been for you? 1 — 2 — 3 — 4
24. As a new teacher, have you been given fewer non-instructional duties (e.g., playground
supervision) than more experienced teachers?
YES NO
25. Do you and other new teachers have regularly-scheduled group meetings?
YES NO
If so, who leads these meetings, and what is the purpose of these meetings?
How effective and helpful have these meetings been? 1 ------2 ---- 3 ----- 4
26. Beyond your initial introductory meeting with the principal, what additional
interactions have you had with him/her?
How often?
How helpful have these interactions been? 1-----2 ---- 3 ------ 4
116
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
27. Have you been working on your Professional Growth Plan that’ s designed for new
teachers as part of the state's Teacher Assistance Program (TAP)?
YES NO
Have others helped you understand the requirements and procedures involved in
developing your Professional Growth Plan?
YES NO
If so, who?______ and how effective has their assistance been? 1 2 — 3 — 4
What more could be done to assist you with your Professional Growth Plan?
28. How is your professional certification progressing? 1---- 2 ----- 3 ------4
Have others helped you with this? YES NO
If so, who? and how helpful have they been? 1----- 2 ----- 3 -----4
What more could be done to help you with your professional certification?
29. Have inservice conferences, courses, and workshops been made available for you to
attend?
YES NO
If so, how helpful have they been? 1---- 2 -----3 ----- 4
30. Has your feedback been sought for improving the induction/orientation program for
next year's beginning teachers?
YES NO
31. Is your induction/orientation program still going on in your school, or has it been
concluded for the year?
117
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
32. If you think of your first year as a teacher as being both a period of probation during
which your performance is being assessed and evaluated as well as a period during
which you're being assisted to become more comfortable and self-confident, where on
the following 4-point scale would you place the program you've experienced here?
1
heavily
assessment
oriented
slightly more
assessment than
assistance
slightly more
assistance than
assessment
heavily
assistance
oriented
Where on the scale do you think the best program for you would be?
33. What items other than those we have discussed so far in this interview have been
especially helpful to you in your orientation to this community, this school district, and
this school?
a | e a | e a | e 9 f e a | c 9 | e a | e 4 ( a | e a | e 9 | c
Part III Date of Interview
1. As you look back over this year and think about it, how has it been for you so far?
What overall rating would you give it on the following scale?
Dreadful Incredible
1-------2 ------ 3 ----- 4 ------ 5 ------6 --------7 -------8 -------9 ------- 10
2. What thoughts, expectations, and hopes do you have for next year?
What overall rating are you predicting for next year?
Dreadful Incredible
1-------- 2 --------3 -------4 --------5 -------6 --------- 7 -------- 8 -------- 9 ---------10
118
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Appendix C: Mentor Questionnaire
M e n t o r Q u estio n n a ir e
Name_________________________ Sex: M F Date of Interview___________
Racial/Ethnic Background_________ Location of Interview____________________
School________________________ Grade Subject(s)__________________
Degree/College/Year______________________
Prior Teaching Experience? YES NO
If YES, when/where/what grade?___________________________
Years in District_____ + Years Elsewhere______ = Total Years Teaching__________
Mentored teacher's name_______________________
* * * * * * * * * * *
1. Have you previously been a mentor to a beginning teacher, or is this your first time?
If you have been a mentor in the past, when and where and for how many teachers?
2. Did you volunteer to be a mentor this year? or were you assigned without
having volunteered?_______
119
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
3. When and by whom were you first notified that you would be a mentor to someone this
year?
Was this notification timely? YES NO
4. Were you formally assigned in writing? YES NO
Did the assignment identify the beginning teacher by name? YES NO and
include information on how to contact him/her? YES NO
5. Do your mentoring responsibilities last for the entire academic year? YES NO
If not, what time frame do they cover?
6. How many teachers this year have you as their assigned mentor?_____
7. When and where did you first meet the teacher you were assigned to mentor?
Were you introduced to each other by someone else? YES NO
If so, who introduced you?
8. Was there a general meeting attended by all new teachers and their mentors prior to the
opening of school this year? YES NO
9. Were you provided training on how to be an effective mentor? YES NO
If so, where and when did the training occur, and what key topics were covered?
What topics, if any, were neglected or covered inadequately?
