Impact of the policy context on the evolution of DELTA (Design for Excellence: Linking Teaching and Achievement)

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content IMPACT OF THE POLICY CONTEXT ON THE EVOLUTION OF DELTA
(DESIGN FOR EXCELLENCE: LINKING TEACHING AND ACHIEVEMENT)
Copyright 2002
by
Virginia Marie Charfauros
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements of the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)
December 2002
Virginia Marie Charfauros
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3093743
UMI
UMI Microform 3093743
Copyright 2003 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
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
The Graduate School
University Park
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 900894695
This dissertation, w ritten b y
Virginia Marie Charfauros__________
U nder th e direction o f hstC.. D issertation
Com m ittee, an d approved b y a ll its m em bers,
has been p resen ted to an d accepted b y The
Graduate School, in p a rtia l fulfillm ent o f
requirem ents fo r th e degree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Dean o f G raduate Studies
A ugust 6 , 2002
DISSER TA TION COMMITTEE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to thank my parents, Jesus and Rosita, for their unconditional love and
support and for always believing in me. I couldn’t of done it without you.
Additionally, I would like to thank my aunties, Maria and Marcela, for helping me
grow in many ways. Thanks also to my older brother Paul for everything he has
done for me, my twin sister Victoria for always being there and for being a kindred
spirit, and my little sister Linda for cheering me on
In addition, I want to thank my dissertation committee chairperson, Dr.
Priscilla Wohlstetter, for her ongoing support and valuable feedback, and the other
members of my committee— Dr. Reynaldo Baca and Dr. David Lopez-Lee— for their
thoughtful feedback and guidance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ...... ii
List of Tables ........ v
Abstract .......... vi
Chapter 1: Introduction................ 1
Chapter 2: Review of Literature.............................. 7
Mentoring in the Context of Induction .............................................................. 9
Mentoring for Beginning Teachers................. 14
What are the Key Components in the Design of Mentoring Programs? ......16
Impact of Mentoring ..... 28
Chapter 3: Study Methods...................... 30
Background: LAAMP and DELTA................................................................ 32
Interviews ......................... 33
Archival Documents.................. 36
Summary............... 38
Chapter 4: Results ...... 40
Coaching Participants ...... 40
Coaching Activities.................... 41
Types of Support Provided....................................................................................42
Content Areas Focused on During Coaching ..... 43
Time Spent on Coaching Activities........................................... 45
Careful Selection of Mentors ..... 48
Careful Matching of Mentors and Novice Teachers ..... 52
Mentor Training........................... 61
Mentor Incentives.... .................................... 64
Administrative Support......................................................................................... 65
Program Evaluation ..... 67
Impact of Coaching Activities on Participants........................................... 69
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications ..... 73
Conclusions ....... 74
Implications of Findings: Policy and Practice ..... 93
References............... 100
Appendix A: Coaching Interview Protocols.............. 108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B: DELTA Governance Interview Protocols
Appendix C: CSU Interview Protocols ....
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of the Connection Between Research
Questions and Data Sources.. ....... 39
Table 2: Most Reported Areas of Focus in Coaching.. 43
Table 3: Weekly Contact Hours (1999-2000)............................ 46
Table 4: Summary of Emergency Credentialed Teachers... ................ 80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
ABSTRACT
The focus of this study was on the mentoring and induction activities for
novice teachers in the Design for Excellence: Linking Teaching and Achievement
(DELTA) Initiative, a professional development reform created as part of the Los
Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project (LAAMP). This study looked at how
DELTA’S mentoring and induction activities for novice teachers developed over
time.
An analytic framework, developed from the literature on mentoring, was
applied to examine DELTA and consisted of six key design components: careful
selection of mentors, careful matching of mentors and novice teachers, mentor
training, mentor incentives, administrative support, and program evaluation. Three
research questions guided the study. The first question focused on the DELTA
design of mentoring and induction activities. The second focused on the
implementation of these DELTA activities and the third focused on the policy factors
that influenced the implementation of DELTA.
Research methods involved case studies of four DELTA School Families,
which consisted of groups of schools arranged in a high school feeder pattern and
partnered with a local California State University (CSU) campus. The following
School Families were examined: Francis Polytechnic School Family and CSU
Northridge, Lincoln School Family and CSU Los Angeles, Long Beach
Polytechnic/Cabrillo School Family and CSU Long Beach, and Pasadena School
Family and CSU Dominguez Hills. Qualitative data including PreK-12 teacher
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
interviews (mentors and novices), CSU faculty interviews, Practitioner Team Leader
interviews (PreK-12 and CSU representatives from each School Family responsible
for coordinating DELTA activities), and archival documents were analyzed.
Findings suggested that the design of DELTA in all four School Families
reflected (to varying degrees) the six components from the analytic framework.
Additionally, satisfaction with the mentoring program was high across all
participants, with benefits for novice teachers, mentors, and the School Family
organizations. Several policy factors at both the district and state levels influenced
the implementation of DELTA mentoring and induction activities. For example, the
statewide class-size reduction initiative resulted in a greater number of emergency
credentialed teachers supported by mentors. In the final chapter, implications of
these findings for policy and practice are discussed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Teacher attrition is a significant concern nationwide. The effects of high
attrition are quite extensive, impacting areas such as student Seaming, teacher
expertise, staff esprit, school culture, and public confidence (Fidelar, 2000; Turk,
1999). Additionally, high attrition rates negatively affect teacher recruitment as well
as the overall cost of preparing teachers.
Education agencies report particularly high attrition rates for novice teachers.
This is understandable since early teaching experiences can be very stressful.
Nationally, over one-fifth of public school teachers quit teaching within three years;
9.3% quit before completing their first year of teaching (Fidelar, 2000). In
California, estimates from the California Research Bureau suggest that
approximately 5% of all teachers and 30%-50% of all novice teachers quit teaching
each year. Figures reveal significantly higher attrition rates for less than fully
credentialed new teachers (EdSource, 1999). The California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing (1997) reports that novice teachers with emergency permits
leave at a higher rate of 60%.
Intensifying the problem of teacher attrition are teacher shortages.
Nationwide, there is a need to hire an estimated 200,000 K-12 teachers annually over
the next decade because of growing student enrollments, increasing teacher
retirements, and class size reduction (Fidelar, 2000). Teacher shortages are
especially problematic in high-demand subjects, such as math and science, and in
urban and rural schools as well (Fidelar, 2000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
In the absence of well-qualified teachers, schools have been forced to hire
individuals with emergency credentials and/or assign teachers outside their field of
preparation. Almost one-fourth of all secondary teachers do not have a college
minor in their main field of teaching. Moreover, the least qualified teachers are more
likely to be placed in the nation’s poorest schools (National Commission on
Teaching and America’s Future, 1996), and subsequently, more likely to leave the
profession.
The initial years of teaching can be especially traumatic. Huling-Austin
(1990b) reports that, in many cases, novice teachers have been known to lose self-
confidence, experience stress and anxiety, and question their teaching competence.
These feelings, subsequently, impact their teaching performance and ultimately their
decision not to remain in the profession. Compounding the uncertainties faced by
novice teachers are job-related problems and non-supportive school climates. The
nature of the teaching profession, itself, contributes to attrition. According to
Huling-Austin (1990b), in most professions, novices gradually assume job
responsibilities and are given access to experienced colleagues for assistance when
necessary. By contrast, in education, novice teachers have the same responsibilities
as veteran teachers, and are isolated from other teachers for most of the day.
Without support and assistance, novice teachers tend to develop coping
strategies for classroom survival (Huling-Austin, 1990b). Instead of developing
student learning, novice teachers may focus more on controlling student behavior.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
Moreover, without assistance, teachers may become discouraged and leave the
teaching profession altogether (Huling-Austin, 1990b). In light of this situation,
states and districts have begun to place a greater emphasis on programs that support
novice teachers. An increasingly common method used to reduce teacher attrition is
induction programs.
The underlying principle of teacher induction programs is that the
development of novice teachers can be enhanced if they are provided with support in
order to address their concerns during the transition from student teacher to
instructional leader (Odell, 1987). Huling-Austin (1990b) suggests that teacher
induction is best understood in the larger context of teacher education, often
described as a continuum including pre-service, induction, and in-service.
According to Huling-Austin (1990b), induction programs acknowledge that novice
teachers have recently completed teacher preparation programs and continue to need
supervision and support. Induction programs allow novice teachers to develop their
teaching skills.
The induction of novice teachers is defined 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 skills that take place during the first three years of teaching” (Fidelar
and Haselkom, 1999, p. 9). Furtwengler (1995) reports that although the major
policy initiative for induction programs originated at the state level, they are
currently sponsored at both the local and state levels.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
Before 1980, there were only a few teacher induction programs in the
country. Since then, many induction programs have been developed. According to
the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification
(NASDTEC) Manual (2000), 28 states and the District of Columbia have
implemented some form of program designed to support novice teachers. Concern
with professional standards, teacher quality, and teacher retention encouraged states
to provide grants for the design and implementation of these programs (Fidelar,
2000). As states and districts raise standards for all students, they also raise
standards for teachers (Humphrey, Adelman, Esch, Riehl, Shields, and Tiffany,
2000). Hence, teachers need new skills and knowledge as well as support,
particularly during the initial period of teaching.
Several researchers have reported that mentoring is a component found in
most teacher induction programs (Ganser, 1998; Gold, 1996; Humphrey et al., 2000).
Of the 28 programs identified in the NASDTEC Manual (2000), 27 have a support or
mentor component. Mentoring is described as collaboration between an experienced
teacher and a novice teacher. However, various terms are used to refer to mentors
such as consulting teacher, support teacher, and support provider. Fidelar and
Haselkom (1999) report that whenever mentors are assigned to work with novice
teachers, they are described as guides or coaches who provide support, advice, and
assistance. As mentors, experienced teachers serve as models for novice teachers by
acting as a peer coach and conducting formative evaluations. Mentors observe
lessons taught by novice teachers and provide feedback. Typically, they do not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
evaluate the novice teacher’s performance for re-employment or recertification
purposes (Furtwengler, 1995). Effective support is multidimensional, focusing on the
variety of developmental needs of novice teachers, including areas such as
pedagogical, curricular, psychological, logistical, and classroom management (Gold,
1996).
The focus of the present study was on the mentoring and induction activities
for novice teachers found in a large-scale professional development reform effort
known as the Design for Excellence: Linking Teaching and Achievement (DELTA)
Initiative. DELTA was created as part of the Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan
Project (LAAMP), Los Angeles’ response to the Annenberg Challenge, a privately
sponsored challenge to improve the educational system in nine large urban areas in
the country. DELTA’S mission was to redesign university teacher preparation and
Pre-K-12 professional development programs to facilitate the improvement of
teacher quality and student achievement (Casillas and Caballero-Allen, 2000). Since
its creation more than five years ago, DELTA has adapted to and has been influenced
by the policy context at both the local and state levels. Although existing reports on
DELTA addressed program evaluation questions, there is limited information on
program implementation— how DELTA evolved over time and how the policy
environment impacted its evolution. The present research study looked specifically
at how DELTA’S mentoring and induction activities for novice teachers developed
over time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The remainder of the dissertation is organized into four chapters. The
following chapter, Chapter 2, summarizes the literature pertaining to induction
programs in settings outside of education as well as within the field of education.
Included in this chapter is a discussion of mentoring programs (mentoring being a
common component of induction programs). Chapter 3 describes the study’s
research methods, which draw on qualitative data sources. Chapter 4 reports
findings from the data analyses, focusing specifically on the design and
implementation of DELTA’S mentoring and induction activities for novice teachers.
Lastly, Chapter 5 presents recommendations and implications of the study for
practitioners and policymakers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The present study examined implementation of DELTA, a local mentoring
program in the Los Angeles area. As noted in Chapter 1, mentoring is a major
element found in induction programs. Shea describes mentoring as:
A developmental, caring, sharing, and helpful relationship where one person
invests time, know-how, and effort in enhancing another person’s growth,
knowledge, and skills, and responds to critical needs in the life of that person
in ways that prepare the individual for greater productivity or achievement in
the future (1994, p. 13).
Although mentoring occurs in various professions, it originated in business. The
practice of mentoring has grown as a result of its reported impacts on novices,
mentors, and organizations. For instance, mentoring is instrumental in increasing
organizational productivity, reducing turnover, enhancing organizational
communication, integrating employees into the organization, increasing the
individual’s sense of belonging, and improving job performance of both novices and
mentors (Zey, 1984; Burke and McKeen, 1989). Education institutions adopted the
concept of mentoring with the notion that because of its value in other fields, it
would also have usefulness in education. This belief has led to the growth of
mentoring programs among educators.
While the research (Shea, 1994; Young and Perrewe, 2000) defines three
main types of mentoring (formal, informal, and situational), the present study
focused exclusively on formal mentoring. Historically, mentoring has been an
informal process that links senior and junior members of professions and/or
organizations together (Hunt, 1986). However, a number of formal mentoring
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
programs have been created as a result of the research on informal mentoring that
describes its benefits.
Formal, informal, and situational mentoring differs in several respects. Shea
(1994) and Young and Perrewe (2000) describe formal mentoring programs as fixed
in duration, motivated by organizational needs, focused on attaining organizational
or subunit goals, systematic and structured, sponsored or authorized by the
organization, institutionalized, and involving a deliberate effort by organizational
decision makers to match mentors with novices. Informal mentoring, by contrast, is
described as taking place over a long period of time; responsive to the novice’s
needs; loosely structured and flexible in nature; mentor driven; voluntary and
involving mutual acceptance of roles; deriving from a personal bond; and contingent
on the mentor’s competence, knowledge, skills, and abilities (Shea, 1994; Young and
Perrewe, 2000). Major differences between formal and informal mentoring are: (a)
informal mentoring develops spontaneously while formal mentoring is
organizationally sponsored/authorized, (b) formal mentoring takes place over a
shorter period of time and is more structured, (c) informal mentoring involves mutual
pairing of participants while formal mentoring involves organizationally structured
matches, and (d) formal mentoring has pre-established organizational goals (e.g.,
create opportunities for minorities, prepare certain employees for management
positions, socialize new employees) whereas the goals of informal mentoring are
more personal in nature.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
In comparison to the other two types of mentoring, situational mentoring is
the shortest in duration. Shea (1994) describes situational mentoring as spontaneous,
random, and casual. Additionally, he notes that situational mentoring is typically
mentor-initiated, responsive to the current needs of novices and/or the present
circumstances, and characterized as isolated and one-time events.
The purpose of this literature review is to summarize the research
surrounding formal mentoring programs in non-education and education settings.
First reviewed is mentoring in the context of induction. Second, research focused on
mentoring for beginning teachers is discussed. Third, the key components of
mentoring programs are presented. Finally, research focused on the impact of
mentoring is described.
Mentoring in the Context of Induction
In general, induction helps to develop the skills, knowledge, attitudes, and
values of new members of an occupation in order for them to effectively carry out
their professional roles (Schlechty, 1985). According to Odell (1987), teacher
induction programs offer structured support to help socialize and nurture the novice
teacher, thus helping the teacher to advance to higher stages of teacher competence.
Huling-Austin (1990b) identifies five goals, which are typically included in
most teacher induction programs: (a) to improve teaching performance, (b) to
increase the retention of novice teachers, (c) to promote the personal and
professional well being of novice teachers, (d) to satisfy mandated requirements
related to induction and certification, and (e) to transmit the culture of the system to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
novice teachers. The improvement of teacher performance has been identified as the
most com m on and important goal for induction programs, and retention has been
identified as the second most important goal, particularly for programs in areas with
teacher shortages (Humphrey et al., 2000).
Odell, Huling, and Sweeny (2000) identify several approaches to inducting
novice teachers that are used alone or in combination with one another. These
approaches include the assistance approach, the standards-based approach, and the
assessment approach. The assistance approach focuses primarily on providing
novice teachers with school orientation information, and support and guidance in the
classroom, usually through a mentor (Odell et al., 2000). The main purpose of this
approach is to ensure that the novice teacher has a successful transition into the
teaching profession and to provide professional development to assist the novice in
improving teaching skills (Odell et al.). The standards-based approach combines
the provision of assistance with a multi-faceted method for the assessment of the
novice teacher’s abilities (Odell et al.). According to Odell et al., in this approach,
novice teachers are prompted to reflect on their current classroom practices in
relation to teaching standards and to set professional development goals. She
indicates that the mentor and novice teacher work jointly to create a professional
development plan to increase teaching skills in target areas and to decrease the gap
between current and desired practice. Feiman-Nemser, Carver, Schwille, and Yusko
(1999) note that by outlining the knowledge, dispositions, and skills that teachers
need to promote ambitious learning for all students, professional teaching standards
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
offer powerful goals for the development of novice teachers and a common language
for discussing teaching. Furthermore, they indicate that assisting novice teachers in
understanding professional standards and what they look like in practice is a
significant task of teacher induction. Induction programs using the assessment
approach principally focus on assessment of novice teachers in order to obtain
evidence, through methods such as observations and portfolios, that the novice
teacher is sufficiently skilled to be fully admitted into the teaching profession (Odell
et al.).
Veenman (1984) identifies the following as common induction practices used
in education: provision of printed materials about employment conditions and
school regulations, orientation visits to the school prior to the start of the academic
year, release time, group meetings between novice teachers for emotional support,
consultations with experienced teachers, the assignment of an experienced teacher as
a helping teacher (mentor), conferences/workshops on specific topics, reductions in
teaching load, conferences with supervisors, opportunities to observe, and team
teaching. Although there are various practices used in inducting novice teachers into
the profession, the research suggests that mentoring is the most common. Huling-
Austin (1990a), Ganser (1998), Henry (1989), Fidelar and Haselkom (1999), and the
American Federation of Teachers (1998) indicate that most induction programs
designed to assist novice teachers include some type of mentor teacher component
where experienced teachers are paired with novice teachers for the purpose of
providing them with support and assistance during their first year(s) in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
classroom. The mentoring process includes conferences between participants and
observations by novices and mentors of one another’s classrooms as well as the
classrooms of other teachers. Additionally, the process involves mentors modeling
specific teaching practices for novice teachers (Waters and Bernhardt, 1989;
Anderson and Shannon, 1988; Bey, 1990).
As noted earlier, mentoring is the most common induction practice. The
remainder of this section highlights the functions of mentoring which are specific to
the relationship between mentors and novices. The literature in non-education
settings describes three important functions of the mentoring relationship. Kram
(1985) identifies two of these functions: career function and psychosocial function.
She describes career functions as the elements of the relationship that promote
professional growth for advancement in the organization (e.g., sponsorship,
exposure-and-visibility, coaching, protection, challenging assignments). She
describes psychosocial functions as the elements of the relationship that promote a
sense of competence, identity, and effectiveness in a professional role (e.g.,
acceptance-and-confirmation, counseling, friendship). Lankau and Chung (1998)
identity a third function of mentoring, role modeling. This function involves a
mentor serving as a role model of desired behaviors and as a person with whom the
novice can relate to with respect to work attitudes and values.
Similar mentoring functions are found in education and are related to the
needs and concerns of novice teachers. The education literature identifies them as
instructional-related support and psychological support. Gold (1996) notes that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
instructional support is based primarily at the informational level and involves
assisting the novice teacher with the knowledge, skills, and strategies essential to
their success in the classroom and school (e.g., providing suggestions regarding
classroom management and lesson planning, locating materials, facilitating specific
instructional approaches). This function is parallel to the career function in non
education settings. As for psychological support, Gold (1996) indicates that it entails
building the novice teacher’s sense of self through confidence-building, developing
feelings of effectiveness, encouraging positive self-esteem, enhancing self-reliance,
and learning to manage stress. Furthermore, she notes that psychological support is
basically a form of therapeutic guidance and has been described as emotional
support, positive regard, and empathic listening. Moreover, she indicates that
psychological support includes different forms of assessing individual psychological
needs, developing a personal plan to assist the novice teacher in meeting his or her
needs, learning how to manage stress, acquiring new coping strategies to manage
problems, employing communication skills to enhance personal growth, and
focusing on bumout prevention techniques. Feiman-Nemser et al. (1999) indicate
that interpreting support, as a psychological construct, is consistent with the tendency
to orient mentoring around the self-defined needs, problems, and concerns of novice
teachers. In sum, mentors provide novice teachers with both instructional support
and psychological support. These mentoring functions, moreover, are comparable to
support given to novices in non-education settings.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
Mentoring for Beginning Teachers
Mentoring programs in education have been developed to address the needs
and concerns of novice teachers. Feiman-Nemser et al. (1999) indicate that novice
teachers have unique vulnerabilities. For example, they are given the same
responsibilities as experienced teachers. However, most aspects of the teaching
situation are unfamiliar to the novice teacher (e.g., the students, the curriculum, the
community, and the local policies and procedures). Likewise, Runyan (1991) notes
that the professional needs of novice teachers are situationally developed and that
personal needs vary from individual to individual. Some novice teachers, for
instance, will need assistance dealing with problems of individual students whereas
others will not. Although novice teachers appear to experience common professional
needs, each novice teacher brings various skills and abilities into their school
environments and will face a different classroom with different problems (Runyan,
1991). Consequently, mentors typically need to adjust the support they provide to fit
the specific needs of the novice teacher (Peterson and Williams, 1998). Similarly,
Odell (1990a) notes that an effective mentor is one who can tailor the support offered
to the immediate needs of the novice teacher.
