University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support

(USC Thesis Other)

Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Beginning Teachers’ Perceptions of Induction Program Support
by
Erin O’Connor Marsano

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

May 2021

© Copyright by Erin O’Connor Marsano
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Erin O’Connor Marsano certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Dr. Sheiveh Jones
Dr. Maria Ott
Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

iv
Abstract
This study utilized Bandura’s triadic model of reciprocal determinism in social cognitive theory
to examine the interactions of personal, environmental, and behavioral factors that impact new
teacher mobility and attrition in one county office of education in the state of California. The
goal of the study was to identify the factors that beginning teachers feel influence their intent to
continue within the profession, what they perceive as the most impactful components of
induction, and how their relationship with their mentor affects their intent to continue within the
teaching profession. A cross-sectional survey, secondary data and document analysis of
previously administered surveys were utilized to answer stated research questions. Both
descriptive and inferential statistics were used in the analysis of quantitative data, while coding
helped identify themes from open-ended responses. This study examined the challenges
beginning teachers encounter and the support they receive within the induction program then
applied Bandura’s reciprocal determinism to analyze their impact on career persistence
decisions. Results show observing a highly recommended teacher, being partnered with a
mentor, taking part in self-reflection, and being observed and receiving feedback were perceived
as the most impactful supports on improved classroom practice and turnover decisions.
Respondents shared critical feedback that was used in conjunction with findings to make
recommendations. Recommendations include: offering additional autonomy to individualize
induction, augmenting criteria for mentor selection and accountability, as well as increasing use
of technology tools to create increased access to supports that candidates deem as effective for
the challenges they encounter. With these meaningful changes, the induction program can ensure
all beginning teachers have access to the support they need to be successful in their individual
teaching context and encourage improved retention rates in the beginning years.
v
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my entire family, who has offered unwavering love and support as I pursued
my goal. I love you all. A special thank you to my husband, Renzo and daughter, Heidi. Thank
you for supporting me each and every day.
Thank you to my wonderful friends and colleagues for always being there for me and
supporting me through this journey.
To my dissertation committee, thank you for your valuable time, expertise, and feedback.
Dr. Hirabayashi, your guidance and expertise have been essential to my success. I appreciate you!

vi
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem .................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .......................................................................... 3
Importance of the Study .............................................................................................................. 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ............................................................ 5
Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Dissertation ................................................................................................. 7
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 8
Overview of Teacher Turnover ................................................................................................... 8
Factors Associated with Beginning Teacher Turnover ............................................................. 11
Consequences of New Teacher Turnover ................................................................................. 22
New Teacher Induction ............................................................................................................. 26
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 40
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 43
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 46
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 46
Overview of Design .................................................................................................................. 46
Research Setting ....................................................................................................................... 48
vii
The Researcher ......................................................................................................................... 49
Data Sources ............................................................................................................................. 51
Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................................. 56
Ethics ........................................................................................................................................ 58
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 60
Overview of Survey Respondents............................................................................................. 60
Research Question 1: What do new teachers feel is influencing their intent to continue within
the profession? .......................................................................................................................... 62
Research Question 2: What do new teachers perceive as the most impactful components of
GCOE’s Induction Program? .................................................................................................... 85
Research Question 3: How do new teachers feel their relationship with their mentor influenced
their intent to continue in the profession? ................................................................................. 99
Other Findings: Examining Critical Feedback for Program Improvement ............................ 110
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 113
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations....................................................................... 115
Discussion of Findings............................................................................................................ 115
Recommendations For Practice .............................................................................................. 126
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................ 139
References ................................................................................................................................... 143
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................. 159
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................. 161
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................. 164

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of Beginning Teachers GCOE Served ................................................................ 3
Table 2: Data Sources ................................................................................................................... 48
Table 3: Cross-Sectional Survey Demographics ........................................................................ 61
Table 4: Ranked Challenges in Teaching by Gender.................................................................... 68
Table 5: Impact of COVID-19 on Teachers: Challenges.............................................................. 76
Table 6: Impact of COVID-19 on Teachers: Opportunities ......................................................... 79
Table 7: Impact of Induction Supports on Teaching Practices by Survey .................................... 90
Table 8: Benefits from Observing a Highly Recommended Teacher ........................................... 92
Table 9: Benefits from Being Observed and Receiving Feedback from a Mentor ....................... 96
Table 10: Areas of Mentor Support by Category........................................................................ 103
Table 11: Common Feedback Related to Perception of Induction ............................................. 111

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Reciprocal Determinism of Factors Relating to Turnover ............................................ 43
Figure 2: Leavers, Movers and Stayers in the Cross-Sectional Survey ........................................ 63
Figure 3: Possible Future Career Changes for Cross-Sectional Survey ....................................... 64
Figure 4: Challenges in the Teaching Profession ......................................................................... 66
Figure 5: Ranked Challenges in the Teaching Profession by Grade-Range ................................. 69
Figure 6: Ranked Challenges in the Teaching Profession by School Characteristic .................... 71
Figure 7: Impact of Induction on Teaching Practices ................................................................... 81
Figure 8: Impact of Induction on Intent to Remain ...................................................................... 84
Figure 9: Most Impactful Components of GCOE’s Induction Program ....................................... 86
Figure 10: Most Impactful Supports By School Characteristic .................................................... 88
Figure 11: Impact of Mentor Support on Classroom Practices................................................... 105
Figure 12: Perception of Ineffective Leadership using Reciprocal Determinism....................... 117
Figure 13: Perception of Effective Mentorship using Reciprocal Determinism......................... 120
Figure 14: Sample Induction Choice Board................................................................................ 127
Figure 15: Sample Mentor Selection and Accountability Rubric ............................................... 134

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Beginning teacher turnover is a challenge faced nationally by education systems.
Evidence from the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS) demonstrated the rate of
turnover was as high as 27% by the fifth year of teaching (Gray et al., 2015). With 156,100
beginning teachers followed in the BTLS, the 27% turnover equated to 42,147 vacant positions
nationwide. Additionally, multiple sources demonstrated a disparity in turnover rates for
teachers from minoritized groups when compared to white teachers. Specifically, in a side-by-
side analysis of the BTLS data for these groups, Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC)
teachers leave the profession 2% to 7% more frequently in the third through fifth year of
teaching than non-minority teachers (Gray et al., 2015; Ingersoll & May, 2011a).
To address the problem, multiple states have implemented a systematic support structure
for beginning teachers, known as induction. Evidence suggests induction programs containing
various components of structured support may reduce beginning teacher turnover, contribute to
improved outcomes for students, increase equitable access to effective, highly qualified teachers,
decrease the national teacher shortage, and lessen the financial burden for districts (Carver-
Thomas & Darling- Hammond, 2017; DeAngelis et al., 2013; Ronfeldt et al., 2013; Ronfeldt &
McQueen, 2017; Sutcher et al., 2016). However, systematic reviews which report on teacher
perceptions of induction are minimal. Thus, through the lens of Bandura’s triadic model of
reciprocal determinism in social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), this study evaluated
beginning teacher perceptions of induction support.
Context and Background of the Problem
The state of California adopted new teacher induction support formerly known as the
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) Program in 1988 (CTC, 2010). The
2