Overall rating of this training: N/A-----1----- 2 -----3 ------ 4
1 = totally lacking or not at all helpful or effective
2 = somewhat helpful or effective, but could definitely be improved
3 = moderately to mostly helpful or effective
4 = extremely helpful or effective
120
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
10. Have you and your "mentoree" attended any training together about the mentoring
relationship? YES NO
11. In what ways do you feel well-matched to your mentoree?
In what ways, if any, do you feel poorly matched?
12. As a mentor, are you paid an extra monetary stipend? YES NO
13. As a mentor, has your classroom teaching load been reduced so that you would have
extra time during regular school hours to meet with your mentoree? YES NO
14. Do you have a standing appointment for meeting with your mentoree? or do you
meet on an ad lib basis? or do you do both?____
15. Have you observed your mentoree's classroom teaching? YES NO
If so, how often?_____
16. Has your mentoree observed your classroom teaching? YES NO
If so, how often?_____
17. Have you assisted your mentoree in understanding and working on his/her Professional
Growth Plan that's designed for new teachers as part of the state's Teacher Assistance
Program (TAP)?
YES NO
18. Have you assisted your mentoree in completing his/her professional certification?
YES NO
19. Has your feedback been sought for improving the induction/orientation program for
next year's beginning teachers and their mentors?
YES NO
121
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
20. In your role as a mentor, you have been in the best position to assess and evaluate your
mentoree's performance, competence, problems, and future potential as a teacher. On
the other hand, your role as a mentor is intended to assist your beginning teacher to
become more comfortable and self-confident. What point on the following 4-point
scale best describes your overall role in relating to your mentoree?
1 ------------------- 2 ------------------- 3 -------------------- 4
heavily slightly more slightly more heavily
assessment assessment than assistance than assistance
oriented assistance assessment oriented
21. What items other than those we have discussed so far in this interview have been
especially important or problematic in your role as a mentor?
122
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Appendix D: Principal Questionnaire
P r in c ipa l Q u estio n n a ir e
Name_________________________ Sex: M F Date of Interview___________
Racial/Ethnic Background_________ Location of Interview_____________________
School________________________
Has been principal of this school since_________
9 | e 9 | c 9 f e 9 f e 9 | e » t e » f e ^ e 4 c a | c 9 | e
1. When did your school first set up a program for inducting/orienting new teachers?
To your knowledge, was there a program of some sort here before the state's Office of
the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) issued their guidelines for the Teacher
Assistance/Mentoring Assistance Program (TAP)?
YES NO
2. Does primary responsibility for the induction program for new teachers in this school
district reside at the district level or with you as school principal?
3. Are the program's goals and objectives stated in writing? YES NO
If Y ES, is the statement o f goals and objectives from you, the school district
superintendent, or OSPI?
What are the primary goals and objectives?
123
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
4. For new teachers in your school, when does their induction program start, and when
does it end?
5. Have the TAP guidelines from OSPI been tailored somewhat to fit your school's
individual needs and circumstances?
YES NO
If so, in what way(s)?
6. Does your school's induction program include only teachers in their first year who are
brand new to the teaching profession, or does it also include teachers who have
previously taught elsewhere but are brand new to your school?
7. Is funding for your school's program sufficient? YES NO
Do you get funds from the district for this program over and above those that are
provided by OSPI from the state's TAP funds?
YES NO
8. Do you have regularly scheduled meetings with your new teachers, or do you tend to
get together with them on an ad lib basis?
9. Have you occasionally gone into their classrooms to observe their teaching?
YES NO
If YES, about how often?_____
10. Does each new teacher have an assigned mentor? YES NO
How is a particular mentor selected for a particular new teacher?
11. Are your new teachers and their mentors paid an extra monetary stipend?
YES NO
124
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
12. Do your new teachers have a lighter classroom teaching load than your other teachers?
YES NO
13. Is the mentor's teaching load reduced to make time during regular school hours for
meeting with his/her "mentoree?"
YES NO
14. Is a mentor in your school excluded from actively participating in the formal appraisal
of his/her mentoree's performance?