Stages-of-concem theory recognizes that the concerns of novice teachers are
unique from the concerns of experienced teachers (Odell, 1990a). According to
Odell et al. (2000), novice teachers have lower-level concerns (e.g., the mechanics of
classroom management) that must be resolved before higher-level concerns related
to student well being and achievement could emerge. Furthermore, the researchers
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
suggest that with guidance, teachers typically progress through these developmental
stages in a fairly predictable manner. Similarly, Runyan (1991) asserts that as novice
teachers progress through the first year of teaching, they appear to experience
concerns in a developmental sequence. Moreover, he indicates that, if left
unexplored, these concerns could eventually turn into dissatisfaction with the
profession, leading to teachers choosing to leave.
Brock and Grady (1997) report that according to the literature on novice
teachers, their concerns evolve and may be categorized into three developmental
stages: (a) self-adequacy stage, (b) teaching task stage, and (c) concern for impact
stage. During the self-adequacy stage, teachers are more concerned about their own
survival and focus on what is necessary to get the job done. At the teaching task
stage, teachers are concerned about instructional tasks and focus their teaching on the
subject rather than the student. At the concern for impact stage, novice teachers
focus more on the impact of teaching on the students (Brock and Grady, 1997).
Huling-Austin, Putman, and Galvez-Hjomevik (1985) indicate that concerns theory
is based on the idea that change can be best achieved if the person undergoing
change (novice) is given appropriate assistance targeted at their current concerns.
Moreover, Veenman (1984) notes that from a developmental perspective, the early
self-oriented concerns of novice teachers are perceived as less mature and desirable
than the later pupil-oriented concerns. Thus, a mentor’s role is to address the
immediate concerns of the novice teacher and guide the novice towards more
advanced teacher concerns that will promote effective teaching (Odell, 1990a).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Examples of support offered by mentors to teachers at the self-adequacy stage
include providing novices with resources, communicating information about the
school district (policies, procedures, guidelines, and expectations), empathic
listening, and sharing personal experiences. Support offered to teachers at the
teaching task stage may include curriculum and instructional advice and
demonstration teaching. Support offered to novices at the concern for impact stage
may include classroom observation and feedback on effectiveness.
Odell (1987) notes that, generally, the support provided to novice teachers is
influenced by their specific concerns. These concerns may vary depending on the
career experiences of new teachers. For example, experienced teachers who are new
to the school system may need less instructional and emotional support, over a
shorter time period, than a teacher who is new to the profession (Odell, 1987). She
contends that when new teachers with different career experiences are participating
in the same induction program, they will likely need different levels of support in
terms of program content, program duration, and degree of support or supervision.
What are the Key Components in the Design of Mentoring Programs?
Numerous articles written on mentoring programs in education and non
education settings have identified design components for successful programs.
Research in this area is based on reports from participants in mentoring programs
collected through interviews and surveys. The remainder of this section describes
six design components synthesized from the research on mentoring in education and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
non-education settings. The discussion focuses on the context of mentoring
programs in education since this is most relevant to the present study.
1. Careful Selection of Mentors
Researchers acknowledge the critical role of the mentor. Moir and Gless
(2001) declare that the most important feature of a quality induction program is the
mentor teacher. Moreover, they assert that quality mentoring requires the careful
selection, training, and ongoing support of mentors. Additionally, Brock (1998)
indicates that the ability of a mentor is an essential component of a mentor program.
Likewise, Koki (1997) indicates that mentors must have expertise, commitment, and
time to provide assistance to novice teachers.
The literature identifies several factors that should be considered when
selecting mentors. Brock (1998) indicates that a quality mentoring program should
provide criteria for mentor selection such as experiences appropriate to the teacher’s
assignment and to prerequisite knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values; proximity to
classrooms; similar grade level or course assignments; shared planning periods,
philosophies, and teaching styles; and compatibility of gender, age, personalities, and
interests. Researchers identify additional criteria for consideration. These include
time to interact (Waters and Bernhardt, 1989; Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, and Niles,
1992) and mentor teaching experience (Ganser, 1995).
Odell (1987) indicates that the task of selecting support personnel is
frequently the responsibility of school district administrators. This produces a
concern that mentor teachers selected solely by school administrators may not be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
perceived as being qualified by their veteran peers to help novice teachers. Odell
(1987) suggests that one way to deal with this issue is to involve veteran teachers in
the process of selecting mentor teachers. She indicates that doing this has the added
advantage of enhancing the professional stature of teachers by involving them as
educational decision makers. Additionally, when mentoring programs are the
collaborative effort of several organizations, representatives from all these
organizations must also participate in the selection process (Odell, 1987).
Important to note, however, is that regardless of the suggestions made to optimize
mentor selection, a limited pool of experienced teachers in a particular area may
make the selection process challenging (Humphrey et al, 2000).
2. Careful Matching of Mentors and Novice Teachers
There is a general consensus that in order for a mentoring relationship to be
effective, participants must be carefully matched. Well-matched participants
facilitate communication and interaction. Researchers have identified the following
guidelines for matching mentors and novice teachers: assign by grade level and
content area (Odell, 1989, 1990a; Boreen, Johnson, Niday, and Potts, 2000; Huffman
and Leak, 1986; Wildman, et al., 1992), assign by physical proximity (Odell, 1989,
1990a; Wildman et al.; Boreen et al., 2000), assign by teaching style and ideology
(Odell, 1989, 1990a), and match by sex and age considerations (Odell, 1990a).
The reasoning behind assigning by grade level and content area is that a
mentor with experience in the same grade level and content area as the novice
teacher has more credibility than one with experience in a different area (Odell,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
1989). Odell (1990b) notes that if nothing else, this match instills the mentor with
more face validity for the novice teacher. Also, if the mentor and novice teacher
share a similar content area or grade level, the mentor will be better able to provide
direct assistance with specific questions about curriculum and subject matter (Boreen
et al., 2000).
As for proximity, the location of the mentor and the novice teacher’s
classrooms close to one another can facilitate communication between them (Boreen
et al., 2000). If either the mentor or novice must travel far in order to meet, it
decreases the likelihood of frequent or immediate support (Odell, 1989). Although
districts try to match mentors and novice teachers who are from the same school and
grade level or certification area, this is not always possible (Fidelar and Haselkom,
1999). Nevertheless, these are important considerations.
In terms of teaching style and ideology, Zimpher and Rieger (1988) note that
compatible ideologies mean that the mentor and novice teacher possess a shared
conception of teaching and learning, and that they both believe that support and
assistance are viable means for instructional improvement.
Demographically, Odell (1990a) indicates that the sex of the mentor and
novice teacher should be the same and that novice teachers should be assigned to
mentors who are older. Boreen et al. (2000) note that an age difference of 8-15 years
is recommended so that the mentor is perceived as being experienced. The sex of the
mentor and novice are also important considerations in mentoring outside of
education. Ragins and Cotton (1999) conducted a study that examined the impact of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
the type of mentoring relationship and the gender composition of the relationship on
mentoring functions and career outcomes reported by 352 female and 257 male
novices in the fields of engineering, social work, and journalism. Results reveal that
the relationship’s gender composition affects mentoring functions and compensation.
Having a history of male mentors is significantly related to greater compensation.
Also, the gender composition of the mentoring relationship impacts the amount of
challenging assignments provided by mentors. Results indicate that novices in cross
gender relationships reported receiving less challenging assignments (Ragins and
Cotton, 1999).
Other matching considerations include the length of the mentor’s teaching
experience, time to interact, and the ratio of novice teachers assigned to a mentor.
Regarding the length of a mentor’s teaching experience, Ganser (1995) recommends
a middle range of between 8-15 years. The logic behind this is that if mentors only
have a few years of teaching experience, novice teachers may question their
expertise. Conversely, if mentors are close to retirement, novice teachers may doubt
their ability to relate to them.
As for time to interact, Humphrey et al. (2000) contend that both novice
teachers and their mentors need sufficient time to work together and to reflect on the
novice teacher’s practice. Similarly, Huffman and Leak (1986) and Wildman et al.
(1992) emphasize the importance of providing adequate time for mentoring
participants to interact. Furthermore, Huffman and Leak (1986) note that mentoring
participants should be provided with the same planning period in order to facilitate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
interaction. Other researchers (Arnold and Johnson, 1997; Viator, 1999; Williams,
2000) also assert the importance of regular contact between mentors and novices.
Wildman et al. identify several factors that impact time spent on mentoring activities,
which should be considered when making matches. For example, mentors often
have other responsibilities, such as serving on committees and extracurricular
assignments that takes time and attention away from the mentoring relationship. As
for novice teachers, they may be assigned to the most challenging class, which may
require a greater level of support from mentors. They may also be assigned to a
teaching position in two or more schools, requiring them to travel from one school to
another.
Related to time is the ratio of novice teachers assigned to a mentor. Fidelar
and Haselkom (1999) indicate that mentors should be assigned a manageable number
of novice teachers, depending on the amount of release time granted and whether the
mentor has to travel far between different schools. Humphrey et al. (2000) indicate
that the general approach of just adding mentoring responsibilities to a mentor’s full
workload may affect the quantity and quality of time mentors and novice teachers
spend together. The alternative model of releasing mentors on a full-time basis to
work with novice teachers may provide greater opportunities for classroom-based
support; however, full-time mentors are usually not at the school site often enough to
provide the type of informal interaction that novice teachers want (Humphrey et al.).
Additionally, since full-time release teachers, identified as excellent teachers, are
removed from direct teaching, students may be adversely affected (Odell, 1987). A
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
third model, which involves a reduced workload for mentors, enables them to
allocate more time for mentoring activities. Furthermore, it allows for fewer novice
teachers assigned to a mentor in order to permit more time for coaching, support,
and/or assessing each novice teacher. It also provides mentors with additional time
to complete required paperwork and to participate in professional development
activities (Fidelar and Haselkom, 1999). Regardless of the approach used, the issue
of time is an important consideration both in and outside of education.
In addition to the matching considerations just mentioned, researchers in non
education settings offer the following suggestions concerning matching: allow
participants the opportunity to provide input with respect to whom they are matched
with (Viator, 1999) and ensure that participants have similar values and career goals
in order to create a comfortable and open relationship (Williams, 2000). In
particular, Williams (2000) suggests that prior to actually matching participants,
coordinators could examine the strengths of all available mentors and consult
novices regarding their career goals. Furthermore, mentors and novices could meet
to discuss their expectations from one another.
3. Mentor Training
Mentors are successful not just by virtue of their skills as teachers (Mills,
Moore, and Keane 2001). A key to a successful mentoring program is mentor
competence. According to Odell (1990a), the value of mentor training comes from
the assumption that even exceptional veteran teachers have limited experience in
working with adults and may not have all the essential knowledge and skills needed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
to be mentors. Similarly, Fidelar and Haselkom (1999) assert that it is incorrect to
assume that highly experienced teachers automatically make good mentors.
Odell (1989) and Brock (1998) contend that training in the role of a mentor is
as important as or even more important than careful selection of the mentor. It is
therefore essential to consider what a mentor teacher needs to know and be able to do
in order to support a novice teacher. Providing support to novice teachers
necessitates learning new skills. Holloway (2001) notes that appropriate training for
a mentor’s expanded teaching role helps to improve mentor program quality.
Researchers have identified several areas that should be included in mentor
training. Ganser (1995) identifies two dimensions to preparing teachers to serve as
mentors: (a) content and skills and (b) delivery system. First, mentoring requires
knowledge of specific content and competence with specific skills. Content includes
topics such as adult development, novice teachers, and teacher socialization. Given
that novice teachers are adults and not children, mentors should also be familiar with
the basic principles of adult learning. Additionally, mentors need to be proficient in
conferencing skills and they need to be familiar with systematic observation of
teaching (Ganser, 1995).
Furthermore, Waters and Bernhardt (1989) indicate that when observation,
feedback, and modeling are designed to reinforce specific teaching strategies, the
mentor must be provided with training in coaching and observation processes.
Additionally, if mentors are also required to participate in the assessment of novice
teachers, training in the assessment program is essential. Odell (1989) also suggests
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
that mentors receive training in the process of mentoring (e.g., how to develop a
trusting professional relationship, how to determine the appropriate content of
support, how to use coaching strategies, and how to facilitate independence). These
teachers should be provided with training on how to carry out their role of mentors,
including how to work with another adult in a supportive manner. Additionally,
Brock (1998) suggests that mentors need training in questioning strategies, listening
skills, classroom observation, and conferencing. Furthermore, based on her
examination of mentoring programs among law enforcement agencies, Williams
(2000) suggests that the training provided to mentors should address the unique
needs of the agency.
4. Mentor Incentives
In addition to intrinsic satisfaction, it is essential that mentors be provided
with extrinsic rewards and incentives (Odell, 1989). Examples of rewards and
incentives used in mentoring programs include stipends, release time from teaching
responsibilities, tuition waivers for university classes, funding to attend conferences
and training opportunities, and recognition.
Dagenais (1996) reports that incentives are a dimension of successful
mentoring programs and that compensation is provided to mentors in order to
equalize their mentoring responsibilities. In addition to compensation, release time
is a valuable incentive for mentoring. It can be used for activities such as meeting
with mentors, observing classes, and participating in seminars, workshops,
conferences, and/or study groups (Fidelar and Haselkom, 1999).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
5. Administrative Support
Organization leaders must not only know about the mentoring activity, they
must also support it. Brock and Grady (1997) identify principal support as a critical
element of a successful mentoring program. The principal coordinates the mentoring
program by ensuring that the goals of the mentors are congruent with the activities of
other supervisors who work with novice teachers (Brock, 1998). Fidelar and
Haselkom (1999) report the importance of administrative support in their nationwide
study of state policy concerning teacher induction programs (with a focus on
mentoring). One of the study’s recommendations is that principals should be trained
to be aware of and responsive to the needs and concerns of novice teachers and they
should communicate the importance of supporting them to their staff. Additionally,
Brock and Grady (1997) emphasize the importance of principal participation in the
design and implementation of mentoring programs.
Principals have the ability to enhance the effectiveness of mentoring
programs at their respective schools. For instance, they can arrange teacher
schedules to allow more time for participants to meet (e.g., arranging for participants
to share the same lunch and/or planning periods), assign mentors and novice teachers
classrooms that are located close to each other, reduce the extracurricular
assignments and duties given to mentoring participants, and match mentors and
novice teachers by grade level and content area. Moreover, school administrators
can ensure that novice teachers are provided with the necessary resources to perform
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
their job as well as ensure that their working environment is conducive to teaching
and student learning.
Brock and Grady (1997) emphasize the importance of support and
involvement from all levels of education administration, not just principals. They
also promote the involvement of school boards, superintendents, and central staff.
Moir and Gless (2001) indicate that when local organizations, top-level district
administration, and site administrators all hold the support of novice teachers as a
high priority, they can work together to develop policies that shelter novice teachers
from inappropriate assignments and working conditions.
The significance of administrative support in education is similar in non
education settings. For instance, Lankau and Chung (1998) note that effective
implementation of a formal mentoring program is dependent on management
communicating the importance of mentoring to employees and managers. Also,
Samier (2000) states that senior administrative support is vital in creating an
organizational environment that is favorable to mentoring.
6. Program Evaluation
Research supports the value of evaluating mentoring programs. Dagenais
(1996) identifies evaluation of the mentoring experience as a dimension of successful
mentoring programs. Brock and Grady (1997) suggest that mentoring programs
should be closely monitored for program improvement. In non-education settings,
Lankau and Chung (1998) note that the implementation of a formal mentoring
program is dependent on maintaining ongoing evaluation of the program’s goals and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
objectives. Additionally, Alleman and Clark (2000) indicate that a program is
created to achieve a goal, and investment in the program can be justified if a return
on investment can be demonstrated. Moreover, the information obtained from
program evaluation can be used to plan training opportunities for participants and to
align expectations. This also applies to education.
In addition to overall program evaluation, Odell (1989) emphasizes the
importance of continuously monitoring the changing needs of novice teachers as they
develop. She notes that this permits the support provided to novice teachers to be
consonant with their need for assistance. Furthermore, she mentions that the training
provided to mentors should be continuous, evaluating the skills and the content that
they require to offer appropriate assistance to novice teachers.
Similarly, Gold (1996) indicates that assessment of novice teachers,
systematic sharing of assessment results, and support and encouragement in
improving areas in need of additional attention are essential for the development of
novice teachers. Novice teachers require explicit information pertaining to their
strengths and weaknesses in an atmosphere where they do not feel threatened by job
loss or loss of personal integrity (Gold, 1996). Moreover, assessment that supports
the interpretation and enactment of standards reinforces professional accountability
(Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999). Programs have begun to incorporate the standards of
professional practices into their goals and objectives. Moir and Gless (2001) indicate
that these standards are crucial in facilitating communication between the novice
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
teacher and the mentor as well as help them to focus on high-quality teaching and
increased student learning.
Impact of Mentoring
Research in the area of program impact has been qualitative in nature, based
largely on reports from participants in formal mentoring programs. The literature in
education and non-education settings describes the impact of mentoring on novices,
mentors, and the organization. Many of these impacts can be found in both settings.
In terms of impact on novices in education and outside of education, it is
reported that novices experience high career and job satisfaction (Fagan, 1986;
Pearson and Honig, 1992) and improved retention (Williams, 2000; Pearson and
Honig, 1992; Fidelar and Haselkom, 1999; Schulz, 1995; Shaw, 1995). Other
impacts reported in education include: improved performance of novice teachers
(Shaw, 1995; Pearson and Honig, 1992; Fidelar and Haselkom, 1999), accelerated
integration into the school and school system (Fidelar and Haselkom, 1999; Schulz,
1995), and psychological benefits such as motivation and improved confidence
(Shaw, 1995; Pearson and Honig, 1992).
As for impact on mentors, the literature in education and non-education
settings report similarities in terms of mentor’s revitalized interest in work (Murray
and Owen, 1991; Schulz, 1995; Pearson and Honig, 1992). In education, mentors
also report improvement in existing skills and knowledge related to teaching as well
as the acquisition of new ones (Pearson and Honig, 1992; Schulz, 1995). In non
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
education settings, an additional impact on mentors is enhanced self-esteem (Murray
and Owen, 1991).
Regarding impacts on the organization, the mentoring literature also
describes similarities in education and non-education settings. One similarity is
enhanced organizational communication (Murray and Owen, 1991; Schulz, 1995;
Shaw, 1995). Specifically, mentoring sets the tone for cooperative teamwork in the
organization (Schulz, 1995) and improves cooperation among teachers (Pearson and
Honig, 1992). Another similarity is that mentoring enhances the services offered by
the organization (Murray and Owen, 1991; Shaw, 1995).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
CHAPTERS: STUDY METHODS
The purpose of this study was to examine approaches to mentoring novice
teachers in the context of the Design for Excellence: Linking Teaching and
Achievement (DELTA) Initiative. Additionally, the study examined how DELTA’S
induction activities evolved over time.1 The framework for mentoring used in
examining DELTA consisted of the six key design components of mentoring
programs that were mentioned in the previous chapter (careful selection of mentors,
careful matching of mentors and novice teachers, mentor training, mentor incentives,
administrative support, and program evaluation).
Scheirer (1994) notes that process evaluation addresses three major
questions: (1) What was the program intended to be? (examination of program
components: strategies, activities, processes, technologies), (2) What is delivered?
(examination of program implementation), and (3) What gaps exist between 1 and 2?
(examination of influences on the variability of implementation). Consistent with
this, the following research questions guided the study:
• How did the DELTA School Families and their CSU partners originally
design their coaching and induction activities for novice teachers? What are
the similarities and differences across School Families?
• How did the DELTA School Families and their CSU partners implement their
coaching and induction activities for novice teachers? What changes in
implementation occurred over time?
1 In the DELTA Initiative, mentoring activities are referred to as coaching activities and mentors are
referred to as coaches. For the remainder of the study, the term coaching activities will be used when
referring to mentoring activities and the term coach will be used when referring to mentors.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
• What policy factors at the state and local levels influenced the
implementation of the DELTA coaching and induction activities for novice
teachers? Did the policy factors have a differential impact on the School
Families?
The research methods used in this study involved case studies of the four
original DELTA School Families. Qualitative data including PreK-12 teacher
interviews, CSU faculty interviews, Practitioner Team Leader (PTL) interviews, and
archival documents were analyzed to answer the research questions.2 All of the data
used in this study were originally collected for the evaluation of the DELTA
Initiative conducted by the Center on Educational Governance (CEG) at the Rossier
School of Education, University of Southern California, and funded by the California
State University, the Weingart Foundation, and the Los Angeles Annenberg
Metropolitan Project. Data were collected and reports were issued over the
following time periods: 1996-1998 (DELTA years one and two), 1998-1999
(DELTA year three), and 1999-2000 (DELTA year four). The first two years were
combined because the initial year of the DELTA Initiative was primarily a planning
year.
Prior to discussing the specific data sources used in this study, background
information will be given on the LAAMP and DELTA reforms.
2 PTLs were representatives from participating PreK-12 schools and CSU campuses who were
responsible for coordinating their School Family’s DELTA activities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Background: LAAMP and DELTA
As indicated earlier, DELTA was created as part of LAAMP, which was an
educational reform initiative implemented in about 250 schools in Los Angeles
County. LAAMP was designed to foster high levels of student achievement through
the creation of stable learning communities. In its effort to do this, LAAMP required
that schools work together in networks to design and implement educational reforms.
Twenty-eight networks or School Families were funded by LAAMP. School
Families were comprised of groups of schools arranged in a high school feeder
pattern including one high school and the middle schools and elementary schools
that fed into it. Each School Family received funding through LAAMP to carry out
its efforts over a five-year period (1996-2001).
Of the 28 School Families, there were four LAAMP School Families who
also participated in DELTA, a partnership between the School Families and local
California State University (CSU) campuses to reform teacher professional
development throughout the teacher career cycle from pre-service through in-service.
The focus of this study, however, was on one component of DELTA— the coaching
and induction activities for novice teachers.