program was implemented in the mid-1990’s and later supported by the state legislature with the
passage of Senate Bill 2042. This legislation created a two-tier credentialing system and
established induction as a mandated requirement to move from a preliminary to a clear credential
(California Commission on Teacher Credentialing [CTC], 2010). Currently, the CTC approved
induction programs offer a two-year job embedded format containing multiple support
components which abide by the standards set by the CTC. Although all induction programs in
the state align to meet these standards, each has format variations with diverse requirements and
unique ways to support new teachers in the profession. As of 2015, the CTC reported 156
commission approved, standards-based programs to support beginning teachers statewide. The
same report boasted beginning teachers participating in California induction programs with
multiple components had an 87% retention rate (CTC, 2015).
With new legislation and changes in funding structures, California increased new hires
from 286,969 total teachers in 2010-2011 to 307,470 total teachers in 2018-2019, an increase of
roughly 20,500 new teaching positions (CDE: DataQuest, n.d.). Further, California teacher
preparation programs have seen an increase in both enrollment and program completions since
2013 (Suckow, 2018). With the current influx of beginning teachers entering the field and
increased job availability, California offers an ideal educational climate to analyze beginning
teacher support programming.
This study focused on one induction program’s beginning teachers in a single California
county office of education. For purposes of anonymity, the pseudonym Golden County Office of
Education (GCOE) replaces the actual program name. GCOE offers a commission approved,
two-year, job-embedded program working in partnership with local districts and schools. Table 1
depicts the number of beginning teachers served by GCOE over the past three school years.
3

Table 1
Number of Beginning Teachers GCOE Served in Approximately 40 Districts

School Year
Number of
Beginning General
Education
Teachers Served
Number of
Beginning Special
Education
Teachers Served

Total Number
Served
2017-2018 474 83 557
2018-2019 617 100 717
2019-2020 635 70 705

Specifically, the study focused on groups of beginning teachers with 1 to 5 years of experience
who gained entry into the profession through a teacher preparation program and were currently
enrolled in, or recently completed, GCOE’s induction program.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The goal of this project was to analyze what groups of new teachers in GCOE deem as
effective support and identify what is helping them remain within the profession. The study
applied social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) to understand the various elements influencing
teacher beliefs concerning GCOE and how those beliefs ultimately support career persistence.
Specifically, the study sought to identify factors providing positive support, discern the areas
providing limited value, and identify areas for improving future induction programs. The
questions guiding this study are the following:
1. What do new teachers feel is influencing their intent to continue within the profession?
2. What do new teachers perceive as the most impactful components of their induction
program?
4

3. How do new teachers feel their relationship with their mentor influenced their intent to
continue in the profession?
Importance of the Study
Although it has been identified that some level of turnover is beneficial, it also can have a
negative effect. Beneficial turnover might include the departing of an ineffective teacher, or
when a teacher moves within the profession to find a school better suited to the teacher’s needs
(Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Negative teacher turnover occurring when an
effective teacher moves or leaves because of dissatisfaction, lack of self-efficacy in teaching, or
poor working conditions in the classroom, has far reaching consequences impacting students,
teachers, and districts. In a report analyzing teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the United
States, Sutcher et al., (2016) determined that roughly 90% of the demand for teachers is created
from turnover, whereas only one third of those teachers retired from the profession. This
turnover more greatly impacts schools who serve high concentrations of impoverished, English
language learners, and students of color (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018a). More specifically,
beginning teacher attrition and mobility impacts equitable access to highly qualified teachers,
student achievement, school culture, the teacher labor market, as well as creating a financial
burden for schools and districts (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Ronfeldt et al.,
2013; Sutcher et al., 2016). This study is important because the findings could potentially
improve components of induction, program structure, and program offerings, based on
communicated teacher need. In turn, the implementation of more effective support for beginning
teachers may lessen the impact created by high turnover.
5

Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
This study applied Bandura’s triadic model of reciprocal determinism in social cognitive
theory to examine the interactions of personal, environmental, and behavioral factors that impact
new teacher mobility and attrition (Bandura, 1978, 1989). Within the framework, Bandura
(1978) explains that reciprocal determinism is a complex phenomenon occurring because of
reciprocal, bidirectional interacting factors related to an individual’s behavior, the environment,
and personal factors. For example, a new teacher that has the perception that they are adequately
prepared through their preparation program to support high needs students will have greater self-
efficacy, which in turn, will impact the environment or school culture. The school culture may
impact the strategies that the new teacher must implement which, in turn, may impact teacher
self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1986, 1989), environment and personal factors impact
behavior; behavior and the environment impact personal factors; and personal factors and
behavior impact the environment.
A mixed methods approach was utilized. The study methodology employed a cross-
sectional survey design, secondary data analysis of existing program data, as well as a document
analysis of previously collected survey data. The cross-sectional survey utilized a mix of rating,
Likert-based, multiple choice, and open-ended questions to discern the perceived practices
supportive of new teacher persistence. In addition to an original survey, the study included
secondary data analysis that examined existing data collected by GCOE in an end of year survey.
Further, a document analysis of previously collected data from the CTC end of program
completer survey was used. Participants include beginning teachers that are currently enrolled or
have recently completed programming with GCOE.
6

Definitions
Definitions and citations from relevant literature provide context to foundational words
and terms utilized within this study.
• Attrition is leaving the profession completely, either voluntarily or involuntarily (Carver-
Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Goldring et al., 2014; Gray et al., 2015).
• Beginning or new teachers are those with between 1 to 5 years of experience.
• Beginning teacher turnover encompasses the combination of mobility as well as
voluntary or involuntary attrition (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Goldring
et al., 2014; Gray et al., 2015).
• Induction is a set of supports offered to beginning teachers that accelerate teacher
effectiveness, strengthen leadership, as well as improve student learning and teacher
retention (New Teacher Center, 2018).
• Mobility is moving within the profession either intradistrict or interdistrict (Carver-
Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Goldring et al., 2014; Gray et al., 2015).
• New teacher induction supports or induction are systematic professional development
components designed specifically for beginning teachers that improve beginning teacher
efficacy, effectiveness, and leadership (New Teacher Center, 2018).
• Stayers, Movers, and Leavers refers to the attrition and mobility status of a teacher within
the profession. Stayers is a term used to describe teachers that persist in the profession;
leavers describes teachers that leave the profession completely; and movers signifies
teachers that move schools or districts (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017;
Goldring et al., 2014; Gray et al., 2015).
• Teacher shortage refers to a specific grade level, subject matter, teaching area, or
7

geographic region where there is an inadequate supply of teachers to fill available
openings (U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education, 2017).
• Turnover is the combination of attrition and mobility.
Organization of the Dissertation
This five-chapter study begins with an overview of the problem of practice and focus of
the study in Chapter One. Chapter Two outlines the relevant literature surrounding beginning
teacher turnover. Chapter Three identifies the methodology and ethical considerations for the
study. Chapter Four highlights the findings and provides an in-depth analysis of the survey and
document analysis. The study closes in Chapter Five by exploring recommendations for future
work to better support beginning teachers. The goal of this project was to analyze what groups of
new teachers in GCOE deem as effective support and identify what supports are helping them
remain within the profession.