YES NO
15. Mentors are often in the best position to assess and evaluate their new teacher's
performance, competence, problems, and future potential as a teacher. On the other
hand, their role as mentors is intended to assist the beginning teacher to become more
comfortable and self-confident. What point on the following 4-point scale best
describes the basic orientation of your school's induction program?
1 ------------------- 2 ------------------- 3 -------------------- 4
heavily slightly more slightly more heavily
assessment assessment than assistance than assistance
oriented assistance assessment oriented
16. Has your feedback been sought by the district or OSPI for improving the
induction/orientation program for new teachers?
YES NO
17. What items other than those we have discussed so far in this interview have been
especially important or problematic in the induction program for new teachers?
125
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Appendix E: Draft Letter From Superintendents to Principals
D r a ft L e t t e r F r o m Su per in t e n d en t s to P r in c ipa l s
Dear___________,
Bert Speir, local resident and graduate student in education at the University of
Southern California (USC), along with his major professor, Dr. Reynaldo Baca, is
doing his doctoral dissertation on that portion of Washington State's Teacher
Assistance/Mentoring Assistance Program (TAP) that deals with the orientation
and induction program for new teachers. For purposes of his research, a "new
teacher" is defined as one who is in his or her first, second, or third year of
teaching. His study is entitled " Induction Practices in Four Public School Districts
in Northwest Washington State: Perceptions of New Teachers, Mentors, and
Principals," and he is particularly interested in the experiences, perceptions, and
recommendations that our new teachers and their mentors and school principals
have regarding that program.
In order to conduct his research, Bert would like to interview individually each of
your new teachers, their mentors, and you. I have met Bert, discussed his proposed
interview instrument with him, and am certain that his findings will be of interest
and potential benefit. Bert's interviews will be conducted by him over the next
several weeks, and they will be scheduled by him to accommodate the interviewee's
convenience. He will likely need to do two brief follow-up interviews with new
teachers only. Your participation, and that of your new teachers and their mentors,
is voluntary, but I commend this opportunity to you for your consideration and for
its prospective benefits to our induction and retention of new teachers. (NOTE:
For your time-saving convenience and expedience, the interview instruments
can be readily provided for you and your teachers to fill out on your own in
lieu of a scheduled interview.)
You and your teachers can be reassured that Bert's research is not intended to gauge
anyone's performance or anyone's degree of compliance with the TAP. He is not
evaluating my performance, your performance, or the performance of your
teachers—his research is seeking only to discover our experiences, perceptions, and
126
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
opinions. Only aggregate findings will be reported—no individual responses will
be shared. You can be reassured, too, that this study will abide by and comply with
the procedures approved for human-subject research by the USC University Park
Institutional Review Board.
Bert will be contacting you shortly to informally discuss your school's opportunity
to participate in his study.
Sincerely,
127
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Appendix F: Draft Letter From Principals to Teachers
D r a ft L ett e r F r o m P r in c ipa l s to T e a c h e r s
Dear__________ ,
Bert Speir, local resident and graduate student in education at the University of
Southern California (USC), along with his major professor, Dr. Reynaldo Baca, is
doing his doctoral dissertation on that portion of Washington State's Teacher
Assistance/Mentoring Assistance Program (TAP) that deals with the orientation
and induction program for new teachers. For purposes of his research, a "new
teacher" is defined as one who is in his or her first, second, or third year of
teaching. His study is entitled "Induction Practices in Four Public School Districts
in Northwest Washington State: Perceptions of New Teachers, Mentors, and
Principals," and he is particularly interested in the experiences, perceptions, and
recommendations that our new teachers and their mentors have regarding that
program.
In order to conduct his research, Bert would like to interview individually each of
our school's new teachers and their mentors. Your participation is voluntary, but I
commend this opportunity to you for its prospective benefits to our induction and
retention of new teachers. His interview of mentors will be conducted in one
sitting. For new teachers, two brief follow-up interviews are likely. (NOTE: For
your time-saving convenience and expedience, the interview instruments can
be readily provided for you and your teachers to fill out on your own in lieu of
a scheduled interview.)
You can be fully reassured that Bert's research is not intended to gauge anyone's
performance or anyone's degree of compliance with the TAP. He is absolutely not
evaluating your performance—his research is seeking only to discover your
experiences, perceptions, and opinions. Only aggregate findings will be reported—
no individual responses will be shared. You can be reassured, too, that this study
128
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
will abide by and comply with the procedures approved for human-subject research
by the USC University Park Institutional Review Board.