The four DELTA School Family pairings that were examined include:
1. Francis Polytechnic School Family (located in Los Angeles Unified School
District) and CSU Northridge
2. Lincoln School Family (located in Los Angeles Unified School District) and
CSU Los Angeles
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
3. Long Beach Polytechnic School Family and CSU Long Beach
4. Pasadena School Family and CSU Dominguez Hills
Interviews
• PreK-12 Teacher Interviews: Novice Teachers and Coaches.
In-depth interviews with a sample of experienced and novice teachers
participating in the DELTA coaching program were conducted. The coaching
program for novice teachers was a teacher support program involving experienced
teachers. During the interviews, both novice teachers and coaches were asked about
their experiences in the coaching program.
Data Collection Instrument. Separate interview protocols were used for
novice teachers and coaches (see Appendix A). The protocol for coach interviews
included questions about their involvement in the coaching program,
application/interview process, the nature of the training received to become a coach,
coaching activities (e.g., duties, time spent on coaching activities, type of support
provided to novice teachers), assignment of novice teachers, matching process,
coaching roles, supervision/support received as a coach, and opportunities to interact
with other coaches. Also, returning coaches were asked to describe differences in
their coaching experiences from the previous year.
The interview protocols for novice teachers included similar questions.
Novice teachers were asked about their involvement in the coaching program,
assignment to a coach, matching process, type of support and training received from
the coach, frequency of meetings, nature and extent of feedback provided by the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
coach, issues discussed, accessibility to the coach, number of hours of direct contact
with the coach, number of hours spent on coaching-related activities, and coaching
roles. Additionally, teachers who were participating in the program for a second
year were asked to describe changes in their coaching experiences from the previous
year.
Data Collection Procedures. In each of the three years that teacher interviews
were conducted, 20 novice teacher/coach pairs (5 pairs from each School Family)
were randomly selected for the interviews from a list of all novice teachers
participating in the DELTA coaching program. Approximately 40 individual
interviews were conducted each year. Interviews took about one hour and were
conducted in the teacher’s classroom.
• Practitioner Team Leader (PTL) Interviews.
Each DELTA School Family was managed by a group of PTLs consisting of
one representative from a PreK-12 school in the School Family and at least two CSU
faculty members from the partner university. PTLs were responsible for
coordinating their School Family’s DELTA activities.
Both PreK-12 and CSU PTLs from each School Family were interviewed
about their experiences in DELTA. PTL interviews focused on the implementation
of the Initiative. The interviews provided information about factors that facilitated or
impeded implementation (including policy factors). Interview questions focused on
major achievements, problem areas, and the extent of collaboration in the
implementation of DELTA reforms.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
Data Collection Instrument. Protocols were also used to conduct the PTL
interviews (see Appendix B). These protocols included questions about the nature
and extent of CSU/PreK-12 collaboration and involvement, changes in collaboration
over time, factors that affected the implementation of the coaching program, major
accomplishments in the implementation of induction programs from the previous
year, selection and training of coaches, supervision and evaluation of coaches, and
the coordination of the DELTA induction program with other support programs for
novice teachers. In addition, PTLs were asked to compare the School Family’s
original goals for its coaching program with the actual implementation.
Data Collection Procedure. During the third year of the Initiative, a total of
four group interviews with PTLs were held (one per School Family). Nine PTLs
participated in the interviews (number of PTLs interviewed per School Family: 2, 3,
2, 2). During the fourth year of the Initiative, four group interviews were also held
(one per School Family). Ten PTLs participated in the interviews (number of PTLs
interviewed per School Family: 2, 2, 2, 4).
• California State University (CSU) Faculty Interviews
Interviews with CSU faculty at the four participating CSU campuses
provided another viewpoint regarding the implementation of the DELTA coaching
program.
Data Collection Instrument. Protocols were used to conduct interviews with
CSU faculty (see Appendix C). Faculty members were asked to describe the
involvement of CSU in the selection, training, support, and supervision of coaches.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
Data Collection Procedure. During the 1997-1998 school year, a total of 32
CSU-level interviews were conducted. In 1998-1999, a total of 20 CSU faculty
members were interviewed. In 1999-2000, a total of 33 faculty members were
interviewed. The names of participating CSU faculty members were obtained from
the CSU PTLs in each School Family. Faculty members were selected based on
their involvement in the DELTA Initiative the previous year.
Archival Documents
The examination of various DELTA-related documents provided information
regarding the design and implementation of the Initiative as well as relevant policy
factors.
• DELTA Proposals
Separate proposals were submitted by LAAMP to the Weingart Foundation
and the Ford Foundation requesting support for the DELTA Initiative. The Weingart
Foundation Proposal (referred to as the LAAMP/LEARN Proposal for Improving
Teacher Preparation and Training) and the Ford Foundation Proposals (original
proposal and subsequent proposal requesting additional funding) describe the plan to
implement the DELTA Initiative. Additionally, the proposals identify and describe
DELTA’S program elements (pre-service, induction, and in-service). These
proposals provided information about the original design of the DELTA Initiative.
• School Family Learning Plans
Information regarding the design and implementation of DELTA reforms as
well as information related to policy factors, which impacted the Initiative was also
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
obtained from School Family Learning Plans. A requirement of LAAMP was that
School Families create Learning Plans, which identified and described their student
outcome goals as well as implementation strategies. Learning Plans served as a
School Family’s blueprint of reform. Although initial Learning Plans did not contain
specific information about DELTA reforms, subsequent Learning Plans began to
incorporate this information. School Families were required by LAAMP to revise
their Learning Plans annually.
• Mentor Teacher Coaching Logs
Information regarding the implementation of the coaching component of
DELTA was obtained from logs that were submitted by coaches in all four of the
DELTA School Families. These logs outlined the nature of activities coaches and
novice teachers participated in, and the issues they worked on. The information
contained in the coaching logs was content analyzed to determine the themes among
issues novice teachers and coaches worked on and to determine the topics they most
commonly discussed.
The completion rate of coaching logs differed from one School Family to
another. In some School Families, many coaches did not submit their logs on a
regular basis. However, in other School Families, the submission of logs was high
because of a condition requiring coaches to submit their logs in order to receive
payment for their work. Thus, the use of the coaching logs in the analysis was
limited.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
DELTA School Family Annual Self-Evaluation Reports/Annual Progress Reports
As indicated in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
LAAMP and participating school districts, each district was required to submit an
annual self-evaluation report to LAAMP identifying progress made in achieving the
School Family’s goals and outcomes.3 In addition to the School Family’s
implementation-related information, the reports also contained descriptions of
program design, problems encountered, and School Family priorities for the
following academic year.
• DELTA Annual Reports to the Weineart and Ford Foundations
The DELTA Annual Reports, which were submitted to the Weingart and
Ford Foundations by each School Family, provided information about the policy
factors that impacted the Initiative. Additionally, these reports provided information
about each School Family’s implementation strategies, progress and challenges
encountered, major accomplishments, and implications for the upcoming year.
Summary
In order to clarify the connection between the study’s data sources and the
research questions, the following table was created.
3 The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is a performance contract between the organizations
involved in the DELTA Initiative. MOUs between LAAMP and each participating school district
specify the commitments of the districts to the Initiative.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Table 1:
Summary of the Connection Between Research Questions and Data Sources
Data Sources
Research Questions
Original
Design
Implementation Policy Factors
Interviews
Coaches X
Novice Teachers X
CSU Faculty X
PTLs X X
Archival Documents
DELTA Proposals X
Learning Plans X X X
Coaching Logs X
DELTA School
Family Annual Self-
Evaluation
Reports/Annual
Progress Reports
X X X
DELTA Annual
Reports to the
Weingart and Ford
Foundations
X X
As indicated by Table 1, triangulation (qualitative cross-validation) across
multiple data sources was conducted. Triangulation facilitated an assessment of
consistency of the data. Through triangulation, the researcher was also able to assess
corroboration across multiple sources.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Results from this qualitative study of DELTA are presented in Chapter 4 and
are drawn primarily from interviews with PreK-12 teachers (novices and coaches),
PTLs, and CSU faculty; proposals submitted by LAAMP to the Weingart and Ford
Foundations; School Family Learning Plans; mentor teacher coaching logs; DELTA
School Family annual self-evaluation reports/annual progress reports; and DELTA
annual reports to the Weingart and Ford Foundations. What immediately follows is
a description of coaching participants, coaching activities, types of support provided,
content areas focused on during coaching, and time spent on coaching activities.
Next, is a discussion of the elements of the mentoring framework used in the present
study. The mentoring framework was developed from the literature and presented in
Chapter 3. As noted earlier, the framework consists of the six key design
components: careful selection of mentors, careful matching of mentors and novice
teachers, mentor training, mentor incentives, administrative support, and program
evaluation. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the impact of coaching
activities on participants.
Coaching Participants
Different groups of novice teachers participated in the School Families’
coaching and induction activities. The DELTA coaching program supported
preservice teacher credential candidates enrolled in fifth-year programs at
participating CSU campuses as well as emergency permit teachers teaching in
LAAMP School Families. Also, first and second-year credentialed teachers received
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
support through the School Families’ Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
(BTSA) programs.4
Coaching Activities
In order to support novice teachers, coaches utilized a variety of support
strategies. Coaching activities, reported by DELTA participants, included
observations of one another’s classrooms as well as the classrooms of other
experienced teachers (joint and unaccompanied observations, both in and outside
participants’ schools), conferences between participants (including feedback from
observations), and model or demonstration lessons conducted by coaches. School
Families required some of these activities as part of their support and assessment
models for novice teachers (e.g., Pathwise and CFASST); nevertheless, participants
reported considerable value with respect to joint observations. One coach explained
that it was important for coaches to accompany novice teachers to observations at
other schools, because the coach helped the novices “process” what they observed.
As for observations done by the novice teacher alone, one coach indicated that such
observations were useful for gathering ideas from other teachers. A novice teacher
mentioned that he benefited most by observing different teachers and their varied
teaching styles, because he got many ideas from seeing them all in action— someone
was there to show him “how to do it.” Overall, the extent to which these coaching
activities were carried out varied widely among coaches. Some coaches utilized all
4 BTSA is a state-initiated program designed to support credentialed novice teachers in their first two
years of teaching. The support and assessment of each novice teacher is based on the California
teaching standards.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
of these activities on a regular basis while other coaches adhered mainly to the
required classroom observations.
Types of Support Provided
As for the types of support provided, interviews with coaches and novice
teachers revealed that coaches provided novices with psychological and instructional
support. A coach summed this up when she described her coaching job as assisting
the novice teacher in any way she can, including informal moral support (based on a
relationship of trust) as well as formal classroom and curricular assistance. In terms
of both psychological and instructional support, when coaches were asked to identify
what they considered to be the most important mentoring role, a majority of coaches
cited roles related to the psychosocial function of mentoring, such as professional
acceptance, confirmation, counseling, and friendship. Likewise, when novice
teachers were asked what mentoring role was most important to them, they also cited
roles related to psychosocial functions.
With regard to psychological support, several novice teachers mentioned
receiving emotional support. One novice teacher noted that her coach did a lot of
hand holding, giving support, and listening to his problems. Novices also described
the value of having someone to turn to and not feeling isolated. Techniques used by
coaches to provide novices with psychological support included sharing their own
personal teaching experiences with novice teachers and listening to what the novices
had to say.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Content Areas Focused on During Coaching
Table 2 outlines the content areas focused on during coaching activities for
the 1999-2000 school year based on information contained in coaching logs. The top
five content areas covered by each School Family are identified.
Important to note, however, regarding the information contained in the
coaching logs, is that the completion rate of coaching logs differed from one School
Family to another. In some School Families, coaches did not submit their logs on a
regular basis. Also, only 13 coaching logs were reviewed for the Lincoln School
Family. According to a PTL from Lincoln, the School Family’s coaching logs for
1999-2000, excluding the 13 that were reviewed, were misplaced and could not be
located. This of course limited any conclusions that could be drawn from the data.
Therefore, the data contained in these logs were used solely for informational
purposes.
Table 2:
Most Reported Areas of Focus in Coaching.
Pasadena Long Beach
Polytechnic/Cabrillo
Francis
Polytechnic
Lincoln
-Instructional
Skills
-Professional
Development
-School Process
-Classroom
Management
-Assessment
-Instructional Skills
-Classroom
Management
-Curriculum
-School Process
-Professional
Development
-Instructional
Skills
-Professional
Development
-School Process
-Classroom
Management
-Assessment
-Professional
Development
-School Process
-Instructional
Skills
-Assessment
-Classroom
Management
These were also the most frequently mentioned areas of focus cited in the interview
responses from coaches and novice teachers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
In regards to curriculum and instruction, novice teachers indicated that
coaches helped them with lesson and unit planning, conducted demonstration
lessons, offered ideas and advice, and shared resources and materials. A novice
teacher mentioned that her coach helped her to integrate subject matter into the
curriculum as well as across it. Another novice teacher noted that her coach helped
her to raise expectations for students by focusing on higher-level thinking, guided
reading, and being very clear and concise about the objectives for each lesson.
In the area of school process, novice teachers received assistance in working
with other school personnel as well as with school policies, procedures, and
paperwork. One coach described her coaching duties as “showing new teachers the
ropes.” According to the coach, most of the coaching time was spent just physically
orienting the novice teacher to the school in terms of materials allocation, services
location, and knowledge about staff members as resources. Similarly, a novice
teacher mentioned that most of the assistance she received was organizational (e.g.,
finding out how the district and school worked). Novices also reported assistance
with acculturation. Specifically, coaches helped novices to get a better
understanding of the culture of the school, district, and community. One novice
teacher stated that her coach helped her to “work the system” and get things done
within the constraints of the district.
Novices also reported support in the area of professional development. With
respect to the coaching logs, this included reflection on teaching, goal setting, and
working with communities, families, and colleagues.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Teachers also mentioned that they received assistance in the area of student
assessment. For example, a novice teacher noted that his coach helped him establish
benchmarks for students, vary methods of assessing student work, and improve his
methods of keeping records.
Another area where assistance was provided was classroom management.
Coaches offered suggestions regarding classroom environment and atmosphere,
behavior management and incentive programs, discipline strategies, behavioral
plans, and classroom set-up. For example, according to a novice teacher, her coach
was instrumental in helping her develop contracts, recognize student behavior that
could lead to potential problems, and develop interventions. Also, another novice
teacher mentioned that her coach provided her with alternative methods of
developing a behavioral plan. Additionally, a coach indicated that she helped her
novice teacher with arranging desks as a classroom management tool.
Time Spent on Coaching Activities
In general, the time spent on coaching activities differed from what was
originally anticipated. The DELTA proposals submitted by LAAMP to the Weingart
and Ford Foundations mentioned that each student teacher is expected to have a
coach who is available for day-to-day guidance. Although Learning Plans revealed
that School Families did attempt to comply with this expectation, certain
circumstances made this difficult. As indicated by the Lincoln School Family,
experienced teachers have many competing demands on their time in addition to the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
work that they must do to maintain effective instructional strategies in the classroom
(Powers and Wong, 2000).
Weekly contact hours between coaches and novice teachers were reported in
the coaching logs. Table 3 presents the weekly contact hours reported by School
Families for 1999-2000. As indicated by Table 3, in general, coaches and novice
teachers more frequently reported spending between 30-60 minutes of weekly
contact time with one another. This was also true for the individual School Families.
Information collected from interviews with coaches and novices revealed that
coaching participants generally spent over 30 minutes of direct contact with one
another.
Table 3:
Weekly Contact Hours (1999-20001.
Pasadena Long Beach
Polytechnic/Cabrillo
Francis
Polytechnic
Lincoln
Less than 30
Minutes
69 313 32 2
30-60 Minutes 349 1004 584 87
Greater than One
Hour
262 689 363 66
A concern that was raised by novice teachers was limited time to engage in
coaching activities. Although the DELTA proposals mentioned that coaches be
provided with release time to participate in coaching activities, the amount of time
spent on these activities differed greatly among participants. A number of coaches
scheduled formal meeting times with their novice teachers (e.g., once a week or
twice a month). Some interacted with their novice teachers daily, while others
provided support on an as needed basis.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
Novice teachers and coaches indicated that the amount of time spent in direct
contact varied and was dependent on issues or concerns at any given time. As
mentioned by a novice teacher, the time spent with the coach usually depended on
the content of the meeting and their mutually perceived needs. One coach noted that
there were no set meeting times, how often they met was based on the novice’s need.
Likewise, a different coach said that she met with her novices as needed.
Several novice teachers and coaches reported changes in the amount of time
spent on coaching activities as the school year progressed. In particular, they
mentioned a decrease in time. For example, a novice teacher noted that at the
beginning of the year she met with her coach on a regular basis. As the year
progressed, she was “weaned” off meeting regularly. According to the novice, both
she and her coach felt that it was not necessary to meet as often toward the end of the
experience.
Although several novices reported that they were satisfied with the amount of
contact time they had with their coaches, others reported that they needed more time
to interact. One novice teacher mentioned that she felt she needed to meet more
frequently for an impact. Another novice noted that while he liked the support he
received, it was inadequate because he wanted more time with the coach, more time
to observe other teachers, and more time to find out about available resources.
When asked how the program could be made more effective, several novice
teachers and coaches suggested that more time be provided to carry out coaching
activities. According to a novice teacher, the coaching program could be made more
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
helpful by providing additional release time to observe other teachers. One coach
indicated that she wished that coaches and novice teachers could have a common
preparation period to share information during the school day. Similarly, another
coach suggested scheduling the same conference period for participants.
The following is a discussion of the six key design components of the
mentoring framework used in the present study.
Careful Selection of Mentors
In terms of the coach selection process, all four School Families had
prospective coaches fill out some kind of written application as well as complete an
interview. Interviews typically involved PTLs, steering committee members, and
CSU faculty. Since the initial year of program implementation (1997-1998), the
coach selection process in the two LAUSD School Families, Francis Polytechnic and
Lincoln, also included a formal classroom observation of each applicant. PTLs from
the Francis Polytechnic and Lincoln School Families worked collaboratively to
design an application framework for DELTA coaches in LAUSD. Afterwards, the
two School Families developed their own observation process for coach applicants.
PTLs and DELTA Steering Committee members were typically involved in these
observations.5 In 1998-1999, the Long Beach Polytechnic and Pasadena School
Families incorporated observations into their selection process.
5 Each DELTA Family had a Steering Committee comprised of classroom teachers, school principals,
and district staff. The Steering Committee coordinated the activities of the Family’s Professional
Development Center (PDC), which was designed to provide professional development activities for
teachers and administrators.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
Overall, the coach selection process for each of the four School Families
corresponded to the DELTA proposals, which suggested that coach selection include
participation by peers and school faculty in collaboration with CSU faculty. School
Families reported varying degrees of principal participation in the selection process.
The Francis Polytechnic School Family’s “Coach Packet”, included in its Annual
Report, notes that members of the DELTA Steering Committee selected the DELTA
coach with input from the school site administrator (Burstein, Gudoski, Kretschmer,
and Smith, 1998). Furthermore, a Francis Polytechnic School Family coach reported
that a principal’s recommendation was required as part of the selection process.
Interviews with the Lincoln PTLs indicated that the coach application form needed
to be signed by a principal verifying that the teacher fulfilled the requirements for the
position. In Pasadena, PTLs reported that a written recommendation from a
principal was required. Principal involvement in coach selection was also reported
in the Long Beach Polytechnic/Cabrillo School Family. However, the data sources
did not go into detail regarding the nature of their involvement. Despite this, the
School Families’ selection process was not consistently followed. For example,
while all four School Families reported that the coach selection process included an
application form, the forms were not always filled out. Some coaches indicated that
they filled out an application form and others indicated that they did not.
Additionally, based on interview responses, classroom observations of coach
applicants also appeared inconsistent. Furthermore, although coaches, CSU faculty,
and PTLs reported that interviews with coach applicants were conducted, this was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
not always done. The inconsistency in the coach selection process was due primarily
to the high demand for coaches resulting from the statewide class-size reduction
initiative.
During the earlier years of program implementation (1997-1998), comments
made by coaches indicated that they were not impressed with the selection process.
One coach described the application form used by his School Family as
“perfunctory.” Coaches from two other School Families described the application
and interview process as “very easy” and “not particularly rigorous.” Furthermore,
some coaches could not really recall what the selection process was like.
Complicating coach selection were problems with recruiting enough
applicants. For instance, the Francis Polytechnic School Family indicated that it was
difficult for them to recruit enough coaches because of the high number of teachers
with emergency permits teaching in its schools (Burstein, Gudoski, Kretschmer, and
Smith, 2000).6 As a consequence of the difficulties with coach recruitment, School
Families focused more on getting enough applicants than on screening them. This
situation was mostly due to the large numbers of novice teachers hired as a result of
the class-size reduction initiative. Several coaches reported concerns regarding the
coach screening process in relation to this situation. For instance, a coach from one
School Family criticized the process because he felt that some teachers he saw at
training sessions were not strong candidates and should have been screened out.
Faculty from another School Family noted that “coaches were accepted rather than
6 Emergency permits are issued based on a school district’s need for teachers. It allows a person to
teach prior to demonstrating full subject matter competence or completing an approved teacher
preparation program.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
selected” because there were so few to choose from. Consistent with this view,
when asked to describe how the coach selection and training process changed from
previous years, PTLs from one School Family noted that, in the first year of program
implementation (1997-1998), screening of coaches had to be fairly minimal-- anyone
who wanted to do it was a coach because of the high numbers of novice teachers
who needed support. In the later years of program implementation, coach screening
became more rigorous, partly due to the increased recruitment efforts by School
Families.