8

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This section covers multiple topics that emerged during research. It provides an overview
on teacher turnover, and discusses what research determines as factors associated with, and
consequences of, beginning teacher turnover. It closes with an analysis of research related to the
impact of structured support systems as well as recommended components of a strong induction
program.
Overview of Teacher Turnover
Beginning teacher turnover is a well-documented problem of practice. It has persisted for
many years and impacts both public and private schools nationwide (NCES, 2005a, 2005b). The
Learning Policy Institute (2017) shares that each year turnover accounts for roughly 90% of the
available teaching positions nationally, with only one third attributed to retirement (Caver-
Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Sutcher et al., 2016). More specifically, 67% of teacher
turnover is voluntary and encompasses pre-retirement leavers and movers (Caver-Thomas &
Darling-Hammond, 2017). This section provides an in-depth analysis of current and past teacher
turnover data. It demonstrates the problem has been consistent in the field for roughly 20 years
(NCES, 2005a, 2005b). Further, various bodies of research have shown that some specific
subgroups of beginning teachers leave the profession at an increased rate (Ingersoll et al.,
2018a).
Teacher Turnover
Current data of beginning teacher turnover suggest that 1 in 4 beginning teachers in the
profession will move or leave by the end of their fifth year (Gray at al., 2015). This section
explores a national body of research which demonstrates this assertion. Findings from the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study (BTLS)
9

showed that of 100% of beginning teachers surveyed in 2007-2008, there was a 10% attrition
rate by the 2008-2009 school year, rising to 12% in 2009-2010, 15% in 2010-2011, and finally,
increasing to a 17% attrition rate at the end of the study in 2011-2012 (Gray et al., 2015).
Further, the national study showed that mobility rates in the same timeframe ranged between
10% to 16% annually for a total of 22% to 27% turnover (Gray et al., 2015). Of the roughly
156,100 teachers surveyed in this study, 42,147 moved within or left the profession by their 5th
year of teaching (Gray et al., 2015). Similar trends are demonstrated in other national studies.
In addition to the BTLS, beginning teacher turnover has also been documented in the
NCES Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), which is a nationwide integrated study that included
public and private schools in both elementary and secondary settings. In the most recent SASS,
which collected data from 2007 through 2012, 3.3 million teachers, both from public and private
schools were surveyed; data were disaggregated by the number of years of teaching experience
(NCES, 2014a). Beginning teachers, defined in this study as having 1 to 3 years of experience,
accounted for 398,500 of teachers surveyed (NCES, 2014a). Of this population, there were
12.5% movers and 7.1% leavers from the 2011-2012 to 2012-2013 school years, representing
roughly 78,000 vacancies (Goldring et al., 2014; NCES, 2014a). Similar trends are seen in the
state of California.
Between the 2009–2010 and 2015-2016 school years, the state of California had slightly
less turnover than the national rate of 15.8% and 22.7% (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018).
Recently, the state averaged about 8.5% leavers and 8% movers with the estimated majority
involving pre-retirement attrition (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018). The data available for the
state is minimal and, although it was not disaggregated by years of experience, it represents that
California is facing challenges with retaining teachers. Moreover, this has been a relatively
10

consistent occurrence that has traversed a 20 year timeframe (NCES, 2005a, 2005b). Further,
data indicate that educators of color move within or leave the profession at a higher rate than
white teachers (Ingersoll, 2018a).
BIPOC Teacher Turnover
Attrition and mobility of beginning teachers impacts various subgroups at greater rates
than others. Ingersoll et al., (2018a) assert that teachers in minoritized groups have higher rates
of attrition and mobility when compared to non-minorities. The BTLS disseminated attrition data
for beginning teachers by two race/ethnicity groups: white, non-Hispanic and all other
races/ethnicities. During the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and the 2011-2012 school years, beginning
teachers who self-identified as white left the profession at a rate of 11.9%, 13.2% and finally
16.7% respectively (Gray et al., 2015). Teachers who self-identified as another race/ethnicity
other than white had turnover rates during that same period of 13.9%, 20.4%, and 19.3%
respectively, demonstrating the disparity in different race/ethnicity groups (Gray et al., 2015).
Further, the trend for BIPOC teacher turnover is also demonstrated in most recent SASS and TFS
from 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Although the data for the study is not disaggregated by years of
experience, turnover for teachers that self-identified as white was 15% (7.5% movers, 7.5%
leavers); teachers that self-identified as Black was 21.8% (11.7% movers, 10.1% leavers); and
teachers that self-identified as Hispanic was 20.6% (12.6% movers, 8.0% leavers) which
illustrates the disparity in turnover rates with different subgroups within the teaching profession
as a whole (Ingersoll et al., 2011b; NCES, 2014a). The evidence highlights that the problem is
long standing; data collected in the last five cycles of the SASS and TFS (as far back as 1994-
1995), show that the turnover rates of teachers in minoritized groups was greater when compared
11

to turnover of non-minority teachers (NCES, 2006, 2010, 2014a). Evidence suggests there are
multiple factors that contribute to beginning teacher turnover.
Factors Associated with Beginning Teacher Turnover
Several factors affect beginning teacher attrition and mobility. In an analysis of research
there are factors that, when asked, teachers identify as important or extremely important in their
decision to leave or move within the profession (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Carver-Thomas &
Darling Hammond, 2017; Ingersoll, et al., 2017b; Ingersoll et al., 2018a; Ladd, 2009; Moore,
2012; Podolsky, 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). Factors that were communicated as important in
impacting persistence decisions were dissatisfaction and personal life factors (Goldring et al.,
2014); these will be known as communicated factors. There are also factors that emerged as
salient in decision making that teachers did not communicate to be of importance (Borman &
Dowling, 2008; Carver-Thomas & Darling Hammond, 2017; Ingersoll, et al., 2017b; Ingersoll et
al., 2018a; Ladd, 2009; Moore, 2012; Podolsky, 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). Factors that were not
communicated to be of importance in career persistence decisions, but data showed as important
factors, were various school and teacher characteristics (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond,
2017; Sutcher et al., 2016), teacher preparation and self-efficacy (Podolsky et al., 2016;
Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007), access to mentorship and structured supports (Goldring et al.,
2014; Gray et al., 2014), and compensation (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017;
Sutcher et al., 2016); these will be known as non-communicated factors. This section will review
literature on both communicated and non-communicated factors and discuss their impact on new
teachers' choice to move within or leave the profession.
Both dissatisfaction and personal factors were among the top reasons teachers
communicated as cause for turnover when asked on the TFS (Carver-Thomas & Darling-
12

Hammond, 2017; Goldring et al., 2014). In the TFS, teachers identified specific areas where they
were dissatisfied; this included a range of reasons including but not limited to accountability,
administration, lack of support and influence in decision making as well as working conditions.
Additionally, the next most selected reason for moving or leaving was specific personal factors
(Goldring et al., 2014). This section discusses the most commonly selected reasons for leaving or
moving within the profession.
Dissatisfaction
Survey data indicate that beginning teachers move within or leave the profession because
of dissatisfaction with one or more components of the profession (Goldring et al., 2014). In the
2013 TFS, approximately 55% of teachers who left the profession and 65% of teachers who
moved within, cited one or more types of dissatisfaction as a reason for turnover (Carver-
Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Goldring et al., 2014). Approximately 45% of first year
public school leavers in 2012-2013 indicated dissatisfaction with at least one component of the
profession as reason for leaving (Ingersoll et al., 2018a). Areas of dissatisfaction that were
consistently cited in research include: various components of the school environment,
encompassing administration, lack of collegiality, emphasis on accountability/testing,
compensation, lack of autonomy and influence with decision making and a variety of other
organizational working conditions (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Carver-Thomas & Darling
Hammond, 2017; Goldring et al., 2014; Ingersoll et al., 2017b; Ingersoll et al., 2018a; Ladd,
2009; Moore, 2012; Podolsky, 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). Similar trends are evidenced when
examining BIPOC teacher turnover.
Data show that 50% of teachers of color who depart reported dissatisfaction as a reason
for turnover (Ingersoll et al.,2017a). When analyzing the SASS and TFS data, Ingersoll et al.
13