Bert will be contacting you shortly to informally discuss your opportunity to
participate in his study.
Sincerely,
129
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Appendix G: Information Sheet for Principals
In fo r m a t io n Sh eet fo r P r in c ipa l s
University o f Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET
FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Induction Practices in Four Public School Districts in Northwest
Washington State: Perceptions of New Teachers, Mentors, and Principals
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Reynaldo Baca,
Ph.D., and Herbert Speir, BA, MS, MBA, from the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. Results of this research will be contributed
to Mr. Speir's doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in
this study because you the principal of a school that has at least one new teacher. A
total of 12-16 principals from four public school districts in northwest Washington
State will participate in this study. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in this research study because we are trying to learn
more about the new teacher induction practices that are occurring in the
elementary, middle, and high schools of four specific public school districts in
northwest Washington State. We are especially interested in your perceptions,
experiences, and recommendations.
Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in
this research project.
130
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in an interview. The entire interview will be
conducted today and should take about 25 minutes. The interview consists of 17
questions about your administrative oversight of the induction program and your
perceptions, opinions, and recommendations. Two sample questions are (1) For
new teachers in your school, when does their induction program start, and when
does it end? and (2) Does your school's induction program include only teachers in
their first year who are brand new to the teaching profession, or does it also include
teachers who have previously taught elsewhere but are brand new to your school?
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks, discomforts, or inconveniences associated with
participation in this study other than time taken to participate. You will have the
opportunity to schedule the time and location which is convenient to your schedule.
Also, if any of the interview questions make you uncomfortable, you can freely
skip it without answering it and still remain in the study.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit for participating in this study.
Your experiences, perceptions, and recommendations are important to those who
design and implement induction programs for new teachers. Your participation
may contribute to improvements in those programs and to better retention of new
teachers in the profession.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Your name and other identifying information will be coded upon completion of the
interview to prevent access by anyone other than the interviewer (Mr. Speir) and
his faculty advisor (Dr. Baca). The interview forms and data will be destroyed
three years after completion of the study and analysis of the data.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.
131
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in
the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances
arise which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Mr. Speir at (360) 675-8683 or Dr. Baca at (213) 740-2360. Dr. Baca's address is
Rossier School of Education - WPH 402, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
1695, (213) 821-5272 orupirb@usc.edu.
132
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Appendix H: Letter to New Teachers
L e t t e r to N e w T e a c h er s
Date
Dear Mr. / M s.__________,
You have been identified as a teacher who is new to the profession, (i.e., in your
first, second, or third year of teaching) or relatively new to th e School
District.
As described in the enclosed information sheet, my research is interested in
learning about the perceptions, opinions, and recommendations of new teachers
such as yourself. Thank you in advance for considering participation in my study.
Although the information sheet and enclosed questionnaire were originally set up
for the questionnaire to be conducted as an interview, for your expedience and
convenience, I suggest instead that you fill it out at your leisure and then return it to
me in the enclosed stamped envelope. If possible, please mail it back to me by no
later th an______ (although somewhat later is certainly acceptable!). Please mail
only the completed questionnaire—do not include the information sheet, as the
envelope and postage will not accommodate both!
If you have any questions or would prefer to be interviewed in person, please do
not hesitate to contact me at (360) 675-8683 or by e-mail at
pawsspeir@comcast.net.
Thank you very much!
Bert Speir
133
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Appendix I: Information Sheet for New Teachers
In fo r m a t io n Sh eet fo r N ew T ea c h er s
University o f Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET
FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Induction Practices in Four Public School Districts in Northwest
Washington State: Perceptions of New Teachers, Mentors, and Principals
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Reynaldo Baca,
Ph.D., and Herbert Speir, BA, MS, MBA, from the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. Results of this research will be contributed
to Mr. Speir's doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in
this study because you are a new teacher at a school that has one or more new
teachers. A total of 25-30 new teachers from four public school districts in
northwest Washington State will participate in this study. Your participation is
voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in this research study because we are trying to learn
more about the new teacher induction practices that are occurring in the
elementary, middle, and high schools of four specific public school districts in
northwest Washington State. We are especially interested in your perceptions,
experiences, and recommendations.
Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in
this research project.
134
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in three interviews over a two-to-three week period
at a time and place convenient to you. The entire time commitment is no longer
than one hour. You will be asked to answer a series of questions that are part of an
interview. Some of the items are quantitative in nature, with responses on a
numerical point scale. Other items are more subjective and open-ended to give you
the opportunity to add more of your own personal input and experience. There are
no right or wrong answers. (Lisa—questionnaire or interview?)
Part I should take no more than 10-12 minutes. It consists of 14 questions about
your pre-employment preparation and expectations about teaching. Two sample
questions are (1) What did you think would be the biggest challenge or difficulty
about teaching? and (2) How and when did you decide what grade and what
subject(s) you wanted to teach?
Part II will be scheduled at your convenience within the next week, if possible, and
will take about 40 minutes. It consists of 33 questions about your experiences,
perceptions, opinions, and recommendations regarding the induction program.
Two sample questions are (1) Does your mentor observe your classroom teaching?
and (2) Have other teachers provided you opportunities to observe their classroom
teaching?
Part III, the final part, will be scheduled for several weeks after that and should take
no more than 8-10 minutes. It consists of two questions about your appraisal of the
past year and their expectations about the upcoming year. The two questions are
(1) As you look back over this year and think about it, how has it been for you so
far? and (2) What thoughts and expectations and hopes do you have for next year?
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks, discomforts, or inconveniences associated with
participation in this study other than time taken to participate. You will have the
opportunity to schedule the time and location which is convenient to your schedule.
Also, if any of the interview questions make you uncomfortable, you can freely
skip it without answering it and still remain in the study.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit for participating in this study.
Your experiences, perceptions, and recommendations are important to those who
design and implement induction programs for new teachers. Your participation
may contribute to improvements in those programs and to better retention of new
teachers in the profession.
135
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Your name and other identifying information will be coded upon completion of the
interview to prevent access by anyone other than the interviewer (Mr. Speir) and
his faculty advisor (Dr. Baca). Only aggregate findings will be reported—no
information from you will be shared with anyone in a way that identifies you as the
source. The interview forms and data will be destroyed three years after
completion of the study and analysis of the data.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in
the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances
arise which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Mr. Speir at (360) 675-8683 or Dr. Baca at (213) 740-2360. Dr. Baca's address is
Rossier School of Education - WPH 402, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
1695, (213) 821-5272 orupirb@usc.edu.
136
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Appendix J: Letter to Mentors
L e tt e r to M e n to r s
Date
Dear Mr. / M s.___________ ,
You have been identified as being the mentor of a teacher (Tom Donnelly) who is
relatively new to th e School.
As described in the enclosed information sheet, my research is interested in
learning about the perceptions, opinions, and recommendations of mentors such as
yourself. Thank you in advance for considering participation in my study.
Although the information sheet and enclosed questionnaire were originally set up
for the questionnaire to be conducted as an interview, I suggest instead, for your
expedience and convenience, that you fill it out at your leisure and then return it to
me in the enclosed stamped envelope. If possible, please mail it back to me by no
later than _ . Please mail only the completed questionnaire—do not include
the information sheet.
If you have any questions or would prefer to be interviewed in person or by phone,
please do not hesitate to contact me at (360) 675-8683 or by e-mail at
pawsspeir@comcast.net.
Thank you very much!
Bert Speir
137
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Appendix K: Information Sheet for Mentors
In fo r m a t io n Sh eet fo r M e n to r s
University o f Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET
FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Induction Practices in Four Public School Districts in Northwest
Washington State: Perceptions of New Teachers, Mentors, and Principals
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by Reynaldo Baca,
Ph.D., and Herbert Speir, BA, MS, MBA, from the Rossier School of Education at
the University of Southern California. Results of this research will be contributed
to Mr. Speir's doctoral dissertation. You were selected as a possible participant in
this study because you are a mentor assigned to a new teacher. A total of 20-30
mentors from four public school districts in northwest Washington State will
participate in this study. Your participation is voluntary.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
We are asking you to take part in this research study because we are trying to learn
more about the new teacher induction practices that are occurring in the
elementary, middle, and high schools of four specific public school districts in
northwest Washington State. We are especially interested in your perceptions,
experiences, and recommendations.