Difficulties with recruiting enough coach applicants and the increase in the
number of novice teachers resulting from the state class-size reduction initiative led
School Families to assign two or even three novice teachers to each coach. This
contrasted with what was originally described in the DELTA proposals submitted by
LAAMP to the Weingart and Ford Foundations, which specified a one-to-one match
between coaching participants. Information gathered from interviews with coaches
revealed that there were a higher proportion of novice teachers assigned to individual
coaches in the Pasadena and Long Beach Polytechnic/Cabrillo School Families. The
Pasadena School Family’s Annual Self-Evaluation Report (1999-2000) indicated that
in 1998-1999, two to three novice teachers were assigned to work with one coach
during the academic year; almost all coaches were matched with three novice
teachers. The Long Beach Polytechnic/Cabrillo School Family’s Annual Progress
Report to the Weingart Foundation (1999-2000) mentioned that some schools
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
continued to be affected by high numbers of novice teachers. Consequently, coaches
were forced to support several novice teachers. Furthermore, the report mentioned
that quality coaching was hard to achieve when coaches supported several novice
teachers. The Lincoln School Family was the closest in terms of the one-to-one goal
of the coaching program.
Coaches who were assigned to several novice teachers indicated that a lower
ratio was preferred. The higher the ratio of coaches to novice teachers, the less time
was spent on coaching activities. According to a coach who supported two novice
teachers, she liked having less people to mentor and more quality time with them.
Another coach who provided support to several novice teachers stated, “It is much
easier having one beginning teacher.” When asked, how, if at all, the program could
be made more effective, several coaches suggested that a full-time professional be
hired to coach novice teachers. One coach noted that ideally, there would be a full
time coach who would provide intensive in-class support to the novice for the first
month, gradually lessen the amount of time and support, and then conduct regular
follow-up visits to monitor progress and provide additional support. She explained
that as a full-time classroom teacher, she didn’t like to miss her own class and was
therefore reluctant to spend as much time in the novice teachers’ classrooms as she
thought was needed.
Careful Matching of Mentors and Novice Teachers
The importance of carefully matching coaching participants was reflected in
a comment made by a coach who noted that the effectiveness of the coaching
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
program “depends on the match between the coach and the novice teacher.”
Likewise, it was reflected in suggestions for program improvement made by
coaching participants. For instance, one coach stated that the program could be
made more effective if “whoever is in charge makes sure there is a good match
between coach and mentee.”
Just as the coach selection process involved principal participation, so did the
matching process. For instance, in the Francis Polytechnic School Family, the
Polytechnic PTL met with principals individually to match novice teachers and
coaches (Burstein et al., 1998). This was consistent with the interview responses
from the School Family’s coaches and novice teachers who noted that principals
participated in the matching process. Coaches and novice teachers from the Long
Beach Polytechnic/Cabrillo and Lincoln School Families also reported principal
involvement in the matching process. Furthermore, an interview with a CSU faculty
member from the Long Beach Polytechnic/Cabrillo School Family revealed that
members of the CSU faculty were involved in the matching process as well. In
Pasadena, PTL interviews indicated that two coordinators hired by the district were
responsible for making matches between mentors and novice teachers.
In terms of factors considered when establishing matches between coaches
and novice teachers, interview responses revealed that consideration was given to
grade level and content area. Other factors were also mentioned in the School
Family Annual Reports. For instance, the Francis Polytechnic School Family
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
considered expertise and track.7 The significance of matches based on coach
expertise was expressed in a statement made by a coach indicating that he thought
the program could be improved by matching the specific needs of the novice teacher
with the talents of the coach.
In terms of tracks, coaching participants at schools with year-round schedules
found involvement in the program to be particularly difficult. The Francis
Polytechnic School Family identified this as a challenge in implementing their
activities (Burstein et al., 2000). Several coaches and novices who taught at schools
with year-round calendars and who were on different tracks indicated that this made
communication and interaction difficult. A number of coaches involved in this
predicament reported that they did not have much time to work with their novice
teachers. As one coach mentioned, her main concern about the coaching program
was time, particularly, finding enough time to meet her novice teacher since they are
on different tracks.
Novice teachers and coaches who viewed their matches as appropriate
mentioned the importance of the following factors when describing the
appropriateness of their matches: same grade level (including previous teaching
experience in a particular grade), same subject or content area, similar teaching style,
participant input into the matching process, proximity of classrooms, and same
school site (on-site matches). Conversely, DELTA participants mentioned these
7 Schools that follow a year-round schedule have a school calendar divided into tracks of time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
same factors to explain why matches were not appropriate. A discussion of the
significance of these factors follows.
Same Grade Level. In terms of the benefits of being matched by grade level,
a novice teacher noted, “The problems I was having were the same things she deals
with.” Thus, the coach and novice teacher were able to relate to one another.
Another novice teacher mentioned that a benefit of teaching a similar grade level (or
subject area) was that it allowed the coaching participants to share instructional
materials. Also, teaching similar grade levels facilitated frequent interaction. As one
coach noted, she found it easy to meet often with her novice teacher because their
class schedules were similar. Not too surprising, novice teachers with coaches who
had previous experience teaching their grade level also found the matches to be
appropriate. For instance, one novice teacher mentioned that she felt that the match
between her and her coach was appropriate despite the fact that her coach taught a
different grade level, since she had experience teaching her grade as well. Similarly,
a coach stated that although she did not currently teach the same grade level as her
novice teacher, the match was appropriate because she had taught his grade before.
A consequence of grade level mismatches, as indicated in an interview with a
novice teacher, was untimely feedback. According to the teacher, her coach was
teaching a different grade level than she was and the information exchanged was
“not as timely.” Also, grade level mismatches limited the type of support provided.
Novice teachers and coaches who were interviewed reported that if they did not
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
teach the same grade level as their coaching partner, they were less likely to focus on
curricular issues. For example, a novice teacher mentioned that there was less in the
way of curricular help provided to her (than other novice teachers she knew), since
her coach taught kindergarten and she taught second grade.
Same Subject or Content Area. Similar problems were also found in content
or subject area mismatches. For instance, a novice teacher who was involved in this
type of mismatch reported that it affected the nature of the coaching relationship.
Specifically, she noted that because she and her coach taught different subjects, they
did not interact regularly. Furthermore, novice teachers and coaches reported that
these mismatches limited the content covered during the coaching process. For
example, a coach mentioned that although he felt that his match was appropriate, a
limitation was that his novice teacher was in special education and he was not.
Consequently, he had to refer the novice to other teachers whenever he was
experiencing a problem in the special education area. Additionally, another coach
said that she spent no time on instructional technology and specific curriculum
issues, because her novice teachers taught different subjects. Likewise, some novice
teachers indicated that curriculum and assessment were not issues between them and
their coaches because they taught different subjects and content areas.
Not too surprising, when novice teachers were asked how the program could
be more effective, many responded: if novices and coaches were matched by grade
level and subject area. According to one novice teacher, this would allow coaching
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
participants to share instructional materials, which she believed was important for
success.
Similar Teaching Style. As for similarities in teaching style, a novice teacher
reported that her match was appropriate, because she and her coach shared similar
teaching ideas. Conversely, another novice teacher attributed the inappropriateness
of her match to differences in teaching style. Specifically, she had a student-centered
approach to teaching and her coach had a direct instruction approach. She noted that
the difference in fundamental approaches to teaching created some problems in their
relationship. In the case of another novice teacher who was in a similar predicament,
she mentioned that her coach attempted to impose an authoritarian style on her.
Consequently, this led her to be far less receptive to the coach’s support.
Participant Input into the Matching Process. In all four School Families,
some coaches and novice teachers indicated that they provided input into the
matching process. Several novices reported that they approached their coach or their
coach approached them about establishing a coaching relationship. One novice
teacher mentioned that she approached her coach, because she had heard that her
coach was well regarded by the school staff.
Input into the matching process was highly valued by several teachers
participating in the coaching program. One coach who chose her own novice
teachers mentioned that she felt that this was the most effective way to ensure good
matches. Another coach stated that her match was appropriate, because she and her
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
novice teacher “self-selected each other.” With respect to suggestions for program
improvement, a coach indicated that the program could be made more effective by
giving more choice and control to teachers regarding their matches. According to
this coach, it would reduce the resentment that sometimes resulted from bad pairings.
Proximity of Classrooms. Having classrooms close to one another facilitated
more frequent interaction among coaching participants. One coach mentioned that
he was in his novice teacher’s classroom every single day, which was easy because
their classrooms were quite close. Likewise, another coach indicated that she had
daily contact with her novice teachers, because their classrooms were nearby.
Novice teachers also reported similar advantages. For example, a novice teacher
noted that frequent observations were possible because her room was close to her
coach’s. Another novice mentioned that her coach’s classroom was right across the
hall from hers and whenever she had a question or problem, she went straight to him.
Same School Site (On-Site Matches). As discussed in the DELTA proposals
submitted by LAAMP to the Weingart and Ford Foundations, coaches were expected
to be available for on-site guidance. However, this was not always possible, because
of the high numbers of novice teachers and the lack of qualified coaches at some
schools. In Pasadena, the School Family had a problem with not being able to assign
all novice teachers to a coach who taught at the same school because some schools in
Pasadena had more novice teachers than experienced teachers. Consequently, this
made it difficult for all novice teachers to have an on-site match. In order to deal
with this situation, the Pasadena PDC worked with the teachers union to find ways to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
encourage the redistribution of experienced teachers. Another factor, which
prevented on-site matches, was the difficulty with finding enough teachers willing to
assume coaching responsibilities.
Coaching participants described the value of being matched with someone at
their own school. For example, one coach indicated that the effectiveness level of
the program depended on the location of the novice teacher relative to the coach. In
particular, she mentioned that a coach at the same school as the novice teacher would
have a lot more impact than one who is at a different school.
Not too surprising, when on-site matches were not available, there was
limited interaction between coaching participants. As one novice teacher mentioned,
although her coach had made herself very accessible, it was easier to talk to some
other teacher on-site about her problems than to try to arrange for a meeting with her
coach. Another novice indicated that although her coach had been accessible, they
sometimes wound up playing “phone tag” between their two schools. Likewise,
coaches mentioned similar problems. A coach who was involved in an off-site
relationship indicated that her novice teachers might have been discouraged from
contacting her because of difficulties in getting in touch by phone. She also stated
that it was hard for her to keep track of her novice teachers and to assess their
specific needs, because they were not at her school.
Both coaches and novices mentioned on-site matches in their suggestions for
program improvement. For example, a novice teacher stated that the only way she
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
could see the program become more effective was for the program to establish more
on-site matches. Similarly, a coach noted that the best way to improve the program
was to try to do as many on-site matches as possible. She indicated that problems in
commuting and getting in contact cross-campus really got in the way of the
program’s effectiveness.
Although not mentioned in the interviewees’ descriptions of appropriate
matches, yet identified in interviews as additional factors to consider when making
matches are: age of participants, gender of participants, coach’s teaching experience,
and novice’s teaching experience. A discussion of these factors follows.
Characteristics of Participants: Age. Gender, and Teaching Experience. The
age of coaching participants appeared to affect the coaching experience. For
instance, one novice teacher reported that she found the mentoring she received from
her cohorts to be more beneficial than that provided by her coach because as she
stated, “I have more time and they are closer in age.” Likewise, gender differences
also appeared to affect mentoring relationships in general. For example, when asked
if there were other teachers who acted in a mentoring role to her, a novice teacher
indicated that other history teachers acted as mentors. Although she did not go into
detail, she noted that gender differences played a role in the effectiveness of those
relationships. Additionally, the teaching experiences of participants also impacted
the coaching relationship. In one case in particular, a novice teacher indicated that
her coach had only been teaching for two years. Therefore, she didn’t know the
answers to some of her questions. Moreover, a number of coaches described the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
impact of being matched with several novice teachers who needed high levels of
support (e.g., emergency credentialed teachers). The novice teachers’ level of need
affected the amount of time spent on coaching activities. For instance, a coach who
was assigned two novice teachers mentioned that the support he provided to them
varied based on the experience and needs of each teacher. One of his novice
teachers was uncredentialed and he spent a lot of time with him. His other novice
teacher had previous teaching experience, and he worked with her more on an “as
needed” basis. He stated that he didn’t think he would have been able to manage two
novice teachers if both of them had the support needs of inexperienced teachers.
Mentor Training
Although the DELTA proposals submitted by LAAMP to the Weingart and
Ford Foundations did not go into detail regarding coach training, School Families
were expected to provide it. According to interviews with coaches and PTLs as well
as a review of School Family annual reports, coaches from all four School Families
were trained in the Pathwise model of professional development created by the
Educational Testing Service.8 The Pathwise model was the training model used by
the state teacher mentoring program at the time (1997-1998). From their
participation in the Pathwise training, coaches reported that they learned how to
structure communication for the relationship, how to keep monthly logs of their
coaching activities, and how to conduct classroom observations. Participants also
8 Pathwise is a professional development/assessment system for student and novice teachers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
learned about their role as a coach, scoring rubrics for classroom observations, and
how to be non-judgmental when working with novice teachers.
Following the state coaching program for novice teachers, in 1998-1999, all
four School Families replaced Pathwise with the California Formative Assessment
and Support System for Teachers (CFASST).9 CFASST is the training model that
the BTSA program adopted after Pathwise. Coaches who participated in CFASST
indicated that the training focused on areas that included goal setting,
communication, observation and reflection, teaching standards, organization,
professional growth, community involvement, mentoring approaches, classroom
environment, and evaluation. One coach mentioned that a benefit of her
participation in CFASST was that it taught her how to be supportive and
nonjudgmental.
As part of CFASST, coaches were trained in the California teaching
standards. Coaches mentioned several benefits of participating in this particular
training. For instance, one coach noted that since CFASST incorporates the teaching
standards, there were more links between training and application. According to the
coach, this prompted her to reflect on her teaching practices and consequently “made
her a better teacher.” Also, a different coach stated that he found the standards
training to be particularly useful, because it helped him develop ways of encouraging
novice teachers to tailor their lessons toward the standards.
9 CFASST is a support and formative assessment system designed to assist the professional
development of novice teachers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
DELTA coaches were involved in a variety of training opportunities. As
mentioned in interviews and School Family reports, coaches participated in training
opportunities, which gave them further insight into the coaching process. Additional
training included such topics as: paperwork, models of effective instruction, clinical
supervision, communication with novice teachers, coaching strategies,
developmental needs of novice teachers, environmental conditions conducive to
professional growth, assessment, and diversity.
DELTA coach training was coordinated and integrated with the training of
coaches participating in other support programs for novice teachers offered in the
districts. Even in cases where the DELTA training format for coaches was not
identical to the format for non-DELTA coach training, the same training models and
pedagogical strategies were used.
Based on the information gathered from interviews with coaches, the extent
to which coaches were required to participate in training varied between and among
the School Families. Several coaches noted that they didn’t attend any training prior
to becoming a coach. One coach stated that she didn’t receive any training, because
she was asked to participate after the training had been conducted. Other coaches
reported that they missed some or all of a given training session.
Although coaches generally felt positive about the training they received,
several of them indicated that formal follow-up training and support was limited. As
one coach mentioned, an area where the training fell short was “once you finished
the training you were out on your own with little or no support.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
The extent and quality of training provided to returning coaches also varied.
One coach reported that the initial training offered was focused on the least
experienced coaches. He also mentioned that the training did not really provide any
new information to him or to other coaches who served as mentors in the past.
Furthermore, some returning coaches indicated that they attended mini-reviews of
the training from the previous year, while others were required to attend the entire
training for a second time. Moreover, at times, returning coaches were not even
required to attend training the following year. One coach mentioned that while she
thought the training she received was adequate, she would have liked some feedback
on her performance as a coach. Additionally, a number of coaches reported they
would have liked to receive more formal, ongoing training, and support.
Mentor Incentives
As described in the DELTA proposals, coaches were to be compensated for
participating in the DELTA Initiative. Various issues emerged with respect to coach
compensation. Several coaches felt they were not adequately compensated for their
responsibilities. As one coach commented “Some coaches don’t give a full effort
because the pay isn’t worth the amount of work.” Adding to the perceived
inadequacy of coach stipends was the inequity in pay between DELTA coaches and
coaches participating in other support programs for novice teachers offered in the
district, particularly the districts’ Mentor Program funded by the state.1 0 The Lincoln
1 0 Several school districts in California participated in the California Mentor Teacher Program, which
involved providing guidance to novice teachers through mentor teachers. This program will be
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
School Family described this situation as a “pay inequity between the DELTA
stipend and the mentor stipend for comparable work” (Powers and Wong, 2000).
The Francis Polytechnic School Family indicated that district mentors were
compensated $4,300 for supporting two novices whereas DELTA coaches were
compensated $2,000 for supporting the same number of novice teachers (Burstein et
al., 2000).
The inequity in pay resulted in competition for coaches between the various
novice teacher support programs in the district. This led to difficulties in attracting
potential coaches to the DELTA coaching program. As one coach noted, there was
some resistance to DELTA on the part of experienced teachers, because mentor
teachers (from the District Mentor Program) got paid more than DELTA coaches.
CSU faculty also noted that the mentor program paid better and was thus more
attractive to teachers. In relation to suggestions for program improvement, one
coach mentioned that the program could be more effective if the amount of stipend
was aligned with coaching responsibilities. Another suggestion was to increase
coach compensation. Additionally, a CSU faculty member suggested that the
incentive structure for coaches be reassessed.
Administrative Support
In terms of support from CSU administration, university faculty as well as
PTLs generally reported that university campuses were supportive of DELTA.
Types of support from the CSU administration included: assigning faculty to work
with DELTA staff; providing funding (e.g., for the evaluation of the DELTA
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
Initiative); providing release time for faculty to participate in DELTA; attending
DELTA-related activities; rewarding DELTA involvement in the Review, Tenure,
and Promotion (RTF) process; and offering strong vocal support for the program.
According to one CSU faculty member, both the school of education and the
university as a whole displayed the attitude that “DELTA is something important.”
Furthermore, the faculty member stated, “If the administration put its weight behind
something, that is the only way it is going to happen... .in this case they did.”
CSU faculty participation in DELTA coaching and induction programs was
not extensive. In cases where involvement in these areas occurred, CSU faculty
participated in the selection and training of PreK-12 coaches and served as ongoing
support providers of DELTA coaches. While faculty at all of the participating CSU
campuses were involved in the training and support of coaches, only a few CSU
faculty were actually involved in coaching activities.
As for support from K-12 administration, although coaches, novices, and
CSU faculty reported support from this group, it was sometimes inconsistent. Some
principals actively supported the DELTA coaching program while others did not.
Coaches and novice teachers reported that principals provided: verbal support (e.g.,
principals “spread the word” about the program), release time for coaching
participants, opportunities for formal/informal ongoing support and learning among
novice teachers, and substitute coverage for teachers. In general, one CSU faculty
member mentioned that assistance for the coaching program came from School
Family administrators and principals who were supportive of the program by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
attending meetings and doing what they could to demonstrate that DELTA was
valuable, particularly for novice teachers.
In addition to supporting the coaching program, K-12 administrators were
also directly involved in the program. As noted earlier, they participated in the
selection and matching process. Coaches reinforced the value of administrative
involvement in the coaching program in their suggestions for program improvement.
During interviews, coaches recommended more administrative awareness and
involvement in the program. As one coach stated, she believed the program could be
improved if administration was part of the program design. Additionally, she
mentioned that new administrators should be routinely oriented to the program and
its purposes. Another coach noted that she believed that administrative involvement
would help build a “team” within the school site. She also speculated that the
program would “come together” if there were more administrative support. A
different coach mentioned that she believed that more opportunities for informal
support would be beneficial if it came from the administration. She felt that this
would add credibility to coaches in the eyes of the novice teachers.
Program Evaluation
As a requirement of LAAMP, each participating school district was expected
to submit an annual self-evaluation report to LAAMP identifying progress made in
achieving the School Family’s goals and outcomes. The School Families, generally,
had discretion as to what data to collect and report in their self-evaluations. The
DELTA School Families apparently learned from the evaluation process. In its
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
Annual Self-Evaluation Report (1997-1998), the Lincoln School Family commented
that participants learned about data-driven decision-making from the annual review
process.
School Families engaged in a variety of activities related to their annual self-
evaluations. The Long Beach Polytechnic School Family’s Learning Plan (1997-
1998) mentioned the School Family’s intention to compile family-wide statistics and
performance evaluations. The Francis Polytechnic School Family indicated that the
Polytechnic PTL collected coaching logs and Individual Induction Plans (IIPs) and
reviewed them (Burstein et al., 1998).1 1 Furthermore, the PTL conducted focus
group meetings with DELTA and BTSA coaches, novice teachers, and
administrators to evaluate the School Family’s induction activities.
Although School Families typically conducted their own annual self-
evaluations, the Pasadena School Family contracted with Public Works, Inc. to
conduct their evaluations. Results from the evaluations conducted by Public Works,
Inc. led the Pasadena PTLs to redesign the training and assessment portions of the
DELTA coaching program to be more like BTSA. The School Family’s Annual Self-
Evaluation Report (1999-2000) indicated that the data gathered from the Public
Work’s evaluations provided some insight with respect to teachers’ initial experience
in the district and highlighted areas in need of improvement in both the district’s
teacher induction programs and its professional development offerings. Internally,
1 1 IIPs are used in the state funded mentoring program for novice teachers to connect the formative
assessment results of each novice teacher’s performance with support strategies designed to improve
the novice’s performance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
the School Family’s Annual Self-Evaluation Report (1997-1998) indicated that since
the state BTSA program does not provide specific criteria for assessing the quality of
support given to novice teachers, the School Family’s Steering Committee, with the
support of the Pasadena Teacher’s Union, created an evaluation criterion called the
“Support Teacher Standards of Excellence,” a self-evaluation tool completed by each
novice teacher and each coach. After completion, the forms were placed in the
coach’s file together with monthly logs and collaboratively developed IIPs for the
novice teacher(s). The contents of the files were considered in making decisions
regarding the reappointment of support teachers. The report indicated that this
process increased awareness of accountability issues among the coaches.