(2017b) determined working conditions were strongly associated with minority teacher attrition.
When compared to the other reasons listed on the most recent SASS and TFS, dissatisfaction was
also the most highly selected reason for minority teacher turnover (Albert Shanker Institute,
2015; Goldring et al., 2014). In isolating minority leaver responses, surveys determined that
educators of color were most dissatisfied with: leadership (81%), demands of
accountability/testing (65%), student discipline (61%), lack of autonomy (57%), poor
organizational working conditions (56%), classroom intrusions (46%), and poor salary/benefits
(39%) (Albert Shanker Institute, 2015; Ingersoll, et al., 2017a). Although dissatisfaction is the
most highly communicated reason for moving or leaving, the next most identified factor
associated with turnover is personal life factors.
Personal Life Factors
Personal life factors were the second most identified reason for leaving the profession
(Goldring et al., 2014). Personal life factors encompasses taking a job more conveniently
located, or moving; or personal life reasons (NCES: TFS Questionnaire, 2014). Of the leavers in
the most recent SASS TFS, 43% selected one of these three items as a very or extremely
important factor associated with the decision to leave (Goldring et al., 2014; Sutcher et al., 2016;
Carver-Thomas et al., 2017). This included 37% indicating they left for personal life reasons.
Personal life reasons encompass pregnancy, the need to care for a child or another family
member, and/or health related reasons; personal life reasons was the most commonly selected
area in this category (Goldring et al., 2014). In addition to the communicated reasons,
dissatisfaction and personal life factors, there are several reasons that research identified as
salient factors in the decision to move within or leave the profession that have not been
communicated by leavers as important.
14

There are multiple factors that were not communicated as reasons for leaving the
profession, but emerge in literature as impacting persistence decisions of beginning teachers.
These non-communicated factors include various school and teacher characteristics, teacher
preparation and self-efficacy, access to mentorship, and compensation (Carver-Thomas &
Darling-Hammond, 2017; Goldring et al., 2014; Gray et al., 2014; Podolsky et al., 2016; Sutcher
et al., 2016). Many of these were rarely selected as reasons teachers left or moved within the
profession on national surveys, however, in an analysis of data, they arise as factors associated
with turnover in the profession. This section reviews turnover data on non-communicated factors
including school and teacher characteristics, workplace conditions, teacher preparation and self-
efficacy, and compensation.
School and Teacher Characteristics
In an analysis of research, two school characteristics emerged as factors associated with
beginning teacher turnover. Evidence indicates that new teacher mobility and attrition occurs
more frequently in schools that teach higher numbers of students of color and in schools located
in higher poverty areas (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Goldring et al., 2014; Gray
et al., 2014). These include schools classified as Title I, which The Every Student Succeeds Act
(2018) defines as schools receiving federal dollars to operate targeted assistance programs for
students that are at high risk of failing, and include many low-income, high minority schools.
The Learning Policy Institute points out that turnover rates are 50% higher for teachers in
Title I schools and 70% higher for teachers in schools serving the largest concentrations of
students of color (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). This trend is evidenced in the
SASS sampling, where attrition and mobility rates in schools with 75% or more of students on
the Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) program was 22% compared to 12.8% turnover in schools
15

with 0-34% on the FRL program (Goldring et al., 2014). Although the data for this information
was not disaggregated by years of experience, these trends are evidenced in the BTLS as well.
Specifically, results from the BTLS demonstrate that new teachers working in high poverty
schools, those with 50% or more on the FRL program, had between a 3-4% higher attrition rate
(not including mobility) than teachers working in low poverty schools (Gray et al., 2015). In the
study, the new teacher attrition rate in low poverty schools was 10.3%, while the attrition rate in
high poverty schools was 14.2% (Gray et al., 2015). Similar trends of beginning teacher turnover
are shown for low and high minority schools. Beginning teachers with three or fewer years of
experience had a turnover rate of 24% in high minority schools and an 18% turnover rate in low
minority schools (Sutcher et al., 2016). Data show that teachers who work in schools with these
two characteristics move within or leave the profession at a higher rate. This phenomena is also
evidenced by initial certification type held by the teacher.
Evidence also shows that turnover is more likely for teachers who took an alternative
pathway to enter the teaching profession and who work in specific subject areas (Carver-Thomas
& Darling-Hammond, 2017; Podolsky et al., 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). The National Teacher
and Principal Survey (2015) defines an alternative pathway as a program designed to expedite
the transition of nonteachers to a teaching career. In an analysis of national studies, Carver-
Thomas and Darling-Hammond (2017) estimate that teacher turnover rates are 150% greater for
alternatively certified teachers, 90% greater for math and science teachers at high minority
schools, and 80% higher for those working with high minority special education classrooms. For
example, in an analysis of TFS data, math and science teachers had a turnover rate of 10% in low
minority schools and 19% in high minority schools; special education teachers had a turnover
16

rate of 11% and 20% in low and high minority schools respectively (Sutcher et al., 2016). This
disparity in turnover rates also impacts teachers of color.
Data show that teachers of color are 2 to 3 times more likely than white teachers to work
in hard-to-staff schools, classified as high poverty, high minority, and/or schools within urban
communities (Ingersoll, et al., 2017b). According to the Albert Shanker Institute (2015), in the
2011-2012 school year, 92% of teachers of color were employed in public schools and nearly
two-thirds of those teachers worked in high poverty areas serving predominantly students of
color; only 3% of educators of color were employed in schools considered low minority, with
10% or less of students of color in the population (Albert Shanker Institute, 2015). Data indicates
that teachers of color are employed at higher rates in schools serving disadvantaged students
which causes them to depart at higher rates because these schools tend to be less desirable as
workplaces (Albert Shanker Institute, 2015).
Workplace Conditions
Workplace conditions are a predominant factor in predicting turnover of beginning
teachers (Borman & Dowling, 2008). Although this was only communicated by a small
percentage of leavers in the most recent SASS TFS (2013), other bodies of research indicate it is
an important factor associated with teacher turnover (Borman & Dowling, 2008; Johnson, 2006).
These conditions include the environment created from limited collegiality, lack of support from
administration, lack of available resources, and inadequate facilities (Johnson, 2006; Podolsky et
al., 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). Johnson (2006) indicates that poor workplace conditions can
disrupt teacher effectiveness and influence career persistence decisions. Badura’s theory of
reciprocal determinism in social cognitive theory suggests these are reciprocal factors; perceived
lack of support from administration may create inadequate work conditions impacting
17