Response to the interview questions will constitute consent to participate in
this research project.
138
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PROCEDURES
You will be asked to participate in an interview. The entire interview will be
conducted today and should take about 30 minutes. It consists of 1 questions about
your preparation to be a mentor and your perceptions, opinions, and
recommendations regarding the induction program. Two sample questions are (1)
As a mentor, are you paid an extra monetary stipend? and (2) Have you assisted
your mentoree in completing his/her professional certification?
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseeable risks, discomforts, or inconveniences associated with
participation in this study other than time taken to participate. You will have the
opportunity to schedule the time and location which is convenient to your schedule.
Also, if any of the interview questions make you uncomfortable, you can freely
skip it without answering it and still remain in the study.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO SUBJECTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
You will not directly benefit for participating in this study. Your experiences,
perceptions, and recommendations are important to those who design and
implement induction programs for new teachers. Your participation may contribute
to improvements in those programs and to better retention of new teachers in the
profession.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your
permission or as required by law.
Your name and other identifying information will be coded upon completion of the
interview to prevent access by anyone other than the interviewer (Mr. Speir) and
his faculty advisor (Dr. Baca). Only aggregate findings will be reported—no
information from you will be shared with anyone in a way that identifies you as the
source. The interview forms and data will be destroyed three years after
completion of the study and analysis of the data.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no
information will be included that would reveal your identity.
139
R eproduced with perm ission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose whether to be in this study or not. If you volunteer to be in this
study, you may withdraw at any time without consequences of any kind. You may
also refuse to answer any questions you do not want to answer and still remain in
the study. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances
arise which warrant doing so.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Mr. Speir at (360) 675-8683 or Dr. Baca at (213) 740-2360. Dr. Baca's address is
Rossier School of Education - WPH 402, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your
participation in this research study. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for
Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
1695, (213) 821-5272 orupirb@usc.edu
140
R eproduced with perm ission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Implementation challenges of a school district's technology plan at the middle school level
PDF
Implementation and levels of use of technology plans in a Southern California K--12 district and its middle school
PDF
A comparison of public and private governance in new teacher induction practices
PDF
How classroom teachers react to and implement California's Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment educational reform policy
PDF
Implementation of educational policy: Technology implementation in a California middle school
PDF
K--12 technology policy and practice: Relationships between a California school district's technology plan and middle school technology implementation
PDF
High school teachers' and administrators' perceptions of the teacher evaluation process in California's public schools
PDF
A study of equity in education finance: An analysis of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles elementary schools
PDF
Elementary administrators and teachers' perceptions of the teacher evaluation process in California's public schools
PDF
A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California
PDF
Cost of university -based online, distributed, and traditional learning
PDF
A central office staffing model to provide for an adequate education
PDF
Connecting districts and schools to improve teaching and learning: A case study of district efforts in the Los Coyotes High School District
PDF
Impact of Proposition 227 on bilingual teachers' beliefs and practices
PDF
A qualitative exploratory study of a proceduralized system to learning key sport knowledge: Will a proceduralized approach enhance cognitive aspects of sport team performance?
PDF
Administrative evaluations and their impact on school leadership in public and private secondary schools: A comparison study of governance structure
PDF
Essential elements of superintendent training and preparation programs as indicated by practicing superintendents in the state of California
PDF
Cost -effectiveness analysis of two multiple-subject (crosscultural, language, and academic development) internship credential programs in California
PDF
An analysis of the elementary principal's role in implementing school accountability within California's High Priority School: A case study
PDF
Holding traditional and charter schools accountable for student achievement in one California school district
Asset Metadata
Creator
Speir, Herbert Allison, III
(author)
Core Title
Induction practices in four public school districts in northwest Washington State: Perceptions of new teachers, mentors, and principals
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Baca, Reynaldo (
committee chair
), Hentschke, Guilbert (
committee member
), Picus, Lawrence O. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-589861
Unique identifier
UC11336774
Identifier
3236552.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-589861 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3236552.pdf
Dmrecord
589861
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Speir, Herbert Allison, III
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
education, administration