During interviews with teachers, some indicated that DELTA could be
improved through stronger program evaluation requirements. For example, one
novice teacher commented that evaluations should track the growth experience of the
novice teacher. Another novice teacher noted that more involvement by K-12
administrators in program evaluation was needed.
Impact of Coaching Activities on Participants
Satisfaction with the support provided through the coaching program was
high, with benefits for novice teachers, coaches, and School Families. Novice
teachers reported that participation in the coaching program helped them to develop
their confidence as teachers as well as their sense of belonging to the school. Several
novice teachers mentioned that through their participation in the coaching program,
they gained support and friendship and used their coaches as a “sounding board” to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
bounce ideas off. From the coaches’ perspective, they commented that the support
they provided to novice teachers gave them reassurance, which helped to develop the
novices’ confidence.
Novices reported several impacts on their teaching practices in relation to the
assistance provided in the area of curriculum and instruction. Several novice
teachers identified improvements in lesson planning and implementation. For
example, a novice teacher reported that her coach encouraged her to actively
participate in lessons rather than passively disseminate information. A different
teacher mentioned that the coaching program helped him to develop more thorough
lesson plans. Additionally, several novices noted that they benefited from the ideas
generated from the coaching process. Also, a number of novice teachers reported
that they received access to more resources. Likewise, from the coaches’ point of
view, several reported improvements in novice teachers’ performance in relation to
lesson planning and implementation. For instance, a coach stated that his novice
teacher designed more appropriate lesson plans as a result of participation in
coaching activities. Similarly, another coach indicated that she saw a dramatic
change in the relevance of her novice’s lessons. Also, a different coach mentioned
that his novice’s lesson planning was more focused.
Novice teachers also reported that participation in the coaching program
helped improve their communication with others. One novice mentioned that she
learned how to communicate with a culturally diverse student and parent population
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
with the help other coach. Likewise, a different novice teacher mentioned that he
was better able to interact with parents through discussions with his coach.
Additionally, novice teachers mentioned improvements in the area of student
assessment. A novice teacher noted that participation in the program helped him to
grow as a teacher because he moved away from tests and lectures. Similarly, other
novice teachers indicated that a benefit of participating in the coaching program was
learning to assess students more accurately.
Furthermore, novice teachers reported improvements in classroom
management. One novice teacher mentioned that coaching helped him to get better
control of the class and get the children’s support. Also, he was able to establish
better boundaries for students. Another novice teacher indicated that one particular
area where the coaching program was helpful for her was improving her time
management. Also, through the assistance of her coach, a novice teacher indicated
that she became more reflective about classroom incidences and resolved them more
effectively. Several coaches reported seeing improvements in the classroom
management of their novice teachers as well. For example, a coach stated that her
novice teacher made significant improvements in time and room management.
Likewise, another coach noted that his novice teacher was better able to plan his
schedule better.
Although coaching programs typically emphasize the benefits to novice
teachers, coaches also reported receiving benefits from their participation in the
coaching program. The Francis Polytechnic School Family mentioned that coaches
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
improved their own teaching practices through their participation in CFASST
training (Burstein et al, 2000). Several coaches noted that participation in the
coaching program made them more reflective of their own teaching practices.
Additionally, coaches were able to get ideas from novice teachers. One coach
mentioned that she learned from a novice teacher’s idea of good classroom practices.
Another coach indicated that novice teachers shared their expertise with their
coaches. Consequently, coaches learned from novice teachers. A coach mentioned
that his novice teacher helped to “keep him fresh.”
As for benefits to the organization, an important goal of the coaching
program was to increase the retention of novice teachers. One coach described the
connection between coaching support and the retention of novice teachers: “It is
important to have someone to talk to; it helps keep them (novice teachers) here and
prevents them from quitting.” Another novice teacher commented that her coach
provided a “shoulder to lean on” when she was frustrated and ready to give up.
Similarly, another novice teacher mentioned that he gained more patience and
interest in staying as a teacher, despite the frustrations. Another credits her coach
with the fact that she never thought about leaving. The impact of program
participation on retention was also supported in some of the School Family reports.
For example, the Francis Polytechnic School Family indicated that since the
inception of DELTA in 1996, teacher retention has been high, averaging 94%
(Burstein et al., 2000).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
As mentioned in Chapter 1, the purpose of this study was to examine
approaches to mentoring novice teachers in the DELTA Initiative. The study
examined how DELTA’S coaching and induction activities evolved over time. In the
last chapter, the results from the qualitative data (interviews and archival documents)
were described. In the present chapter, these results will be synthesized and
discussed in relation to the research questions identified earlier (see Chapter 3).
Chapter 5 ends with a discussion of the study’s implications for the design of support
programs for novice teachers.
Prior to discussing the findings and implications, it is important to mention
limitations to the generalizability of the present study. The DELTA Initiative has a
unique structure and approach. Schools that participated in DELTA worked together
in groups, School Families, to design and implement the Initiative. These School
Families had their own specific needs, goals, resources, and circumstances.
Additionally, the individual School Families worked in collaboration with a
participating CSU campus. Furthermore, DELTA emphasized the integration of
preservice, induction, and in-service professional development. Moreover, DELTA
had its own Governing Board and Steering Committees that oversaw the activities of
i >>
the Initiative. For all these reasons, the present study is of limited generalizability
and is meant to be exploratory in nature.
1 2 The Governing Board oversaw and communicated with School Families regarding their
implementation of the DELTA Initiative. The Board consisted of representatives from the Ford and
Weingart Foundations, LAAMP, CSU, teachers unions, and other School Family stakeholders.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
Conclusions
Question 1: How did the DELTA School Families and their CSU
partners originally design their coaching and induction activities for novice
teachers? W hat are the similarities and differences across School Families?
The DELTA coaching program was intended to provide field-based
preparation experiences for aspiring teachers. It was principally designed for teacher
credential candidates enrolled in fifth-year programs at participating CSU campuses.
However, according to the DELTA proposals submitted by LAAMP to the Weingart
and Ford Foundations, emergency credentialed teachers teaching in participating
LAAMP Family Schools were also expected to participate. Furthermore, the
proposals indicated that the coaching program would be made available to LAAMP
school paraprofessionals (e.g., teacher assistants) and college undergraduates
interested in becoming teachers. Consequently, the target group of novice teachers
for the mentoring program was very large. Moreover, the DELTA proposals
mentioned the coordination of the DELTA coaching program and BTSA. Since the
LAAMP requirements for coaching and induction activities were broad, School
Families had flexibility in terms of how they designed their individual programs.
All four School Families incorporated fieldwork experiences into their
teacher preparation programs. The Francis Polytechnic School Family mentioned
that although the School Family’s teacher preparation programs differed in structure
and emphasis, they all involved joint planning and teaching among school and
university faculty, field experience under the guidance of teachers (coaches) who
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
were trained to work with aspiring and novice teachers, a standards-based curriculum
organized around the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP), and
1 ^
preparation to serve a diverse and urban student population (Burstein et al., 2000).
The Lincoln School Family worked with CSULA to redesign teacher preservice
programs to better train novice teachers and to allow for multiple entry points into
the teaching profession. A common element found in the School Family’s preservice
programs was field experiences provided through the guidance of veteran teachers
(coaches). In Pasadena, as a way to support novice teachers, regardless of their
credentialing status, the School Family provided two mentoring programs: New
Teacher Team Coach (NTTC) and BTSA. According to the School Family’s self-
evaluation report (1999-2000), both programs were designed to provide support to
and retain novice teachers by assigning them to work with experienced teachers.
The School Family’s Annual Progress Report to the Ford Foundation (1999-2000)
mentioned that the NTTC was coordinated with BTSA in order to provide support
activities for novice teachers that were consistent across the early stages of a
teacher’s professional development. The Long Beach Polytechnic/Cabrillo School
Family worked with CSULB to develop multiple avenues for teacher certification
and contributed to the development of several teacher preparation programs. Each of
these programs involved field experiences with veteran teachers.
All four School Families incorporated BTSA into the design of their
induction programs. Consistent with the DELTA proposals, each LAAMP School
1 3 The CSTP defines and describes effective teaching practices in California.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
Family established a state-funded BTSA program for first and second-year teachers.
The goal of these induction activities, as stated in the DELTA proposal (1996) to the
Weingart Foundation was “to reduce teacher attrition and burn-out substantially, to
provide stability in staffing patterns at LAAMP School Families, and to create an
innovative, supportive program directed at assisting new teachers in implementing
effective classroom practice” (p. 6). In keeping with the DELTA proposals, the PDC
and appropriate district, county, and university personnel jointly managed the BTSA
programs. Yet, PDCs were primarily responsible for the induction, orientation, and
professional development of novice teachers.
In the Francis Polytechnic, Lincoln, and Long Beach Polytechnic/Cabrillo
School Families, DELTA and BTSA coaches were not differentiated. The
distinction lay in the funding source for each coach. In Pasadena, however, as
mentioned earlier, the School Family created two separate support programs for
novice teachers. This resulted in a distinction between BTSA and DELTA coaches.
In the Francis Polytechnic School Family, ongoing support for aspiring and novice
teachers was provided through the DELTA Coach/BTSA Support Provider/Assessor
Model.1 4 This model was designed to provide traditional student teachers,
emergency permit teachers, intern credentialed teachers, and first and second-year
teachers with coaching support through a DELTA or BTSA coach.
DELTA and BTSA coaches were similar in several respects. Both DELTA
and BTSA coaches performed the same duties and used the same coaching logs, IIPs,
1 4 In BTSA, coaches are referred to as support providers/assessors. They perform formative
assessments of their assigned novice teacher(s) and provide them with support.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
and assessment tools. In the Lincoln School Family, in order to augment its BTSA
coaches, the School Family recruited and trained DELTA coaches. BTSA coaches
provided support to first and second-year credentialed teachers and DELTA coaches
supported emergency credentialed teachers as well as teachers who did not have a
district appointed mentor. The Long Beach Polytechnic/Cabrillo School Family’s
support program for novice teachers called the New Teacher Support Project,
involved both DELTA and BTSA coaches. It was grounded in the CSTP and was
based on the BTSA model. The School Family’s Annual Report to the Weingart
Foundation (1999-2000) mentioned that the vision of the New Teacher Support
Project was to match experienced teachers with novice teachers in order to provide
curriculum and pedagogical strategies as well as emotional and psychological
support. This is consistent with the mentoring literature, which identifies and
describes two types of mentoring functions in education: instructional support and
psychological support. These functions relate directly to the reported areas of focus
during coaching, identified by participants (instructional skills, curriculum,
professional development, school process, classroom management, and student
assessment). This is consistent with Gold’s (1996) assertion that effective support is
multidimensional, focusing on the variety of developmental needs of novice teachers
including areas such as pedagogical, curricular, psychological, logistical, and
classroom management.
The manner in which the four School Families designed their coach selection
process was similar. Initially, in each School Family, prospective coaches were
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
required to complete a written application as well as an interview. However, in the
Francis Polytechnic and Lincoln School Families, coaches were also required to
undergo a formal classroom observation as part of the selection process. The Francis
Polytechnic School Family’s selection process was designed to include an
observation team comprised ofPTLs and Steering Committee representatives who
observe the applicant using a rubric based on the CSTP. This was consistent with
the DELTA proposals, which indicated that coach selection should include
participation by peers and school faculty in collaboration with CSU faculty.
Furthermore, the School Families’ selection of coaches was designed to include
input from school site administrators.
With regards to matching coaches with novice teachers, in all School
Families, there was flexibility in this process. However, as noted earlier in Chapter
4, School Families considered similar variables when making matches (grade level,
content area, coach expertise, track). Excluding track, the variables confirm what
previous research on mentoring viewed as important.
All Four School Families compensated coaches for their work and provided
them with training. In terms of coach compensation, the School Families designed
their programs to include coach stipends. As for training, the nature of the training
was dependent on the needs and desires of the individual School Families.
Moreover, all four School Families designed their programs to include release time
for coaches and novice teachers to participate in coaching-related activities. This
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
was important because teachers have competing demands on their time, which
consequently, affect the time they spend on coaching activities.
Question 2: How did the DELTA School Families and their CSU
partners implement their coaching and induction activities for novice teachers?
What changes in implementation occurred over time?
The implementation of the coaching and induction activities in all four
School Families was affected by external environmental factors. The high numbers
of emergency permit teachers teaching in School Families made it difficult to
implement the day-to-day, on-site support originally envisioned. Also, the high
numbers of novice teachers made it difficult for School Families to implement the
one-to-one DELTA coaching model.
Table 4 shows the number and percentage of emergency credentialed
teachers teaching in each of the four School Families as mentioned in their Annual
Reports to the Weingart and Ford Foundations (2000). The information reveals a
high percentage of emergency credentialed teachers in the School Families. In some
cases, there were over 20% of emergency credentialed teachers teaching in a School
Family. The number of emergency credentialed teachers in the Long Beach
Polytechnic/Cabrillo School Family was the highest.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
Table 4:
Summary of Emergency Credentialed Teachers.
1997-1998 1998-11999 1999-2000
Number % Number % Number %
Francis Polytechnic
School Family
147 18% 147 17% 142 15%
Lincoln School
Family
43 14% 65 20% 92 22%
Pasadena School
Family
43 16% 24 9% 35 12%
Long Beach
Polytechnic/Cabrillo
School Family
132 28% 115 20% 127 26%
Each School Family integrated their DELTA coaching program with the
BTSA program. The School Families combined DELTA and BTSA funding in order
to support as many novice teachers as possible. Thus, a coach was funded through
DELTA or BTSA, or both, contingent on program eligibility. Furthermore, the
training and support of coaches was coordinated and integrated. DELTA coaches
from all four School Families received identical or similar training.
In the early years of the DELTA Initiative (1997-1998), the selection process
for coaches was viewed as easy, lax, noncompetitive, and more of a formality than a
screening process. In some cases, it was not consistently implemented. This
situation was contrary to the literature, which emphasizes the importance of careful
mentor selection. Complicating the coach selection process were problems
encountered by School Families with recruiting enough coaches. A factor that
affected the selection process included difficulties with finding qualified individuals
to serve as coaches. Some schools had more novice teachers than they did
experienced ones. This was primarily due to the large numbers of teachers hired as a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
result of the statewide class-size reduction initiative. Consequently, there was a
greater focus on the part of School Families to find enough coach applicants rather
than on screening the most qualified.
School Families took several steps to address this situation. For instance, all
four School Families increased their coach recruiting efforts. Also, in Pasadena, the
School Family worked with the district to encourage the redistribution of
experienced teachers. Additionally, in 1998-1999, the Long Beach
Polytechnic/Cabrillo School Family released a few teachers from their classroom
responsibilities on a full-time and part-time basis to serve as BTSA release coaches.
These teachers were placed at schools with high numbers of first and second-year
teachers. The School Family’s Annual Report to the Weingart Foundation (1999-
2000) mentioned that the release model enabled greater contact between coaches and
novice teachers. This relates to Humphrey et al.’s (2000) assertion that the general
approach of just adding mentoring responsibilities to a mentor’s full workload may
affect the quantity and quality of time mentors and novice teachers spend together.
The full-time release model, however, was contrary to the DELTA proposals, which
mentioned that coaches should continue with their regular teaching assignments.
As DELTA evolved, the selection process for coaches became more
formalized and standardized. According to interviews with coaches and PTLs, the
coach selection process became more rigorous. In 1998-1999, all four School
Families implemented a formal selection process for coaches including applications
and interviews as well as observations. The School Families’ selection process
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
included participation from K-12 school administrators and veteran classroom
teachers. This is consistent with Odell’s (1987) assertion of the importance of
involving veteran teachers in the selection process of coaches. It also helps to
alleviate the concern described by Odell (1987) that mentor teachers selected solely
by school administrators may not be perceived as being qualified by their veteran
peers to coach novice teachers. The School Families also reported that
representatives from the collaborative (e.g., PTLs, CSU faculty) were involved in the
selection process. In terms of CSU faculty participation in coach selection, they
were involved in activities such as recruiting potential coaches, conducting
classroom observations, participating in interview committees, and making
recommendations. This supports Odell’s (1987) assertion that when teacher support
programs are the collaborative effort of several organizations, representatives from
these organizations must also participate in the selection process.
Just as the high demand for coaches affected the coach selection process, it
also affected the matching process. The high numbers of novice teachers, caused by
statewide class-size reduction, and the resultant decrease in the availability of
experienced coaches forced School Families to assign more than one novice teacher
to a coach. This is a departure from the one-to-one model described in the DELTA
proposal. As mentioned in Chapter 4, based on the findings from coach interviews,
there were a higher proportion of novice teachers assigned to individual coaches in
the Pasadena and Long Beach Polytechnic/Cabrillo School Families. The Lincoln
School Family appeared to be the closest in terms of the one-to-one coach/novice
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
teacher goal. Coaches who were assigned to several novice teachers indicated that
this affected the nature of the support provided to them (e.g., limited the amount of
time spent on coaching activities). A coach who supported two novice teachers
stated that she liked having less people to support and having more quality time with
them.
Providing support to several novice teachers was more problematic for
certain coaches. It was particularly difficult for coaches assigned to more than one
novice teacher with high levels of need (e.g., emergency credentialed teachers). As
mentioned in Chapter 4, an important consideration when matching coaches to
novice teachers is the experience level of the novice teacher. Findings from
interviews revealed that the novice teacher’s level of need impacted the coaching
process in terms of the nature of support provided and the time spent on coaching
activities with each novice teacher. As noted in the findings section, one coach who
was assigned to two novice teachers mentioned that he didn’t think he would have
been able to manage two teachers if both of them had the support needs of
inexperienced teachers. It is important, therefore, to ensure that coaches are not
assigned multiple novice teachers who need high levels of support. Related to this is
an additional consideration. Odell (1987) asserts that when several categories of
novice teachers are participating in the same induction program, it must be
determined whether all of the teachers should receive the same support in terms of
program content, program duration, and degree of support or supervision. In the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
case of the Pasadena School Family, the realization that a majority of their novice
teachers were pre-interns led to the development of the Pre-Intem/NTTC program.
Furthermore, there were additional challenges to establishing matches.
Because of the high numbers of novice teachers and the limited number of available
coaches to support them, School Families were forced to establish off-site matches as
well as matches between participants who taught different content or grade levels.
Additionally, although not mentioned in the literature, School Families were also
forced to match coaching participants who were on different tracks. The off-site
matches were contrary to the on-site support described in the DELTA proposals and
tend to limit the extent of interaction and communication between coaching
participants. This finding supports Odell’s (1989) assertion that if either the coach or
novice teacher must travel far in order to meet, it decreases the likelihood of frequent
or immediate support. Regarding tracks, a number of coaches reported that because
they were on different tracks from their novice teachers, they did not have much time
to work with them.
In order to ensure that coaches were prepared to support novice teachers,
School Family reports, learning plans, and interview responses indicated that all four
School Families provided them with training opportunities. According to interviews
and School Family reports, initially, coaches from all School Families were trained
in the Pathwise model. Later, all four School Families were trained in CFASST. As
mentioned in Chapter 4, coaches who received Pathwise training learned how to
structure communication in the coaching relationship, how to keep monthly logs of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
their coaching activities, and how to conduct classroom observations. Participants
also learned about their role as a coach, scoring rubrics for classroom observations,
and how to be non-judgmental when working with novice teachers. Likewise,
coaches who participated in the CFASST training indicated that the training focused
on areas such as goal-setting (expectations), communication, observation and
reflection, professional growth, and evaluation. Furthermore, coaches reported that
the school districts and the School Family PTLs provided in-service training that
covered topics such as basic coaching responsibilities and strategies, expectations,
general communication skills when working with novice teachers, how to complete
the necessary paperwork, and how to design an individual coaching plan for
teachers. The nature of the training provided to coaches was consistent with the
types of training considered by researchers to be essential for novice teacher support
programs. For instance, Odell (1989), Brock (1998), and Holloway (2001) assert the
importance of training in the role of the mentor. Also, Ganser (1995) and Waters
and Bernhardt (1989) maintain the importance of training in the areas of content and
skills and support delivery. All of these areas were covered in the training provided
by the School Families.
Moreover, coaches were provided with diversity training as well as training
in the California teaching standards. Several coaches described the value of
standards training. One coach reported that he found the training to be particularly
useful because it helped him to develop ways to encourage novice teachers to tailor
their lessons toward the standards. This is consistent with the assertion made by
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
Moir and Gless (2001) of the importance of incorporating standards of professional
practice into the goals and objectives of support programs. Specifically, standards
facilitate communication between the novice teacher and the coach and help them to
focus on high-quality teaching and enhanced student learning.
In implementing the DELTA coaching program, coaches from each School
Family used a variety of strategies to support novice teachers. Among these
strategies, coaches conducted structured as well as informal observations of novice
teachers’ classrooms and provided feedback, accompanied novice teachers in their
observations of other experienced teachers, and modeled lessons for novice teachers.
This is consistent with Waters and Bernhardt (1989), Anderson and Shannon (1988),
and Bey (1990) who indicate that the mentoring process includes conferences
between participants, classroom observations of and by coaching participants, and
modeling. Although coaches employed similar strategies, the degree to which they
were employed varied between coaches. Information gathered from interviews with
novice teachers and coaches corroborates Odell’s (1987) assertion that, generally, the
support provided to novice teachers is influenced by their specific concerns. Both
coaches and novice teachers reported that the frequency and content of their
meetings were dependent on the needs of the novice teachers. This supports
Peterson and Williams’ (1998) assertion that mentors need to adjust the support they
provide to fit the specific needs of the novice teacher.