persistence decisions of beginning teachers or inadequate resources and facilities may increase
the perception that beginning teachers are not supported by administration, impacting their
decisions to move, leave, or stay.
An empirical study completed by Ladd (2009) indicated that working conditions
including perceived quality of school leadership was highly predictive of a teacher's intent to
remain in the profession. More specifically, teachers citing a lack of leadership and support from
administration were more than twice as likely to leave their school or teaching entirely (Carver-
Thomas, 2018). Additionally, schools with a lack of collaboration and teacher networking
opportunities also faced higher rates of attrition (Borman & Dowling, 2008). Another working
condition that may reciprocally impact persistence decisions is the lack of school influence and
autonomy in the classroom. Carver-Thomas (2018) suggests lack of autonomy is strongly
associated with turnover. Effective leadership at the school and district level can mitigate such
issues and improve workplace factors associated with turnover (Carver-Thomas, 2018; Moir,
2009; New Teacher Center, 2016).
Organizational working conditions strongly affect minority teacher turnover (Ingersoll, et
al. 2011a). Dissatisfaction with organizational working conditions disproportionately impacts
students and teachers of color because of the disparity of resources available in high poverty and
high minority schools compared to low poverty, low minority schools (Ingersoll, et al., 2011a).
Ed Build (2017), a non-profit company that focuses on fairness in educational funding, noted
schools who serve a higher population of non-white students receive $23 billion dollars less
annually than schools who serve a higher concentration of white students, nationally. They
estimated that for every enrolled student, a school district with a majority of non-white students
receives approximately $2,200 less per student than one who serves predominately white
18

students (Ed Build, 2017). This disparity in resources creates less desirable workplace conditions
as well as a higher level of dissatisfaction which increases the likelihood of minority teacher
attrition (Ingersoll, et al., 2011a).
Teacher Preparation and Self-Efficacy
Evidence indicates that teacher preparation and self-efficacy play a role in turnover.
Although it was not highly communicated as a reason for turnover, data show teachers who are
less prepared, are less efficacious and tend to leave the profession at greater rates (Borman &
Dowling, 2008; Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Podolsky et al., 2016; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy,
2007). This section reviews data that demonstrates this assertion.
Self-Efficacy
Bandura describes self-efficacy as one’s own belief in their ability to produce a desired
outcome through personal action or succeed in a specific task or situation (1997, 2010). More
specifically, teacher self-efficacy is when an educator believes their abilities and actions can lead
to positive outcomes related to teaching (Tschannen-Moran, et al., 1998). Bray-Clark and Bates
(2003) emphasize that it regulates choice, effort, and persistence in the face of challenges in the
profession. Research indicates teacher efficacy can impact feelings, thoughts, motivation, and
behaviors of teachers toward students, school, and career (Bandura, 1997; Hoy & Spero, 2005;
Tschannen-Mora & Hoy, 2007). Further, increased efficacy directly impacts teacher
effectiveness (Bray-Clark & Bates, 2003). Being highly prepared can increase teacher self-
efficacy (Hoy & Spero, 2005).
Preparation
Teacher preparation programs are delivered through a variety of components
(coursework, student teaching, observation) and ideally prepare teachers to effectively handle
19

classroom management, implement appropriate instructional methods and technology, to teach
standards-based subject matter, differentiate for a variety of learner needs, and assess and use
data to drive instructional practices (Worrell et al., 2014). Hoy and Spero (2005) apply
Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy to beginning teachers and emphasize that teacher efficacy
develops from entry into a post graduate preparation program through the first few years of
teaching. The study indicates that although teacher self-efficacy changes throughout a career, the
first experiences, including being well-prepared to enter the profession, are critical to the long-
term development of teacher efficacy (Hoy & Spero, 2005). Yost (2006) suggests that to achieve
teacher self-efficacy, the environment in preparation through the first years of teaching must be
conducive to positive growth and offer avenues of support. The study indicates the more
positive, diverse experiences beginning teachers are exposed to, the greater their confidence and
self-efficacy.
There is a correlation between the adequacy of teacher preparation, teacher self-efficacy,
and attrition rates (DeAngelis et al., 2013; Gibson & Dembo,1984; Lavigne, 2014; Podolsky et
al., 2016). Studies have shown that effective preparation increases teachers’ efficacy which
influenced teachers’ persistence (Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Hughes, 2012; Podolsky et al., 2016).
Teachers who indicated being highly satisfied with the quality of their preparation and felt
adequately trained to succeed as a teacher, were half as likely to leave the teaching profession
than those who were less satisfied, or felt they were less adequately prepared to be successful
(Borman & Dowling, 2008; DeAngelis et al., 2013; Podolsky et al., 2016). In the most recent
SASS, those that took part in at least one semester of student teaching were three times less
likely to leave the profession after 1 year than those who did not (Podolsky et al., 2016).
Additional studies have indicated that teachers who were considered more effectively prepared
20

had higher efficacy and retention rates than those who were less adequately trained (Ronfeldt et
al., 2014; Zheng and Zeller, 2016). Further, Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2007) determined that
strong teacher efficacy influences persistence despite significant challenges. Teachers who
presume they are highly prepared are less likely to leave teaching (Borman & Dowling, 2008;
Grant, 2006). Another area that is not commonly selected as a reason for leaving but is shown as
salient in career persistence decisions is teacher compensation (Gray et al., 2015).
Compensation
National data show that compensation impacts beginning teachers’ decision to move or
leave (Gray et al., 2015). Teachers commonly receive lower pay than occupations that require
comparable education, skills, and training (Allegretto & Lawrence, 2018). The Economic Policy
Institute (2018) determined that teachers (beginning and veteran) earn on average 19% less than
professionals that were similarly educated and skilled (Allegretto & Lawrence, 2018; Kelly &
Northrup, 2015). In the 2017-2018 National Education Association Ranking and Estimate Report
(2018), the average beginning teacher salary in the United States was $39,249. Moreover, the
report indicated that 63% of public school districts nationwide offered a starting salary below
$40,000. Further, although not always communicated, data suggests that salary impacts the
beginning teacher’s decisions to move within or leave the profession. New teachers that earn a
higher base salary have a greater retention rate when compared to those that earn a lower base
salary (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Gray et al., 2015; Kelly & Northrup, 2015).
In the most recent BTLS, salary level was surveyed at $40,001 or greater and $40,000 or less.
The evidence demonstrated that retention rates were different for teachers earning above or
below an annual base salary of $40,000 (Gray et al., 2015). Specifically, in the 2011-2012 school
year, teachers earning under $40,000 had an attrition rate of 19.3%, while teachers earning over
21

$40,000 had an attrition rate of 11.3% (Gray et al., 2015). Further, an income disparity is also
prevalent for teachers that work in high poverty and high minority schools.
Evidence suggests there is a wage gap for beginning teachers that work in high poverty
and high minority schools. The U.S. Department of Education Educator Equity Profiles does a
state-by-state analysis comparing pay for teachers in low and high minority and low and high
poverty schools. These profiles show that on average, teachers that work in low poverty and low
minority schools make more in salary than those in high poverty, high minority schools (US
Department of Education, 2012a-2012g). In California, on average, teachers in low minority
schools earn $74,160 and high minority schools earn $67,266. Similar trends are evidenced in
the Educator Equity Profiles nationwide (U.S. Department of Education, 2012a). Although the
national data is an average that takes into account both beginning and veteran teacher salaries,
such trends would also impact starting salaries for beginning teachers working in high poverty
and high minority schools. Further, this disparity in pay between low and high poverty and
minority schools negatively affects educators of color because of the tendency of minorities to be
employed within these schools (Ingersoll et al., 2017c). In the analysis of the most recent SASS,
Ingersoll et al., (2017c) found high poverty schools employed about one fifth of the overall
teaching workforce and employed 42% of teachers in minoritized groups, whereas low poverty
schools employed one third of the entire teaching force and employed just 15% of teachers in
minoritized groups nationally. The propensity of educators of color to be employed in high
poverty and high minority schools increases the likelihood they are exposed to the disparity in
pay and contributes to beginning minority teacher turnover. However, all groups of teachers that
have access to a comprehensive induction program including mentorship are less likely to leave
the profession (Gray et al., 2015; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a).
22

Mentorship and Structured Support
There is strong evidence to suggest that providing mentorship and other forms of
structured support with multiple components for beginning teachers reduces turnover. Lack of
systematic support, including mentorship, increases turnover as indicated in the BTLS (Gray et
al., 2015; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a). Specifically, in 2010-2011, the teacher attrition rate was
12% for those assigned a mentor and 27.2% for those who were not (Gray et al., 2015).
Additionally, in 2011-2012, new teacher attrition was 14.5% when assigned a mentor, and 28.6%
for those who were not (Gray et al., 2015). Teachers who received more extensive induction,
with multiple components, were significantly less likely to migrate schools or leave the
profession when compared to teachers who did not receive such support (Ingersoll & Strong,
2011a; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). High-quality, comprehensive mentoring and induction
support can help accelerate new teacher effectiveness as well as mitigate turnover and the
impacts associated (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a; DeAngelis et al., 2013; Moir, 2009). Research
demonstrates that consequences associated with beginning teacher turnover have extensive
implications.
Consequences of New Teacher Turnover
Beginning teacher turnover has far reaching consequences impacting students, teachers,
schools and districts. These include the financial burden associated with filling vacant positions,
the contribution to the national teacher shortage, students’ equitable access to highly qualified
teachers, negative impact on student achievement, and increases in organizational challenges
related to school management (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; National Council on
Teacher Quality, 2018; Ronfeldt, et al., 2013; U.S. Department of Education Office of
23

Postsecondary Education, 2017). This section will briefly review the various consequences
evidence shows as effects of turnover.
Contribution to the Teacher Shortage and Equitable Access
New teacher attrition and mobility impacts the teacher labor market as well as equitable
access to highly qualified teachers for all students (Sutcher et al., 2016; Ronfeldt et al., 2013).
The U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education (2017) defines a teacher
shortage as a specific grade level, subject matter, teaching area, or geographic region where there
is an inadequate supply of teachers to fill available openings. Although there are many districts
and counties that have the ability to adequately fill vacancies, the nationwide teacher shortage
report and other research indicates that there are repeated shortages in some geographic regions,
with specific school characteristics and within subject areas, like special education, math and
science (Barth et al., 2016; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Ingersoll et al., 2018a;
National Council on Teacher Quality, 2018; U.S. Department of Education Office of
Postsecondary Education, 2017). Researchers estimate that retirements typically make up
roughly one-third of teachers who leave yearly while the other two-thirds leave before pre-
retirement age, creating increased demand (Sutcher et al., 2016). Pre-retirement attrition in turn
impacts students' access to highly qualified, experienced teachers.
The federal legislation, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), amended in 2015, dictates
that states and school districts are required to provide equitable access to highly qualified
educators. Evidence suggests that beginning teacher turnover plays a role in trying to not only fill
vacancies but build a high quality work force to ensure all students have access to highly
qualified educators (Barth et al., 2016; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Gray et al.,
2015; National Council on Teacher Quality, 2018; U.S. Department of Education Office of
24

Postsecondary Education, 2017). Further, research suggests that turnover is highest in schools
that serve large populations of students of color as well as Title 1 schools, serving lower income
populations (Prince, 2002; Sutcher et al., 2016). Teachers that work with these specific
populations leave at a greater rate, meaning, students in minoritized groups, in high poverty, or
disadvantaged communities face higher rates of teacher turnover. This inequity of turnover
ultimately results in inequitable access because vacancies tend to be filled with less experienced,
underqualified or less effective teachers (Boyd et al., 2008; Carver-Thomas & Darling-
Hammond, 2017; Glazer, 2018; Hanushek et al., 2016; Ronfeldt et al., 2013; Sutcher et al.,
2016). Research indicates this affects student achievement (Ronfeldt et al., 2013; Sutcher et al.,
2016).
Student Achievement and Organizational Challenges
High rates of teacher turnover can negatively affect student achievement (Ingersoll &
Strong, 2011a; Ingersoll, et.al., 2017c; Ronfeldt et al., 2013; Sutcher et al., 2016). Although
some turnover is seen as beneficial, because it removes poorly prepared and ineffective teachers,
overall, it impacts student outcomes negatively (Ronfeldt, et. al., 2013). Specifically, Ronfeldt, et
al (2013) suggested students that experienced turnover had statistically significant lower test
scores in both math and English language arts. The data suggest this trend is particularly harmful
in schools, with a lower socioeconomic status and a higher number of students in minoritized
groups, that experience higher levels of turnover often with vacancies being filled with less
experienced, underqualified or less effective teachers than schools with more wealthy and
predominantly white students (Boyd et al., 2008; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017;
Hanushek et al., 2016; Ronfeldt et al., 2013; Sutcher et al., 2016). In addition to impacting
student achievement, turnover also creates other organizational challenges.
25

Turnover creates a source of instability and management challenges for schools and
leaders by impacting staff, students and available resources (Glazer, 2018; Ronfeldt et al., 2013).
When turnover occurs, consistency in implementation of instructional programs and working
teacher teams are altered, both which affect the school community, staff cohesion, and
achievement (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Further, with
financial resources diverted to filling available vacancies, teachers with greater experience tend
to carry a more difficult instructional load and have less available financial resources, normally
designed for use in the classroom and professional development (Ronfeldt et al., 2013). Turnover
creates financial strains on schools and districts.
Cost
Beginning teacher turnover places a financial burden on schools. The Learning Policy
Institute (2017) estimates the cost to replace a teacher ranges between $9,000 and $21,000; other
research estimates a range of $4,500 to $26,500 per individual depending on several factors
(Barnes et al., 2007; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Watlington et al., 2010). These
factors include costs associated with: geographic location, recruitment, advertising, special hiring
incentives, administration, new hire training and mentoring, and those related to student
achievement (Barnes et al., 2007). The cost associated with filling vacancies created from
turnover represents an opportunity cost that effectively removes potential funding for other
needs.
The consequences for teacher turnover are vast, impacting the teacher shortage, equitable
access, student achievement, district and school finances, as well as increasing management
challenges. Research shows that when newly hired teachers are adequately prepared, have
competitive compensation and are a part of a structured support system, there is a decrease in
26

attrition and mobility rates, thus improving student performance and reducing costs associated
with turnover (Espinosa, et al., 2018). Multiple bodies of evidence suggest that providing
mentorship and systematic, structured support via new teacher induction reduces new teachers’
intent to move or leave.
New Teacher Induction
Access to a comprehensive induction program helps improve educator effectiveness and
reduce the rate of beginning teacher turnover, therefore lessening the associated consequences
(Ingersoll et al., 2011a; Ingersoll, 2012; Raue & Gray, 2015; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). The
Education Commission of the States (2020b) found in a 50 state review of induction
requirements that 31 states mandated some form of new teacher support. Although providing
new teacher support is typically seen as beneficial, more induction supports collectively made
more of an impact (CCSESA, 2016; DeAngelis et al., 2013; Ingersoll, 2012; Ingersoll & Strong,
2011a; Martin et al., 2016; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). New teacher induction programs are
becoming more common nationwide, but it is estimated that only a small amount of beginning
teachers receive what is considered comprehensive support (Martin et al., 2016). This section
will outline what research has defined as comprehensive components of new teacher induction
programs and review literature related to new teacher induction programming and the importance
of such programs on reducing the consequences of turnover. It closes with a discussion of
general program requirements for the state of California, where the study takes place, and
identifies similar studies relating to beginning teacher perceptions of the support they receive.
Recommended Components and State Policy Evaluation for New Teacher Induction
High-quality induction programs are comprehensive, include multiple components and
have the ability to accelerate new teacher effectiveness (Goldrick, 2016; New Teacher Center,
27