School Families provided coaching participants with release time to engage
in coaching activities. The Francis Polytechnic School Family indicated that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
coaching participants were given three days to plan, observe, and conference
(Burstein et al., 1998). Furthermore, participants were given flexibility with respect
to how they used the release time. In general, the amount of time spent on coaching
activities differed between coaches. A number of coaches established formal
meeting times with their novice teachers. Some interacted with their novice teachers
daily, while others provided support to their novice teachers as needed.
The nature and extent of K-12 administrative support varied among
participating schools. Although some novice teachers and coaches reported
receiving support from administrators, others reported that it was lacking in their
schools. Types of administrative support that were provided included arranging for
substitute coverage to allow novice teachers to observe more experienced teachers,
providing in-service opportunities, allowing release time for coaching participants,
and providing informal support when necessary. Coaches from all four School
Families expressed the importance of administrative support through the suggestions
they made for program improvement. This is consistent with Brock and Grady’s
(1997) assertion that principal support is a critical element of a well-planned and
implemented mentoring program. For instance, principals ensure that the goals of
the coaches are congruent with the activities of other supervisors who work with
novice teachers (Brock and Grady, 1997).
PTLs from one School Family mentioned the importance of providing
administrators with training opportunities. This is consistent with the findings
reported by Fidelar and Haselkom (1999) of the RNT study that mentioned the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
88
importance of administrative support and recommended that principals be trained to
be aware of and responsive to the needs and concerns of inductees. Furthermore,
another recommendation from the RNT study was that principals should
communicate the importance of supporting novice teachers to their staff. This
corresponds to reports from coaching participants of the verbal support for DELTA
provided by both K-12 and CSU administrations.
As mentioned in Chapter 4, School Families have conducted their own self-
evaluations of their coaching programs as well as enlisted the services of outside
consultants. All four School Families monitored coaches and novice teachers
through their monthly coaching logs. The implementation of these evaluations was
consistent with Odell’s (1989) assertion of the importance of conducting program
evaluation that continuously monitors the evolving needs of novice teachers.
According to her, these evaluations ensure that the support provided to novice
teachers is aligned with their need for assistance. Also, Feiman-Nemser et al. (1999)
indicate that assessment that supports interpretation and enactment of standards
reinforces professional accountability. This is particularly applicable to DELTA
because of the incorporation of the California teaching standards into the program.
Question 3: What policy factors at the state and local levels influenced
the implementation of the DELTA coaching and induction activities for novice
teachers? Did the policy factors have a differential impact on the School
Families?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
In implementing any education initiative, it is essential to keep in mind that
the educational system, like any other system, consists of interconnected parts.
Policies and practices in one part of the system affect other parts. Therefore, the
policy environment at both the district and state level impacted DELTA in many
ways and resulted in modifications to the School Family programs.
The data sources discussed in Chapter 4 identified several policy factors that
influenced the implementation of DELTA coaching and induction activities for
novice teachers. The following is a discussion of these individual policy factors.
California’s Class-Size Reduction Initiative
California Senate Bill 1777 established the state Class-Size Reduction
Program (1996) that provides funding to school districts to reduce class size in
kindergarten and grades 1 to 3 inclusive, not to exceed twenty students per
certificated teacher.
The implementation of the class-size reduction program resulted in the need
for additional teachers. Subsequently, schools were forced to hire large numbers of
emergency credentialed teachers who tend to need pedagogical and content area
support. In addition to hiring issues, School Families were also faced with issues
pertaining to space (e.g., lack of available classrooms). Also, school schedules were
impacted by the implementation of the class-size reduction initiative. Furthermore,
the shortage of qualified teachers ensuing from class-size reduction resulted in fewer
students in fifth-year preservice programs. Specifically, students in traditional
preservice programs were frequently hired on emergency permits prior to arriving at
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
the student teaching stage of their teacher preparation programs. Consequently, this
situation changed the focus of the coaching programs from what was described in the
DELTA proposals. Rather than coaching support being provided primarily to
preservice teachers at participating CSU campuses, it was provided to all novice
teachers, particularly those with emergency credentials. This situation reduced the
number of coaches (traditional preservice coaches) that were described in the
DELTA proposals. Hence, School Families had less than 20% or 140 of its teachers
serving as coaches for traditional preservice students. Additionally, the high
numbers of emergency teachers working in their own classrooms, made it difficult
for coaches to provide frequent contact, which was mentioned in the DELTA
proposals. All four School Families encountered these challenges in program
implementation.
California Standards for the Teaching Profession
Another state-level policy that was mentioned was the state teaching
standards, which was adopted in 1997. The state teaching standards were established
to address the development of teachers and were designed to be used by teachers to
encourage reflection about student learning and teaching practice; establish
professional goals to enhance teaching; and guide, monitor, and assess
professionally-accepted standards (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
and California Department of Education, 1997). The CSTP was used by all DELTA
School Families to guide their activities. After the standards were adopted, the four
School Families redesigned their preservice programs to align with them. Also, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
CFASST training used in the School Families’ induction programs incorporated
these standards.
Proposition 227 (Assembly Bill 56-English Language Education)
A third state policy that was mentioned in the School Family reports was
Proposition 227 (English Language Education, 1999). The proposition decreased or
eliminated the use of students’ home language in the classroom. With the passage of
this proposition, English Language Learners (ELLs) had to transition from bilingual
education programs to English immersion programs. Thus, as mentioned by the
Lincoln School Family, teachers had to develop strategies to use with students who
were previously enrolled in a bilingual instructional program and were consequently
expected to perform grade-level work in English (Powers and Wong, 2000).
Accordingly, teacher preparation and professional development programs, and
ultimately novice teachers and coaches, had to address this situation.
California Mentor Teacher Program
The fourth state policy that was mentioned was the California Mentor
Teacher Program. California Senate Bill 813 (Hughes-Hart Educational Reform Act,
1983) created the California Mentor Teacher Program. Although the primary role of
a mentor teacher was to provide support to novice teachers, mentor teachers provided
support to experienced teachers as well. According to Senate Bill 813, school
districts participating in the program were expected to provide mentor teachers with
stipends of not less than $4,000. Herein lies the problem; DELTA coaches were
compensated less than Mentor Teachers who had similar duties and responsibilities.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
DELTA coaches received the same compensation regardless of whether they were
working with a student teacher or an emergency credentialed teacher. However, the
level of support needed by emergency permit teachers was higher than that of student
teachers. Nonetheless, DELTA coaches were compensated the same as a master
teacher working with a student teacher. Consequently, this led to competition for
coaches between the support programs for novice teachers and difficulties in
attracting potential coaches to the DELTA coaching program.
Reorganization of LAUSD
As for district-level policy factors, the Francis Polytechnic and Lincoln
School Families mentioned the LAUSD district reorganization. The foundation of
the reorganization was the creation of smaller districts, which are essentially
autonomous with control over their budgets and resources (Los Angeles Unified
School District, 2000). Furthermore, the reorganization involved staffing changes
such as reassignments, demotions, and layoffs of district employees. These changes
caused delays and uncertainty with respect to the continued support of DELTA’S
activities in the two LAUSD School Families.
Job Classification of Coaches
An obstacle encountered in implementing coaching and induction activities in
LAUSD was district and union disagreement concerning the job classification of
coaches in the Francis Polytechnic and Lincoln School Families. As a result of this
disagreement, the DELTA coaching programs in these two School Families started
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
later in the school year than anticipated. A new job designation for coaches had to
be developed so that the district could pay them.
Grade Level Reconfiguration
The grade-level reconfiguration was specific to the Francis Polytechnic
School Family and involved moving ninth graders to the high school and sixth
graders to the middle school. Consequently, many schools established a multi-track
(year-round) calendar to accommodate additional students. This situation, combined
with the class-size reduction initiative, created a challenging situation for coaching
participants who were on different tracks. In particular, it limited the interaction
between these individuals.
Leadership Changes
Additionally, leadership changes in general, affected the continuity in
program implementation in all of the School Families. Specifically, new leaders
needed to familiarize themselves with existing programs in order to support and
engage in them.
Implications of Findings: Policy and Practice
While there are limitations to the findings of this study, there are important
implications to consider in terms of supporting novice teachers. These implications
can aid individuals who design or implement support programs for novice teachers,
such as school administrators and district personnel. The following suggestions are
directed at improving the support provided to novices in the teaching profession.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
® Mentoring programs for novice teachers should be part of all school
districts’ professional development program.
Participation in mentoring programs has had positive effects on novice
teachers. Moreover, veteran teachers and organizations have also benefited from
participation in these programs. Novices reported improvements in their teaching
performance in areas such as: lesson planning and implementation (e.g., better
lesson designs, more active participation in lessons), student assessment (e.g., greater
accuracy), and classroom management (e.g., better class control and time
management). Novices also reported feeling a greater sense of belonging to the
school as well as improved self-confidence.
As for mentors, they reported experiencing a revitalized interest in work and
enhancements in their own knowledge and skills. Interactions between mentoring
participants resulted in a mutual exchange of ideas. Consequently, mentors acquired
new ideas and incorporated them into their own classroom practices. Furthermore,
mentors became more reflective of their own teaching practices.
With respect to impacts on organizations, participation in the coaching
program helped to facilitate the retention of novice teachers. Specifically, coaching
activities helped novices to better deal with frustrating situations. As a result, this
affected the decision of novices to remain in the teaching profession. These, as well
as other benefits derived from participation in mentoring programs, support the value
of its implementation in schools.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
• The design of a mentoring program can enhance its effectiveness.
The results of this study, as well as the existing literature on mentoring,
identify the following six key design components of mentoring programs: careful
selection of mentors, careful matching of mentors and novice teachers, mentor
training, mentor incentives, administrative support, and program evaluation.
Individuals who design or implement mentoring programs for novice teachers should
take these components into consideration when developing mentoring programs for
novice teachers. Moreover, they should design mentoring programs that are driven
by research on what is known to work in these programs.
Careful Selection of Mentors
Quality mentoring requires the careful selection of mentors. The present
study’s findings as well as the existing literature on mentoring identified the
following factors that should be considered when selecting mentors: proximity of
classrooms, similar grade level or subject areas, shared planning periods, similar
teaching styles, compatibility of gender and age, time to interact, mentor teaching
experience, and involvement of veteran teachers in the selection process.
Additionally, when mentoring programs are the collaborative effort of several
organizations, as was the case with DELTA, representatives from these organizations
must also participate in the selection process.
Careful Matching of Mentors and Novice Teachers
The careful matching of mentors and novice teachers is critical to the success
of mentoring programs because well-matched participants facilitate communication
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
and interaction. Findings from the present study indicated that matches were
considered appropriate when participants were matched according to similarity in
grade level (including previous teaching experience in a particular grade), subject
area or content area, and teaching style. Additionally, appropriate matches involved
pairing participants according to the proximity of their classrooms and their school
sites (same schools). Furthermore, matches were viewed as appropriate when they
involved participant input into the matching process. Other factors that should be
considered when establishing matches between mentors and novice teachers include:
gender of participants, age of participants, mentor’s teaching experience, tracks, ratio
of novice teachers to mentors, and time.
Even though individuals involved in the design and implementation of
mentoring programs may take each of the suggested factors into consideration when
making matches, it does not guarantee that all matches will be positive. However, it
is likely that inappropriate matches will be minimized. Mentoring programs should
be flexible. If a match does not appear to be effective, participants should be able to
receive assistance in establishing new matches.
Mentor Training
A key to a successful mentoring program is mentor competence. Therefore,
mentor training is essential. Mentors should be provided with training in their new
role as mentors. They should also be trained in the process of adult development,
stages of teacher development, and teacher socialization. Additionally, mentors
should be provided with training in coaching strategies, conferencing, questioning
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
strategies, communication skills, and systematic teaching observations.
Furthermore, if mentors are required to conduct assessments of novice teachers, they
must be trained in the assessment tool to be used by the mentoring program.
Moreover, as was the case with the DELTA coaching program, mentors should be
provided with training on current teaching standards.
Mentor Incentives
Mentors should be provided with compensation in order to equalize their
mentoring responsibilities. Also, mentors as well as novices should be given
sufficient release time to engage in mentoring activities (e.g., conferences,
observations, training). Individuals who design or implement mentoring programs
for novice teachers should not only align their program’s mentor incentives with
mentoring responsibilities, they should also examine their mentoring program in
relation to similar programs offered in the district. This will help to minimize any
perceived inequities regarding mentor compensation between programs.
Administrative Support
Administrators must be aware of and supportive of mentoring programs for
novice teachers. Principals have the ability to promote the effectiveness of
mentoring programs at their schools. They can create a school environment that is
favorable to mentoring (e.g., provide verbal support for the program, provide release
time for participants to engage in mentoring activities, arrange teacher schedules to
allow more time for participants to meet, assign classrooms to mentoring participants
that are located close by, and reduce extracurricular assignments given to mentoring
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
participants). In order to enhance their abilities to support the mentoring program,
administrators should be provided with training in relation to the program. For
instance, BTSA provides workshops for principals, which give them an overview of
the program and how they can work with novice teachers at their schools (BTSA,
1999). Also, in addition to training, principals should be involved in the design and
implementation of the mentoring program.
Program Evaluation
Mentoring programs should be monitored to determine whether the
program’s goals and objectives are being achieved. It should also be monitored for
program improvement. Information obtained from evaluations can be used to design
training opportunities for program participants. Also, in addition to overall program
evaluation, the performance of novice teachers should be assessed. Coaches should
use the information obtained from these assessments to determine the nature of
support provided to novices. It is important to continuously monitor the changing
needs of novice teachers in order to ensure that the support provided to them is
aligned with their need for assistance (Odell, 1989).
In sum, more research needs to be done in a variety of settings and under
different conditions to establish findings from this study as program guidelines.
Also, long-term research on mentoring is needed to capture enduring effects.
Additionally, randomized field studies are needed, in which some novices receive
mentoring and others do not, in order to make statements of a causal relationship
between the program and the benefits resulting from the program. Moreover,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
correlational studies are needed to determine the direction and magnitude of the
relationship among variables (e.g., program design components and impact).
Notwithstanding these caveats, it is interesting to note that the findings from the
present study of the DELTA Initiative in Los Angeles confirmed what other
researchers have found in their various studies of mentoring programs.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
REFERENCES
Alleman, E., & Clarke, D.L. (2000). Accountability: Measuring mentoring
and its bottom line impact. Review of Business. 21. 62-67.
American Federation of Teachers (1998). Mentor teacher programs in the
states. Educational Issues Policy Brief [On-linel, 5. Available:
http://www.aft.org/Edissues/policvbriefs/index.htm
Anderson, E.M., & Shannon, A.L. (1988). Toward a conceptualization of
mentoring. Journal of Teacher Education. 39. 38-42.
Arnold, J., & Johnson, K. (1997). Mentoring in early career. Human
Resource Management Journal. 7. 61-70.
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (1999, November). Supporting
beginning teachers: The principal’s role. Riverside, CA: BTSA North-South
Leadership Collaborative (BTSA-NSLC).
Bey, T.M. (1990). A new knowledge base for an old practice. In T.M. Bey
& C.T. Holmes (Eds.), Mentoring: Developing successful new teachers (pp. 51-73).
Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
Boreen, J., Johnson, M.K., Niday, D., & Potts, J. (2000). Mentoring
beginning teachers: Guiding, reflecting, coaching. York, Maine: Stenhouse
Publishers.
Brock, B.L. (1998, October). Standardizing the mentorship program. In T.
Ganser, D.L. Bainer, M. Bendixen-Noe, B.L. Brock, A.D. Stinson, C. Giebelhaus, &
C.K. Runyon, Critical issues in mentoring and mentoring program for beginning
teachers (pp. 12-15). Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-
Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Brock, B.L., & Grady, M.L. (1997). From first-year to first-rate: Principals
guiding beginning teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Burke, R.J., & McKeen, C.A. (1989). Developing formal mentoring
programs in organizations. The Business Quarterly. 53. 76-79.
Burstein, N., Gudoski, P., Kretschmer, D., & Smith, C. (1998, June).
Annual report presented to the Weingart Foundation. Los Angeles, CA: DELTA
Collaborative, California State University, Northridge and Polytechnic Complex, Los
Angeles Unified School District.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
Burstein, N., Gudoski, P., Kretschmer, D., & Smith, C. (2000, May).
DELTA annual progress report. Los Angeles, CA: Francis Polytechnic Family of
Schools, Los Angeles Unified School District and California State University,
Northridge.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1997, November).
California’s future: Highly qualified teachers for all students [On-line]. Available:
http://www.ctc.ca.gov/ sb1422publication/1422.html
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department
of Education. (1997, July). California Standards for the Teaching Profession
(CSTP). Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and
California Department of Education.
Casillas, M., & Caballero-Allen, Y. (2000, June). Design for Excellence:
Linking Teaching and Achievement (DELTA) teacher preparation and professional
development collaborative executive report to the Weingart and Ford Foundations.
Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project.
Class Size Reduction Program, 5 West’s California Legislative Service SS
163-3 (1996).
Dagenais, R.J. (1996, December). Mentoring program standards.
Lincolnshire, IL: Mentoring and Leadership Resource Network.
EdSource, Inc. (1999). An update: How California recruits, prepares, and
assists new teachers [On-line]. Available:
http://www.edsource.org/htmfiles/efct_recruits.htm
English Language Education, 13 West’s California Legislative Service SS
1009-1-2 (1999).
Fagan, M.M. (1986). Do formal mentoring programs really mentor? In
W.A. Gray & M.M. Gray (Eds.), Mentoring: Aid to excellence in career
development, business and the professions (pp. 23-43). Vancouver, B.C. Canada:
International Association for Mentoring.
Feiman-Nemser, S., Carver, C., Schwille, S., & Yusko, B. (1999). Beyond
support: Taking new teachers seriously as learners. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better
beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers (pp. 3-12). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
Fidelar, E.F. (2000). State-initiated induction programs: Supporting,
assisting, training, assessing, and keeping teachers. The State Education Standard. 1.
12-16.
Fidelar, E.F., & Haselkom, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher
induction programs and practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting
New Teachers, Inc.
Furtwengler, C.B. (1995, February). Beginning teacher programs: Analysis
of state actions during the reform era [41 paragraphs]. Education Policy Analysis
Archives [On-line serial], 3 (3). Available E-mail: LISTSERV@asu.edu Message:
GET Furtwengler V3N3 F=Mail.
Ganser, T. (1995, April). A road map for designing quality mentoring
programs for beginning teachers. Paper prepared for presentation at the 1995 annual
conference of the Wisconsin Association for Middle Level Education on April 29,
1995, Stevens Point, Wisconsin.
Ganser, T. (1998, October). Introduction. In T. Ganser, D.L. Bainer,
M.Bendixen-Noe, B.L. Brock, A.D. Stinson, C. Giebelhaus, & C.K. Runyon, Critical
issues in mentoring and mentoring program for beginning teachers (pp. 2-4).
Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational
Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring, and
induction. In J. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (pp. 548-5941. New York, NY: Macmillan Library Reference,
USA.
Henry, M.A. (1989). Multiple support: A promising strategy for effective
teacher induction. In J. Reinhartz (Ed.), Teacher induction (pp. 74-80). Washington,
DC: National Education Association.
Holloway, J.H. (2001). The benefits of mentoring. Educational Leadership.
58* 85-86.
Huffman, G., & Leak, S. (1986). Beginning teachers’ perceptions of
mentors. Journal of Teacher Education. 37. 22-25.
Hughes-Hart Educational Reform Act, 2 Statutes of California and Digests of
Measures SS 498-28 (1983).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
Huling-Austin, L. (1990a). Mentoring is squishy business. In T.M. Bey &
C.T. Holmes (Eds.), Mentoring: Developing successful new teachers (pp. 39-50).
Reston, YA: Association of Teacher Educators.
Huling-Austin, L. (1990b). Teacher induction programs and internships. In
M. Haberman & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp.
535-548). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Huling-Austin, L., Putman, S., & Galvez-Hjomevik, C. (1985). Final report:
Model Teacher Induction Project study findings (R&D Report No. 7212). Austin,
TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Research and Development Center for
Teacher Education.
Humphrey, D.C., Adelman, N., Esch, C., Riehl, L.M., Shields, P.M., &
Tiffany, J. (2000, September). Preparing and supporting new teachers: A literature
review. Menlo, Park, CA: SRI International.
Hunt, D.M. (1986). Formal vs. informal mentoring: Towards a framework.
In W.A. Gray & M.M. Gray (Eds.), Mentoring: Aid to excellence in career
development, business, and the professions (pp. 8-14). Vancouver, B.C. Canada:
International Association for Mentoring.
Koki, S. (1997). The role of teacher mentoring in educational reform: PREL
briefing paper. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420 647)
Kram, K.E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in
organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.
Lankau, M.J., & Chung, B.G. (1998). Mentoring for line-level employees.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly. 39 (6). 14-19.
Lincoln Family of Schools. (1998, October). 1997-98 annual self-evaluation
report. Los Angeles, CA: Lincoln Family of Schools, Los Angeles Annenberg
Metropolitan Project.
Long Beach Polytechnic School Family. (1997-1998). Learning plan-vear 2.
(Available from the Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project, 350 South Bixel
Street, Suite 295, Los Angeles CA 90017)
Long Beach Polytechnic/Cabrillo School. (2000, May). Annual progress
report to the Weingart Foundation (1999-20001. Long Beach California: Long
Beach Unified School District/Polytechnic Cabrillo School Family and California
State University, Long Beach.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project (LAAMP). (1996). Ford
Foundation proposal #1. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan
Project.
Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project (LAAMP). (1997). Ford
Foundation proposal #2. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan
Project.
Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project (LAAMP). (1996).
LAAMP/LEARN proposal for improving teacher preparation and training. Los
Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project.
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2000, March). Eleven local districts,
one mission: Multiple district plan for transforming the Los Angeles Unified School
District. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District.
Mills, H., Moore, D., & Keane, W.G. (2001). Addressing the teacher
shortage: A study of successful mentoring programs in Oakland County, Michigan.
The Clearinghouse. 74. 124-126.
Moir, E., & Gless, J. (2001). Quality induction: An investment in teachers.
Teacher Education Quarterly. 2 8 .109-114.
Murray, M., & Owen, M.A. (1991). Beyond the myths and magic of
mentoring: How to facilitate an effective mentoring program. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and
Certification. (2000). The NASDTEC manual: Manual on certification and
preparation of educational personnel in the United States. Sacramento, CA: National
Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What
matters most: Teaching for America’s future (Report No. ISBN-0-9654535-0-2).
Woodbridge, VA: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 395 931)
Odell, S.J. (1987). Teacher induction: Rationale and issues. In D.M. Brooks
(Ed.), Teacher induction: A new beginning (69-78). Reston, VA: Association of
Teacher Educators.
Odell, S.J. (1989). Developing support programs for beginning teachers. In
L. Huling-Austin, S.J. Odell, P. Ishler, R.S. Kay, & R.A. Edelfelt, Assisting the
beginning teacher (pp. 19-38). Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
Odell, S.J. (1990a). Mentor teacher programs. Washington, DC: National
Education Association of the United States.
Odell, S.J. (1990b). Support for new teachers. In T.M. Bey & C.T. Holmes
(Eds.), Mentoring: Developing successful new teachers (pp. 3-24). Reston, VA:
Association of Teacher Educators.
Odell, S.J., Huling, L., & Sweeny, B.W. (2000). Conceptualizing quality
mentoring. In S.J. Odell & L. Huling (Eds.), Quality mentoring for novice teachers
(pp. 3-14). Washington, DC: Association of Teacher Educators.
Pasadena Unified Family of Schools. (1998, October). 1997-1998 annual
self-evaluation report. Pasadena, CA: Pasadena Unified Family of Schools, Los
Angeles Annenberg Metropolitan Project.
Pasadena Unified Family of Schools. (2000, October). 1999-2000 annual
self-evaluation report. Pasadena, CA: Public Works, Inc.
Pasadena Unified School District-United Teachers of Pasadena and
California State University, Dominguez Hills. (2000, June). Annual progress report.
Pasadena, CA: Pasadena Unified School District-United Teachers of Pasadena and
California State University, Dominguez Hills.
Pearson, M.J.T., & Honig, B. (1992). Success for beginning teachers: The
California New Teacher Project. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing and California Department of Education.
Peterson, B.E., & Williams, S.R. (1998). Mentoring beginning teachers.
Mathematics Teacher. 91 (8), 730-734.
Powers, A., & Wong, G.Y. (2000, May). 1999-2000 final report to the
Weingart Foundation. Los Angeles, CA: Lincoln Family of Schools, Los Angeles
Annenberg Metropolitan Project.
Ragins, B.R., & Cotton, J.L. (1999). Mentor functions and outcomes: A
comparison of men and women in formal and informal mentoring relationships.
Journal of Applied Psychology. 84. 529-550.
Runyan, C.K. (1991). Characteristics of the beginning teacher. In C.K.
Runyan & J.R. Buche (Eds.), Developmental induction programs with the
“internship” concept: A district teacher induction program (pp. 22-36). Plano, TX:
Lester, Allen, & Sherrill.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
Samier, E. (2000). Public administration mentor ship: Conceptual and
pragmatic considerations. Journal of Educational Administration. 38, 83-101.
Scheirer, M.A. (1994). Designing and using process evaluation. In J. S.
Wholey, H.P. Hatry, & K.E. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of practical program
evaluation (pp. 40-68). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schlechty, P.C. (1985). Induction: A framework for evaluating induction
into teaching. Journal of Teacher Education. 36, 37-41.
Schulz, S.F. (1995). The benefits of mentoring. In M.W. Galbraith & N.H.
Cohen (Eds.), Mentoring: New strategies and challenges (pp. 57-67). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Shaw, R. (1995). Mentoring. In T. Kerry & A.S. Mayes (Eds.), Issues in
mentoring (pp. 260-267). New York, NY: Routledge.
Shea, G.F. (1994). Mentoring: Helping employees reach their full potential.
New York, NY: AMA Membership Publications Division, American Management
Association.
Turk, R.L. (1999). Get on the team: An alternative mentoring model. In M.
Scherer (Ed.), A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring teachers (pp. 90-98).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of
Educational Research. 5 4 .143-178.
Viator, R.E. (1999). An analysis of formal mentoring programs and
perceived barriers to obtaining a mentor at large public accounting firms.
Accounting Horizons. 13. 37-53.
Waters, L.B., & Bernhardt, V.L. (1989). Providing effective induction
program support teachers: It’s not as easy as it looks. In J. Reinhartz (Ed.), Teacher
induction (pp. 52-60). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Wildman, T.M., Magliaro, S.G., Niles, R.A., & Niles, J.A. (1992). Teacher
mentoring: An analysis of roles, activities, and conditions. Journal of Teacher
Education. 43. 205-213.
Williams, J. (2000). Mentoring for law enforcement. FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin. 6 9 .19-25.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
Young, A.M., & Perrewe, P.L. (2000). What did you expect? An
examination of career-related support and social support among mentors and
proteges. Journal of Management. 26. 611-632.
Zey, M.G. (1984). The mentor connection. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-
Irwin.
Zimpher, N.L., & Rieger, S.R. (1988). Mentoring teachers: What are the
issues? Theory into Practice, 2 7 .175-182.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
Appendix A:
Coaching Interview Protocols
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
1996-1998
DELTA-CSU
Interview Protocol
Teachers (Coaches)
Protocol for In-depth Interviews
Pm here to talk to you about your experiences in the DELTA coaching
program. This interview will help us understand what the benefits of the coaching
program are, what aspects of the program are working well, and what aspects many
need to be refined. We will also be asking you some general questions about your
experiences with other types of professional development to gain a better picture of
professional development in your School Family.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Any
information obtained through this interview will be used to describe the behavior of
the School Family and the information will not be linked back to individuals or
individual interviews.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
1. Background: How many years teaching? How many years at this school?
Grades taught? Previous coaching experience? Committees she/he currently
serves on?
2. Have you participated in professional development activities on any of the
following topics connected with LAAMP this past year? (LP probes) How
many of these sessions did you attend? Which of these were family-wide, and
which were only at your school?
3. Have you participated in these activities before this year? Do you feel that
participation in these activities was encouraged because of LAAMP?
4. Has your participation in these activities influenced your teaching or what you do
in the classroom? Please describe.
5. Have you been involved in any of the following LAAMP programs or curricular
activities at your school? (LP probes).
6. Is this (these) program or activity new this year? Was it encouraged because of
LAAMP?
7. Has participation in these programs influenced what you do in the classroom?
Have you seen any impact on the work of your students? Please describe.
8. How is your school as a LAAMP school different than what it was before?
9. How did you become involved in the coaching program? Probes: How did you
hear about it? Was there school-wide knowledge of the need for coaches? What
was the application/interview process like?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
I l l
10. What was the nature of the training you received to become a coach? Who led
the training? How long was it? What were some of the core issues covered?
Was it adequate? (why/why not)
11. Describe your on-going activities as a coach. What are your professional duties?
How many hours per week do you spend in coach activities? How many
teachers do you coach, and how were these assigned to you? Do you feel that the
matches were appropriate? (why/why not)
12. What is the nature of the supervision/support you receive as a coach? Is it
structured (e.g., formal vs. informal)? How much time? Who provides the
support (e.g., CSU/K-12)? Is this support adequate (why/why not)? How could
this supervision be changed, if at all, to better meet your needs?
13. Are there any opportunities (formal or informal) for sharing/support among the
coaches? Do you feel that more opportunities for this are needed?
14. What is your opinion about the effectiveness of the coaching program? Do you
think it has had an impact on the classroom practices of the beginning teachers
you coach? (Examples). How, if at all, could the program be made more
effective?
15. Do you feel that the professional development activities at this school meet the
needs of the teachers? What has been its overall usefulness to you in terms of
both classroom practices and your own professional growth? How, if at all,
could it be improved?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16. Have there been any roadblocks to your involvement in professional
development activities at your school/School Family? Please describe.
17. What input or control do teachers have over the nature of professional
development at the school? Specific examples of your involvement?
18. To your knowledge, has CSU (specific campus) contributed to any of the
professional development activities at your school? If so, how? Have you had
any direct involvement with CSU representatives?
19. What specific types of professional development have been available to you at
your school? (Probes from TS). Which of these have you participated in? Have
you found any types to be more effective than others? Why?
20. Overall, what role do you feel professional development should have in your
career as a teacher? What aspects, if any, should be mandatory? What specific
needs of yours do you see professional development as serving?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
1998-1999
DELTA-CSU
Interview Protocol
Teachers (Coaches)
Protocol for In-depth Interviews
I’m here to talk to you about your experiences in the DELTA coaching
program. This interview will help us understand what the benefits of the coaching
program are, what aspects of the program are working well, and what aspects may
need to be refined. We will also be asking you some general questions about your
experiences with other types of professional development, to gain a better picture of
professional development in your School Family.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Any
information obtained through this interview will be used to describe the behavior of
the School Family and the information will not be linked back to individuals or
individual interviews.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
DELTA Teacher Interview Protocol
General:
Background:
I.e., How many years teaching? How many at this school? Grades taught? Previous
coaching/mentor experience? Committees she/he currently serves on? Is she/he part
of a critical friends group?
I f we interviewed this coach last year, look at the write-up and update the
information.
1. Skip this question if coach was interviewed last year. How did you become
involved in the coaching program? Probes: How did you hear about it? Was
there school-wide knowledge of the need for coaches? What was the
application/interview process like? Why were you interested in being a coach?
2. Skip this question if coach was interviewed last year. What was the nature of the
training you received to become a coach? Who led the training? How long was
it? What were some of the core issues covered? Was it adequate? (why/why
not)
3. I f a returning coach? Did you receive any additional training this year? If so,
please describe. Compare last year’s training to this year’s.
4. Describe your on-going activities as a coach. What are your professional duties?
How many teachers do you coach, and how were these assigned to you? Do you
feel that the matches were appropriate? (why/why not) What kind of credential
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
does your beginning teacher have? If a returning coach: Are there any major
differences between your experience this year and last year?
5. How many hours per week do you spend in coach activities? How many hours
of direct contact did you have with your beginning teacher per week? How many
hours did you spend doing administrative paperwork? How much time did you
spend covering: classroom management, instructional technology, curriculum,
assessment? If a returning coach: Compare the amount of time spent on
activities this year to last year.
6. How often do you receive formal support? Who offers this support? How many
hours per week do you receive formal support? What types of issues are
covered? Do you feel that the formal support is adequate? How could it be
changed?
7. How often do you receive informal support? Who offers this support? How
many hours per week do you receive informal support? What types of issues are
covered? Do you feel that the informal support is adequate? How could it be
changed? Do you prefer informal or formal support?
8. Are there any opportunities (formal or informal) for sharing/support among the
coaches? Do you feel that more opportunities for this are needed?
9. What is your opinion about the effectiveness of the coaching program? Do you
think it has had an impact on the classroom practices of the beginning teachers
you coach? (Examples). How, if at all, could the program be made more
effective?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
10. For returning coaches. Why did you choose to continue as a coach? What are
the differences between this year and last year?
11. There are several roles that mentors or coaches can play. Think about the
following possible roles and rate yourself as to how well you feel that you fulfill
these roles. 4 = very well, 3 = well, 2 = a little, 1 = not at all.
1. Sponsorship (helping your beginning teacher attain desirable positions)___
2. Coaching (helpingyour beginning teacher with specific classroom
strategies)___
3. Protecting (protecting your teacher from damaging contact with others in
the school)___
4. Challenging assignments (providing challenging assignments)___
5. Exposure (increasing the exposure and visibility o f your beginning
teacher)___
6. Acceptance and confirmation (acceptingyour beginning teacher as a
competent professional)___
7. Counseling (problem solving and acting as a sounding board)___
8. Friendship (you are someone your beginning teacher can confide in)___
9. Role modeling (providing identification and role modeling)___
10. Social (you and your beginning teacher frequently socialize outside o f
work)___
11. Parent (you treat your beginning teacher like a son/daughter)___
Out of these roles, which one is most important to you as a coach? Why?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
1999-2000
DELTA-CSU
Interview Protocol
Teachers (Coaches)
Protocol for In-depth Interviews
I’m here to talk to you about your experiences in the DELTA coaching
program. This interview will help us understand what the benefits of the coaching
program are, what aspects of the program are working well, and what aspects may
need to be refined. We will also be asking you some general questions about your
experiences with other types of professional development, to gain a better picture of
professional development in your School Family.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Any
information obtained through this interview will be used to describe the behavior of
the School Family and the information will not be linked back to individuals or
individual interviews.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
DELTA Teacher Interview Protocol
General:
Background:
I.e., How many years teaching? How many at this school? Grades taught? Previous
coaching/mentor experience? Committees she/he currently serves on? Is she/he part
of a critical friends group?
I f we interviewed this coach last year, look at the write-up and update the
information.
1. Skip this question if coach was interviewed last year. How did you become
involved in the coaching program? Probes: How did you hear about it? Was
there school-wide knowledge of the need for coaches? What was the
application/interview process like? Why were you interested in being a coach?
2. Skip this question if coach was interviewed last year. What was the nature of the
training you received to become a coach? Who led the training? How long was
it? What were some of the core issues covered? Was it adequate? (why/why
not)
3. I f a returning coach? Did you receive any additional training this year? If so,
please describe. Compare last year’s training to this year’s.
4. Describe your on-going activities as a coach. What are your professional duties?
How many teachers do you coach, and how were these assigned to you? Do you
feel that the matches were appropriate? (why/why not) What kind of credential
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
does your beginning teacher have? I f a returning coach: Are there any major
differences between your experience this year and last year?
5. How many hours per week do you spend in coach activities? How many hours
of direct contact did you have with your beginning teacher per week? How many
hours did you spend doing administrative paperwork? How much time did you
spend covering: classroom management, instructional technology, curriculum,
assessment? I f a returning coach: Compare the amount of time spent on
activities this year to last year.
6. How often do you receive formal support? Who offers this support? How many
hours per week do you receive formal support? What types of issues are
covered? Do you feel that the formal support is adequate? How could it be
changed?
7. How often do you receive informal support? Who offers this support? How
many hours per week do you receive informal support? What types of issues are
covered? Do you feel that the informal support is adequate? How could it be
changed? Do you prefer informal or formal support?
8. Are there any opportunities (formal or informal) for sharing/support among the
coaches? Do you feel that more opportunities for this are needed?
9. What is your opinion about the effectiveness of the coaching program? Do you
think it has had an impact on the classroom practices of the beginning teachers
you coach? (Examples). How, if at all, could the program be made more
effective?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
10. For returning coaches. Why did you choose to continue as a coach? What are
the differences between this year and last year?
11. There are several roles that mentors or coaches can play. Think about the
following possible roles and rate yourself as to how well you feel that you fulfill
these roles. 4 = very well, 3 = well, 2 - a little, 1 = not at all.
1. Sponsorship (helping your beginning teacher attain desirable positions)___
2. Coaching (helping your beginning teacher with specific classroom
strategies)__
3. Protecting (protecting your teacher from damaging contact with others in
the school)___
4. Challenging assignments (providing challenging assignments)___
5. Exposure (increasing the exposure and visibility o f your beginning teacher)
6. Acceptance and confirmation (acceptingyour beginning teacher as a
competent professional)___
7. Counseling (problem solving and acting as a sounding board)___
8. Friendship (you are someone your beginning teacher can confide in)___
9. Role modeling (providing identification and role modeling)___
10. Social (you and your beginning teacher frequently socialize outside o f work)
11. Parent (you treat your beginning teacher like a son/daughter)___
Out of these roles, which one is most important to you as a coach? Why?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
1996-1998
DELTA
Interview Protocol
Teachers (Beginning)
Protocol for In-depth Interviews
Pm here to talk to you about your experiences in the DELTA coaching
program. This interview will help us understand what the benefits of the coaching
program are, what aspects of the program are working well, and what aspects may
need to be refined. We will also be asking you some general questions about your
experiences with other types of professional development to gain a better picture of
professional development in your School Family.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Any
information obtained through this interview will be used to describe the behavior of
the School Family and the information will not be linked back to individuals or
individual interviews.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
1. Background: How many years teaching? How many years at this school?
Grades taught? Previous coaching experience? Committees she/he currently
serves on?
2. Have you participated in professional development activities on any of the
following topics connected with LAAMP this past year? (LP probes) How
many of these sessions did you attend? Which of these were family-wide, and
which were only at your school?
3. Have you participated in these activities before this year? Do you feel that
participation in these activities was encouraged because of LAAMP?
4. Has your participation in these activities influenced your teaching or what you do
in the classroom? Please describe.
5. Have you been involved in any of the following LAAMP programs or curricular
activities at your school? (LP probes).
6. Is this (these) program or activity new this year? Was it encouraged because of
LAAMP?
7. Has participation in these programs influenced what you do in the classroom?
Have you seen any impact on the work of your students? Please describe.
8. How is your school as a LAAMP school different than what it was before?
9. How did you become involved in the coaching program? Probes: How did you
hear about it? Was there school-wide knowledge of the availability of coaches?
When were you assigned a coach? Do you feel that coach/beginning teacher
matches were appropriate?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
10. Describe the support and training you received from your coach. How often do
you meet? What is the nature and extent of the support/feedback you receive
from the coach (e.g., informal vs. formal)? Do you feel comfortable approaching
your coach for help outside of structured meetings? Is the support adequate
(why/why not)? Can you give an example of a problem you discussed with your
coach and how it was resolved?
11. For offsite matches: How accessible do you feel your coach is to you? What are
the processes you use to contact him during a formal school day? How, if at all,
do you feel having an offsite coach has hindered the effectiveness of the
coaching program?
12. What benefits have you received from the coaching program?
13. Are there any opportunities (formal or informal) for on-going support/learning
among beginning teachers? Do you feel there should be more of these
opportunities?
14. What is your opinion of the overall effectiveness of the coaching program? Has
it had any impact on your classroom practices? (Examples). Are there any areas
where it has been particularly helpful/not helpful? How, if at all, could the
program be made more effective?
15. Do you feel that the professional development activities at this school meet the
needs of the teachers? What has been its overall usefulness to you in terms of
both classroom practices and your own professional growth? How, if at all,
could it be improved?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16. Have there been any roadblocks to your involvement in the professional
development activities at your school/School Family? Please describe.
17. What input or control do teachers have over the nature of professional
development at the school? Specific examples of your involvement.
18. To your knowledge, has CSU (specific campus) contributed to any of the
professional development activities at your school? If so, how? Have you had
any direct involvement with CSU representatives?
19. What specific types of professional development have been available to you at
your school? (Probes from TS). Which of these have you participated in? Have
you found any types to be more effective than others? Why?
20. Overall, what role do you feel professional development should have in your
career as a teacher? What aspects, if any, should be mandatory? What specific
needs of yours do you see professional development as serving?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
1998-1999
DELTA
Interview Protocol
Teachers (Beginning)
Protocol for In-depth Interviews
I’m here to talk to you about your experiences in the DELTA coaching
program. This interview will help us understand what the benefits of the coaching
program are, what aspects of the program are working well, and what aspects may
need to be refined. We will also be asking you some general questions about your
experiences with other types of professional development, to gain a better picture of
professional development in your School Family.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Any
information obtained through this interview will be used to describe the behavior of
the School Family and the information will not be linked back to individuals or
individual interviews.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
DELTA Teacher Interview Protocol
General:
Background:
I.e., How many years teaching? How many at this school? Grades taught? Previous
coaching/mentor experience? Committees she/he currently serves on? Is she/he part
of a critical friends group?
I f we interviewed this beginning teacher last year, look at the write-up and update
the information.
1. How did you become involved in the coaching program? Probes: How did you
hear about it? Was there school-wide knowledge of the availability of coaches?
When were you assigned a coach? Do you feel that coach/beginning teacher
matches were appropriate?
2. Describe the support and training you receive from your coach. How often do
you meet? What is the nature and extent of the support/feedback you receive
from the coach (e.g., informal vs. formal)? Do you feel comfortable approaching
your coach for help outside of structured meetings? Is the support adequate
(why/why not)? Can you give an example of a problem you discussed with your
coach and how it was resolved?
3. How many hours of direct contact did you have with your coach per week? How
many hours did you spend doing administrative paperwork? How much time did
you spend covering: classroom management, instructional technology,
curriculum, assessment?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
4. For offsite matches: How accessible do you feel your coach is to you? What are
the processes you use to contact him or her during a normal school day? How, if
at all, do you feel having an offsite coach has hindered the effectiveness of the
coaching program?
5. What specific benefits have you received from the coaching program? For
example, classroom management, instructional skills, curriculum, assessment.
6. Are there any opportunities (formal or informal) for on-going support/learning
among beginning teachers? Do you feel there should be more of these
opportunities?
7. What is your opinion of the overall effectiveness of the coaching program? Has
it had any impact on your classroom practices? (Examples). Are there areas
where it has been particularly helpful/not helpful? How, if at all, could the
program be made more effective?