2016; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). Multiple studies have found that when new teachers have
access to a comprehensive, structured set of supports, they are less likely to both move within
and leave the teaching profession (Kang & Berliner, 2012; Ronfeldt et al., 2017). There are a
number of studies that outline recommended components for state policy and new teacher
supports. This section will define what literature indicates as effective components of high-
quality, comprehensive induction, then discuss best practices and evaluation of state policy.
Program Components
A superior induction program should be job-embedded, for a minimum of 2 years and
include a combination of elements (Goldrick, 2016; Kang & Berliner, 2012; Kearney, 2014;
Martin et al., 2016; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). These elements include comprehensive
mentorship; structured observations and time for reflection; collaboration and common planning
time; a focus on reflective and high-leverage practices in the classroom; beginning teacher
seminars; additional support in the classroom; access to professional development; as well as
release time, reduced workload, or limited responsibilities (Carver-Thomas & Darling-
Hammond, 2017; DeAngelis et al., 2013; Ingersoll, 2012; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a; Kang &
Berliner, 2012; Kearney, 2014; Moir, 2009; Martin et al., 2016; Ronfeldt, & McQueen, 2017).
Mentorship. Evidence demonstrates that strong mentoring for novice teachers reduces
turnover. Specifically, novice teachers who are assigned a mentor leave the profession at half the
rate when compared to those who do not have a mentor; this is shown in the 2011-2012 BTLS
results where new teacher attrition was 14.5% when assigned a mentor and 28.6% without a
mentor (Gray et al., 2015). A mentor can offer individualized, targeted support; help with the
implementation of new strategies/research; give valuable feedback to the candidate to improve
practice; provide guidance in navigating various aspects of the teaching profession; and be a
28

resource to the candidate when dealing with challenges in the profession (Carver-Thomas &
Darling-Hammond, 2017; DeAngelis et al., 2013; Espinoza, et al., 2018; Ingersoll, 2012;
Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a; Kearney, 2014; Martin et al., 2016; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). As
such, the presence of a mentor provides significant support for beginning teachers.
High-quality mentorship is an essential component of a structured support system. Best
practices indicate that mentor selection should be purposeful; grade-level, subject-area,
school/district or geographic region would ideally be aligned (CCSESA, 2016). Further, the
mentor should be highly-trained, have clear roles and responsibilities and demonstrate the ability
to provide coaching expertise in regards to pedagogy, professional development, and
advancement of identified areas of growth (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018; Moir, 2009; New
Teacher Center, 2016, 2018). Additionally, effective mentors are communicative, accountable,
and trustworthy; they maintain a positive, confident, enthusiastic attitude; have experience
coaching, collaborating, facilitating learning, observing critically, as well as demonstrate a vast
knowledge of pedagogy, classroom management and working with and assessing diverse student
groups (CCSESA, 2016; Martin et al., 2016; New Teacher Center, 2018).
Structured Observations and Reflection. Observations in a high-quality induction
program should include embedded opportunities for the candidate to observe experienced
teachers as well to be observed non-evaluatively by the mentor (DeAngelis et al., 2013; Kearney,
2014; Martin et al., 2016; New Teacher Center, 2018). Critical feedback should be provided by
the mentor, identifying areas for growth and resources to improve (DeAngelis et al., 2013). Both
peer and mentor observations should include time to reflect on individual effectiveness and on
specific ways to implement new or improved practices (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond,
2017; DeAngelis et al., 2013; Kearney, 2014; Martin et al., 2016). Although the process of
29

reflecting on practices can take different formats (journal, dialogue, small group discussions,
etc.), routine and scheduled engagement is critical in the reflective process to accelerate
beginning teacher growth by facilitating learning and understanding as well as furthering
professional development (Mathew et al., 2017).
Collaboration and Common Planning Time. Structured time for supportive
conversations with both colleagues and site administration should be scheduled and occur at
regular intervals (Ingersoll, 2012; Kang & Berliner, 2012; Kearney, 2014; Martin et al., 2016;
Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). Common planning time should occur with like-content/grade-level
teachers (Ingersoll, 2012; Kang & Berliner, 2012; Kearney, 2014; Martin et al., 2016; Ronfeldt
& McQueen, 2017). Further, administrators should work to develop strong, supportive
relationships with novice teachers; evidence indicates that teachers who perceive administration
as unsupportive are more than twice as likely to move or leave than those who consider
administration to be supportive (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). Interactions with
peers and administration can promote reflective practices.
A Focus on Reflective and High-Leverage Practices in the Classroom. Martin et al.,
(2016) suggests programs should mandate sanctioned time to continuously plan, analyze and
reflect on student learning. Support should be provided surrounding high-leverage practices,
including a systematic procedure to guide mentors and novice teachers in the collection,
disaggregation, and analysis of data to drive improvements (Carver-Thomas & Darling-
Hammond, 2017; New Teacher Center, 2016). These improvements may include the
implementation of evidence-based instructional strategies, best practices to differentiate
instruction and meet a variety of learner needs, or collecting data from a variety of assessments
to drive instructional decisions. Comprehensive induction programs should document new
30

teacher development and growth as well as have protocols for self-reflection on current
instructional practices (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Ingersoll, 2012; New
Teacher Center, 2016).
Beginning Teacher Seminars. Seminars offered for novice teachers can have multiple
formats. They may include a new teacher orientation and/or regularly scheduled meetings to
provide guidance on specific state, district or site initiatives (Ingersoll, 2012; Kang & Berliner,
2012). These seminars might take place at the beginning of the school year or throughout to
provide continued support. Seminars could include multiple topics, possibly addressing
technology, district or school initiatives, research-based strategies, state or content standards, or
other pertinent professional development. Kang and Berliner (2012) found that participating in
seminars was positively related to the reduction of moving within the profession. Seminars
structured to support beginning teachers may also lead to professional development
opportunities.
Access to Professional Development. High-quality induction should incorporate
opportunities for on-going professional development (CCSESA, 2016). Development
opportunities can be in a variety of formats (school/district wide, online, with an outside agency)
but should address immediate needs in relation to professional growth goals (Ingersoll & Strong,
2011a; Martin et al., 2016). Professional development activities should be individualized to
support improvement and provided in a timely manner; it should be made available for beginning
teachers as a resource to improve identified areas of growth but also as an opportunity to develop
a network of teachers (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Kearney, 2014).
Professional development may be coupled with release time to attend the training.
31