8. Are there other teachers who act in a mentoring role to you? (Mentors are
teachers who have advanced experience and knowledge and who are committed
to providing you with career support.) How is that relationship different than the
one with your coach? Which is more beneficial to you?
9. For teachers in the coaching program for the second year. How is the
experience of having a coach different this year? Do you feel that you still need
a coach? Do you have the same coach? How do you feel about that?
10. Are there any beginning teachers in your school who do not have a coach?
Obtain names for possible interviews.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
11. There are several roles that mentors (or coaches) can play. Think about the
following possible roles and rate your coach as to how well he or she fulfills
these roles. 4 = very well, 3 = well, 2 = a little, 1 = not at all.
1. Sponsorship (helping you attain desirable positions)___
2. Coaching (helpingyou with specific classroom strategies)___
3. Protecting (protecting you from damaging contact with others in the
school)
4. Challenging assignments (providing challenging assignments)___
5. Exposure (increasingyour exposure and visibility)___
6. Acceptance and confirmation (accepts you as a competent professional)___
7. Counseling (problem solving and acting as a sounding board)___
8. Friendship (your coach is someone you can confide in)___
9. Role modeling (providing identification and role modeling)___
10. Social (you and your coach frequently socialize outside o f work)___
11. Parent (treats me like a son/daughter)___
Out of these roles, which one is most important to you? Why?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
1999-2000
DELTA
Interview Protocol
Teachers (Beginning)
Protocol for In-depth Interviews
I’m here to talk to you about your experiences in the DELTA coaching
program. This interview will help us understand what the benefits of the coaching
program are, what aspects of the program are working well, and what aspects may
need to be refined. We will also be asking you some general questions about your
experiences with other types of professional development, to gain a better picture of
professional development in your School Family.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Any
information obtained through this interview will be used to describe the behavior of
the School Family and the information will not be linked back to individuals or
individual interviews.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
DELTA Teacher Interview Protocol
General:
Background:
I.e., How many years teaching? How many at this school? Grades taught? Previous
coaching/mentor experience? Committees she/he currently serves on? Is she/he part
of a critical friends group?
I f we interviewed this beginning teacher last year, look at the write-up and update
the information.
1. How did you become involved in the coaching program? Probes: How did you
hear about it? Was there school-wide knowledge of the availability of coaches?
When were you assigned a coach? Do you feel that coach/beginning teacher
matches were appropriate?
2. Describe the support and training you receive from your coach. How often do
you meet? What is the nature and extent of the support/feedback you receive
from the coach (e.g., informal vs. formal)? Do you feel comfortable approaching
your coach for help outside of structured meetings? Is the support adequate
(why/why not)? Can you give an example of a problem you discussed with your
coach and how it was resolved?
3. How many hours of direct contact did you have with your coach per week? How
many hours did you spend doing administrative paperwork? How much time did
you spend covering: classroom management, instructional technology,
curriculum, assessment?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
4. For offsite matches: How accessible do you feel your coach is to you? What are
the processes you use to contact him or her during a normal school day? How, if
at all, do you feel having an offsite coach has hindered the effectiveness of the
coaching program?
5. What specific benefits have you received from the coaching program? For
example, classroom management, instructional skills, curriculum, assessment.
6. Are there any opportunities (formal or informal) for on-going support/learning
among beginning teachers? Do you feel there should be more of these
opportunities?
7. What is your opinion of the overall effectiveness of the coaching program? Has
it had any impact on your classroom practices? (Examples). Are there areas
where it has been particularly helpful/not helpful? How, if at all, could the
program be made more effective?
8. Are there other teachers who act in a mentoring role to you? (Mentors are
teachers who have advanced experience and knowledge and who are committed
to providing you with career support.) How is that relationship different than the
one with your coach? Which is more beneficial to you?
9. For teachers in the coaching program for the second year. How is the
experience of having a coach different this year? Do you feel that you still need
a coach? Do you have the same coach? How do you feel about that?
10. Are there any beginning teachers in your school who do not have a coach?
Obtain names for possible interviews.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
11. There are several roles that mentors (or coaches) can play. Think about the
following possible roles and rate your coach as to how well he or she fulfills
these roles. 4 = very well, 3 = well, 2 = a little, 1 = not at all.
1. Sponsorship (helping you attain desirable positions)___
2. Coaching (helpingyou with specific classroom strategies)___
3. Protecting (protecting you from damaging contact with others in the school)
4. Challenging assignments (providing challenging assignments)___
5. Exposure (increasing your exposure and visibility)___
6. Acceptance and confirmation (accepts you as a competent professional)
7. Counseling (problem solving and acting as a sounding board) _
8. Friendship (your coach is someone you can confide in)___
9. Role modeling (providing identification and role modeling)___
10. Social (you and your coach frequently socialize outside o f work)
11. Parent (treats me like a son/daughter)___
Out of these roles, which one is most important to you? Why?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B:
DELTA Governance Interview Protocols
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
1998-1999
DELTA-CSU
Interview Protocol
Practitioner Team Leaders
Protocol for In-depth Interviews
Pm here to talk to you about DELTA’S impact at the CSU and K-12 level.
This interview will help us understand the extent of faculty involvement and support
for the DELTA reforms at the pre-service, in-service, and induction levels; the
priority and assistance given to these reforms; implemented or planned changes in
the CSU teacher training systems; and the extent of collaboration on these changes.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Any
information obtained through this interview will be used to describe the behavior of
the School Family and the information will not be linked back to individuals or
individual interviews.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
1. Describe the extent of collaboration between CSU/K-12 participants at the pre
service, induction, and in-service levels. How has this changed over time? What
roadblocks/supports to faculty involvement have you experienced? (e.g., faculty
attitudes, CSU administration, Ford/Weingart).
2. How have the foci of your PDC changed over time? (e.g., curricular power,
allocation of resources). How is this related to the School Family goals?
3. Please describe the accomplishments your School Family has made in pre
service redesign/implementation in the last year. What are the major changes
from the previous year? What problems have arose in implementation? How has
the use of Master teachers been integrated into pre-service preparation?
4. What is the role of fieldwork in the DELTA pre-service programs? How does
this differ, if at all, from pre-DELTA efforts?
5. Please describe your recruiting efforts for the DELTA pre-service students (e.g.,
ethnic diversity, etc.). Does this differ from non-DELTA efforts, or from pre-
DELTA programs?
6. Describe your major accomplishments in implementation of induction programs
in the last year. Are there any major changes from the previous years? What
roadblocks/support have you experienced?
7. Describe the processes for selection and training of coaches. How, if at all, has
this changed from previous years? What problems arose, and how did you
address them?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8. How has the DELTA induction program been coordinated with other beginning
teacher support programs (e.g., BTSA, Mazonni) in your School Family?
9. What types of in-service activities have been implemented through DELTA?
How have DELTA activities been integrated with other School Family and
district activities? In what ways do DELTA efforts differ from other district and
Family offerings? What are some of the roadblocks/support you have
experienced in the in-service process?
10. Who leads DELTA in-service activities (e.g., district, teachers, consultants, CSU,
combination)? Has the DELTA PDA been of any assistance in the in-service
reform process?
11. Describe the DELTA decision-making group in your Family (e.g., steering
committee). Who are the group members? How are they selected? How often
do they meet?
12. What types of decisions does the steering committee have control over? How
does the committee go about making a decision? Please give an example of a
recent decision and the process the committee went through to make it. Has this
changed over time?
13. How does the DELTA steering committee interact with other School Family
decision-making structures? (e.g., LAAMP, PLP). Other DELTA structures?
(e.g., governing board).
14. What if any roadblocks have emerged in the decision-making process? How
were they addressed?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15. How have your reform efforts addressed the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession?
16. Does the School Family have any structures in place for self-assessment of the
DELTA reforms? If so, how is the information collected used by the School
Families?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 38
1999-2000
DELTA-CSU
Interview Protocol
Practitioner Team Leaders
Protocol for In-depth Interviews
I’m here to talk to you about DELTA’S impact at the CSU and K-12 level.
This interview will help us understand the extent of faculty involvement and support
for the DELTA reforms at the pre-service, in-service, and induction levels; the
priority and assistance given to these reforms; implemented or planned changes in
the CSU teacher training systems; and the extent of collaboration on these changes.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Any
information obtained through this interview will be used to describe the behavior of
the School Family and the information will not be linked back to individuals or
individual interviews.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
1. Describe the extent of collaboration between CSU/K-12 participants at the pre
service, induction, and in-service levels. How has this changed over time? What
roadblocks/supports to faculty involvement have you experienced? (e.g., faculty
attitudes, CSU administration, Ford/Weingart).
2. How have the foci of your PDC changed over time? (e.g., curricular power,
allocation of resources). How is this related to the School Family goals?
3. Please describe the accomplishments your School Family has made in pre
service redesign/implementation in the last year. What are the major changes
from the previous year? What problems have arose in implementation? How has
the use of Master teachers been integrated into pre-service preparation?
4. What is the role of fieldwork in the DELTA pre-service programs? How does
this differ, if at all, from pre-DELTA efforts?
5. Please describe your recruiting efforts for the DELTA pre-service students (e.g.,
ethnic diversity, etc.). Does this differ from non-DELTA efforts, or from pre-
DELTA programs?
6. Describe your major accomplishments in implementation of induction programs
in the last year. Are there any major changes from the previous years? What
roadblocks/support have you experienced?
7. Describe the processes for selection and training of coaches. How, if at all, has
this changed from previous years? What problems arose, and how did you
address them?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8. How has the DELTA induction program been coordinated with other beginning
teacher support programs (e.g., BTSA, Mazonni) in your School Family?
9. What types of in-service activities have been implemented through DELTA?
How have DELTA activities been integrated with other School Family and
district activities? In what ways do DELTA efforts differ from other district and
Family offerings? What are some of the roadblocks/support you have
experienced in the in-service process?
10. Who leads DELTA in-service activities (e.g., district, teachers, consultants, CSU,
combination)? Has the DELTA PDA been of any assistance in the in-service
reform process?
11. Describe the DELTA decision-making group in your Family (e.g., steering
committee). Who are the group members? How are they selected? How often
do they meet?
12. What types of decisions does the steering committee have control over? How
does the committee go about making a decision? Please give an example of a
recent decision and the process the committee went through to make it. Has this
changed over time?
13. How does the DELTA steering committee interact with other School Family
decision-making structures? (e.g., LAAMP, PLP). Other DELTA structures?
(e.g., governing board).
14. What if any roadblocks have emerged in the decision-making process? How
were they addressed?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
15. How have your reform efforts addressed the California Standards for the
Teaching Profession?
16. Does the School Family have any structures in place for self-assessment of the
DELTA reforms? If so, how is the information collected used by the School
Families?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
Appendix C:
CSU Interview Protocols
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
1996-1998
DELTA-CSU
Interview Protocol
Faculty
Protocol for In-depth Interviews
I’m here to talk to you about DELTA’S impact at the CSU level. This
interview will help us understand the extent of faculty involvement and support for
the DELTA reforms at the pre-service, in-service, and induction levels; the priority
and assistance given to these reforms by CSU administration; implemented or
planned changes in the CSU teacher training system; and the extent of collaboration
with K-12 representatives on these changes.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Any
information obtained through this interview will be used to describe the behavior of
the School Family and the information will not be linked back to individuals or
individual interviews.
If you think of anyone in the University who would have additional
information on this project, please give us their name and their position.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
1. What specific DELTA activities, if any, have you participated in and what was
the nature of your involvement?
2. Do you feel that these activities were an effective use of your time? Why/why
not?
3. Do you feel that these activities improved on the already-existing teacher
education programs at your university, and if so, how?
4. How has the University administration (central and school) facilitated or
impeded your participation?
5. Were there any other barriers/aids to participation? (District, union, LAAMP,
other School Family participants). What was the nature of the assistance or
barriers? How were the barriers addressed?
6. What DELTA credit bearing (in-service) professional development courses have
been offered since DELTA’S inception (or are planned to be offered this year)?
7. What was the process for the development of these courses? Probes:
Organizational structures? Decision-making processes? Length of development
process?
8. Who was involved in the development of these courses, and what was the nature
of the collaboration between K-12 and CSU participants in course development?
Probes: Number of people involved and titles? Division of labor? Where were
meetings held? Time commitment?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
9. What steps were taken to assess the professional development needs of the K-12
participants prior to course development? Probes: Who was involved?
Assessment instruments used? What stakeholder groups gave feedback?
10. What support/resources for these courses has the CSU provided? LAUSD?
Other resources?
11. Was the support/resources adequate and in line with your expectations and those
stipulated in the MOU?
12. How was the support/resources identified?
13. Do you feel the professional development needs of the School Family
participants are being met? If not, what changes should be made?
14. Who has been involved in the pre-service teacher training program redesign
process?
15. Do you feel that there was a need for redesign of the pre-service teacher training
program at your school? If so, why? If not, why?
16. What was the extent of your involvement in this redesign process?
17. Are these changes consistent with the goals of DELTA? Probes: Fieldwork-
tested education? K-12/CSU joint teaching?
18. What was the nature of the decision-making process to implement these changes,
and what was the extent of CSU and K-12 representatives’ collaboration and
input?
19. How was this input solicited?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
146
20. Was there support for this collaboration from both K-12 and CSU
representatives?
21. Specifically, what has been the level of joint (K-12 and CSU) teaching of
undergraduate courses?
22. How many K-12 representatives were involved in teaching courses with CSU
faculty?
23. What factors, if anything, facilitated/impeded this collaboration and how were
they addressed?
24. What can be done to improve the collaboration between CSU and K-12
representatives in implementing the teacher training program?
25. What is your opinion of the impact of K-12/CSU collaboration (in program
redesign and joint teaching) on the improvement of pre-service teacher training?
26. What is the role of coaches in the teacher training program? Probes: Hours
spent per week? Number of students per coach? Professional duties?
Involvement in clinical supervision activities? Who do they report to?
27. What is the role of CSU faculty in training support of coaches?
28. What is your opinion about the extent the use of K-12 coaches will enhance the
teacher training programs?
29. What is your perception of the quality of the teachers selected as coaches in the
School Family with which you are working?
30. How can the training process and support for coaches be improved?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
147
31. What changes in the design of your teacher education program have been made
to address the needs identified by the School Family with whom you have been
working?
32. What changes, if any, have been implemented so far?
33. What core skills/content areas do these changes focus on?
34. Specifically, what changes have you made in your day-to-day work with students
as part of DELTA?
35. What was the process used for identifying the needs of the School Family in
designing and implementing these changes?
36. What participation do K-12 representatives have in the process of designing and
implementing these changes?
37. How do you feel the changes in your teacher education program meet the
professional needs of teachers-in-training?
38. What selection criteria were used (or will be used) for selection of the DELTA
cohort students?
39. How does this differ from the selection criteria for the other teacher training
students at your school?
40. Are there any evident differences between the DELTA cohort students and
students in the already-existing teacher training program at baseline (e.g., skills,
abilities, previous classroom experience, personal qualities, etc.)?
41. Do you see any differences between these groups in terms of practicum-related
behaviors and/or in-class performance? Probes: Their comfort level and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interactions in working with students in the classroom? Understanding of
curriculum/pedagogy? Working relationships with teachers/other aides?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
1998-1999
DELTA-CSU
Interview Protocol
Faculty
Protocol for In-depth Interviews
I’m here to talk to you about DELTA’S impact at the CSU level. This
interview will help us understand the extent of faculty involvement and support for
the DELTA reforms at the pre-service, in-service, and induction levels. We are also
interested in the priority and assistance given to these reforms by CSU
administration; implemented or planned changes in the CSU teacher training system;
and the extent of collaboration with K-12 representatives on these changes.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Any
information obtained through this interview will be used to describe the behavior of
the university and its partner Family and the information will not be linked back to
individuals or individual interviews.
If you think of anyone in the University who would have additional
information on this project, please give us that person’s name and position.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
Background; What is your position? What department do you teach in? How many
years have you been at this university? What is your history of involvement with
DELTA?
General:
1. What specific DELTA activities have you participated in and what was the
nature of your involvement? I f this faculty member was involved last yean
How has your involvement in the project changed from last year to this year?
What kinds of changes have you seen in the DELTA program from last year to
this year?
2. How have these activities improved the existing teacher education programs?
3. How has the University administration (central and school) facilitated or
impeded your participation?
4. Were there any other barriers/aids to participation? (District, union, LAAMP,
other School Family participants). What was the nature of the assistance or
barriers? How were the barriers addressed?
5. On average, how many hours per week do you spend on DELTA activities?
6. Have you been involved in pre-service redesign activities? I f “ no” , skip to
question 14.
Pre-service:
7. Which teacher education programs are impacted by DELTA? How are they
impacted?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
151
8. How are the redesigned programs different from traditional teacher education
programs?
9. Is there any difference between the students in DELTA programs vs. non-
DELTA program students? Are there any different recruiting strategies between
the two programs?
10. What is the extent of K-12 and university collaboration in the redesign of the pre
service programs? (participation on committees, designing specific classes, etc.)
11. How many K-12 teachers are involved in co-teaching university classes?
12. How is fieldwork integrated into the teacher education programs? Can you give
some specific examples? What types of fieldwork experience do students get in
School Family K-12 classrooms? For example, interns or teacher aides?
13. Were there any problems in collaborating with K-12 teachers on pre-service
redesign? If so, how has the collaboration improved over time?
14. Have you been involved in induction (coaching) activities? I f “ no” , skip to
question 20.
Induction/Coaching:
15. How are the CSU faculty members involved in the selection and training of K-12
coaches? Does the selection process yield a competent pool of coaches?
16. How are CSU faculty involved in the support and supervision of K-12 coaches?
17. How are K-12 coaches involved in the training of CSU interns? Do CSU faculty
and K-12 teachers collaborate on this process?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18. Were there any problems in collaborating with K-12 teachers on the selection or
training of coaches? If so, how has the collaboration improved over time?
19. [For CSULA faculty coaches: What kind of help do you give to your school?
Please give specific examples. How many hours per week do you spend in
coaching activities? How has your presence at the school site made a difference?
How has your position as a coach affected your work at the university?]
20. Have you been involved in in-service (professional development) activities? I f
“no”, end interview.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
1999-2000
DELTA-CSU
Interview Protocol
Faculty
Protocol for In-depth Interviews
I’m here to talk to you about DELTA’S impact at the CSU level. This
interview will help us understand the extent of faculty involvement and support for
the DELTA reforms at the pre-service, in-service, and induction levels. We are also
interested in the priority and assistance given to these reforms by CSU
administration; implemented or planned changes in the CSU teacher training system;
and the extent of collaboration with K-12 representatives on these changes.
I want to assure you that your comments will be strictly confidential. Any
information obtained through this interview will be used to describe the behavior of
the university and its partner Family and the information will not be linked back to
individuals or individual interviews.
If you think of anyone in the University who would have additional
information on this project, please give us that person’s name and position.
Thank you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
Background: What is your position? What department do you teach in? How many
years have you been at this university? What is your history of involvement with
DELTA?
General:
1. What specific DELTA activities have you participated in and what was the
nature of your involvement? I f this faculty member was involved last year:
How has your involvement in the project changed from last year to this year?
What kinds of changes have you seen in the DELTA program from last year to
this year?
2. How have these activities improved the existing teacher education programs?
3. How has the University administration (central and school) facilitated or
impeded your participation?
4. Were there any other barriers/aids to participation? (District, union, LAAMP,
other School Family participants). What was the nature of the assistance or
barriers? How were the barriers addressed?
5. On average, how many hours per week do you spend on DELTA activities?
6. Have you been involved in pre-service redesign activities? I f “ no” , skip to
question 14.
Pre-service:
7. Which teacher education programs are impacted by DELTA? How are they
impacted?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
8. How are the redesigned programs different from traditional teacher education
programs?
9. Is there any difference between the students in DELTA programs vs. non-
DELTA program students? Are there any different recruiting strategies between
the two programs?
10. What is the extent of K-12 and university collaboration in the redesign of the pre
service programs? (participation on committees, designing specific classes, etc.)
11. How many K-12 teachers are involved in co-teaching university classes?
12. How is fieldwork integrated into the teacher education programs? Can you give
some specific examples? What types of fieldwork experience do students get in
School Family K-12 classrooms? For example, interns or teacher aides?
13. Were there any problems in collaborating with K-12 teachers on pre-service
redesign? If so, how has the collaboration improved over time?
14. Have you been involved in induction (coaching) activities? I f “ no” , skip to
question 20.
Induction/Coaching:
15. How are the CSU faculty members involved in the selection and training of K-12
coaches? Does the selection process yield a competent pool of coaches?
16. How are CSU faculty involved in the support and supervision of K-12 coaches?
17. How are K-12 coaches involved in the training of CSU interns? Do CSU faculty
and K-12 teachers collaborate on this process?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 56
18. Were there any problems in collaborating with K-12 teachers on the selection or
training of coaches? If so, how has the collaboration improved over time?
19. [For CSULA faculty coaches: What kind of help do you give to your school?
Please give specific examples. How many hours per week do you spend in
coaching activities? How has your presence at the school site made a difference?
How has your position as a coach affected your work at the university?]
20. Have you been involved in in-service (professional development) activities? I f
“ no” , end interview.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Asset Metadata

Creator Charfauros, Virginia Marie (author)

Core Title Impact of the policy context on the evolution of DELTA (Design for Excellence: Linking Teaching and Achievement)

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Wohlstetter, Priscilla (committee chair), Baca, Reynaldo (committee member), Lopez-Lee, David (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-245231

Unique identifier UC11334746

Identifier 3093743.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-245231 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3093743.pdf

Dmrecord 245231

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Charfauros, Virginia Marie

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