Additional Support, Release Time, and/or Reduced Workload. High-quality
programs may include one or more additional support in the classroom. These supports include
reduced workload, release time for induction activities, the assistance of a paraprofessional or a
co-teaching partnership with a beginning and more senior teacher (Ingersoll, 2012; Kang &
Berliner, 2012; Kearney, 2014; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). A lighter teaching load may
include working with fewer students, a reduced number of students with special needs, or
teaching one grade-level or content-area instead of multiple. Scheduled release time for
induction activities and observations include a bank of available time for mentors and candidates
to work on induction activities, and a reduced workload, for example, minimal extracurricular
activities assigned to the beginning teacher. The combination of one or more of these supports is
considered best practice (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; DeAngelis et al., 2013;
Ingersoll, 2012; Kang & Berliner, 2012; Kearney, 2014; Martin et al., 2016; Ronfeldt, &
McQueen, 2017).
In a statistical review of the most recent SASS and TFS, Ronfeldt and McQueen (2017)
indicate a combination of four to six supports to be highly effective in mitigating turnover.
Specifically, they state that first-year teachers who receive more than four supports leave the
profession or move 4%-5% less than those who receive fewer (Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017).
Moir (2009) asserts that policy complements practice. In addition to comprehensive offerings, it
is important to have effective state policy to ensure beginning teachers are supported. Although
state policy has the ability to support beginning teachers, policy in each state differs.
State Policy Evaluation
There are vast differences in induction policy from state-to-state. The New Teacher
Center published nine criteria and used them to evaluate each state’s induction policies
32

(Goldrick, 2016). These criteria include requiring educators to receive induction in the first 2
years; have an assigned mentor; providing release time for mentor and candidate; include a
combination of specific components (observations, mentorship, etc.); have statewide
accountability linked to program standards and dedicated funding to support these programs; and
have completion of the program be tied to credentialing (Goldrick, 2016). In a comprehensive
review of all 50 states' policies for induction, Goldrick (2016) determined that few states have
what is considered to be high-quality, comprehensive policies to support induction for beginning
teachers. Specifically, the research identifies three states to be leading in best practices in policy:
Connecticut, Delaware, and Iowa. Although these three states are considered high-quality in
policy, other states have several, not all, of the suggested criteria embedded (Goldrick, 2016).
These include: Hawaii, California, Massachusetts, Ohio, Utah, Washington, Maryland, and a few
others (Goldrick, 2016). Another policy consideration is moving both teacher preparation and
induction on a continuum of teacher development instead of separate, individual programs
(Goldrick, 2009).
Research asserts that beginning teachers are, on average, less effective than their more
experienced peers; to accelerate novice effectiveness, preparation programs should be integrated
with comprehensive induction and viewed as a continuum of teacher development (DeAngelis et
al., 2013; Goldrick, 2009). DeAngelis et al., (2013) indicate that teachers who were less satisfied
with their preparation were significantly more likely to move or leave, but high-quality,
comprehensive induction programs have the ability to moderate the negative impact of low
quality preparation, demonstrating the important link between the two. Currently, estimates
suggest that only 1%-5% of new teachers receive what research considers comprehensive
induction supports annually (Ingersoll, 2012; Martin et al., 2016). With limited states having
33

effective policy in place, these statistics demonstrate the lack of comprehensive structured
support available to adequately support the majority of novice educators. Although there are
areas for improvement, evidence indicates that novice teachers who partake in programs that
offer four to six supports, were significantly less likely to migrate schools or leave the profession
(Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017).
Importance of New Teacher Induction
Research shows that beginning teachers who take part in high quality induction
programs that systematically offer multiple components resulted in lower new teacher turnover
and increased effectiveness (Carver-Thomas & Darling- Hammond, 2017). Raue and Gray
(2015) estimate that retention in the first five years nationally was roughly 80% for beginning
teachers who participated in a more comprehensive induction program, versus 69% over a five
year period for novices who had limited access or did not participate in induction programming.
More specifically, Ingersoll (2012) found a link between beginning teachers’ participation in
induction and retention rates, however, some types of activities were more impactful on retention
than others. Overall, the correlation to retention depended on the type, number, and quality of
components received by the beginning teacher (Ingersoll, 2012; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017).
Specific components within induction reduce attrition and mobility (Ronfeldt &
McQueen, 2017). Several studies utilized data sets from the most recent SASS and TFS to
determine specific impacts of induction components commonly offered nationwide. Ronfeldt and
McQueen (2017) determined that attending a beginning teacher seminar decreased the odds of
leaving the profession by 49-58%; receiving supportive communication reduced the odds by
roughly 48%; and having a mentor reduced the odds of leaving up to 50%. Further, the study
shows that comprehensive support is associated with a decrease in attrition and/or mobility
34

(Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). Although Kang & Berliner (2012) found similar trends, there
were some key differences. In their study, it was estimated that access to seminars and common
planning time reduced mobility by 33% and 27% respectively, but has limited impact on attrition
(Kang & Berliner, 2012). The research also demonstrated that additional support in the
classroom reduced attrition rates by roughly 43% (Kang & Berliner, 2012). Ronfeldt and
McQueen (2017) observed that receiving four to six supports (i.e. access to a mentor, supportive
communication, observation opportunities, etc.) reduced the risk of moving by 38-41% as
compared with teachers receiving zero to three supports. In a thorough review of research,
Ingersoll and Strong (2011a) noted multiple studies determined that participation in
comprehensive induction activities was strongly associated with higher retention rates in higher
poverty schools. Although some analyses showed a strong, positive correlation, one study
completed by Glazerman, et al., (2010) determined the opposite, that induction had little impact
on retention rates.
Glazerman et al. (2010) noted there was little difference in the impact of retention rates
and classroom practices for those who received “comprehensive” support versus “normal”
support. The authors worked in partnership with the U.S. Department of Education to study the
impact of induction. The study collected national data from roughly 1,000 beginning teachers
using a randomized controlled design in order to analyze the impact of induction on retention,
classroom practices, and student achievement (Glazerman et al., 2010). The treatment group was
provided what the study deemed as comprehensive support while the control group received the
normal support offered in their schools and districts (Glazerman et al., 2010). The study
suggested there was little difference in the impact of retention rates and classroom practices
between the two groups. Ingersoll and Strong (2011a) shared that this type of comparison may
35

be skewed because of confounding variables and assumptions, presenting a challenge in
accurately detecting effects of programs. Further, the study completed by Glazerman (2010)
indicated that 83% of the control group and 94% of the treatment group reported having a
mentor; these groups reported spending roughly 1.25 hours and 1.5 hours of time per week
getting mentored, respectively. This indicates that some of the control schools may have
provided induction services similar to the treatment group, not labeled comprehensive, making it
difficult to truly measure effectiveness and impact of this model (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a).
Additionally, this study found that although there was limited impact on student achievement in
the first 2 years of teaching, for those receiving what the study deemed as comprehensive
support, there was statistically significant positive impact evidenced in the third year of teaching
when compared to teachers who received lesser support (Glazerman et al., 2010). Although there
are limitations to the Glazerman et al. (2010) study, other research suggests the idea that more
supports received correlates with improved retention and acceleration of development, thus
positively impacting student achievement and decreasing costs associated with turnover
(Espinosa et al., 2018; Ingersoll, 2012; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a; Ingersoll, et.al., 2017c; New
Teacher Center, 2018; Ronfeldt et al., 2013; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017; Sutcher et al., 2016).
Teachers who received a greater number of comprehensive supports were not only less
likely to leave or move, but that the impact of induction on attrition and migration of schools was
reduced across a five year window (Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). This suggests that offering an
increased number of comprehensive programs, containing four to six systematic supports, in
conjunction with strong policies, can have positive long-term impact on retention and mitigation
of associated consequences. Although California is not considered as a state to meet all of the
New Teacher Center’s policy suggestions, it was mentioned that there are many positive
36

attributes to programming and policy (Goldrick, 2016). The goal of this study is to analyze what
groups of new teachers in GCOE deem as effective support and identify what supports contribute
to them remaining within the profession.
Current State of Teacher Turnover and Induction in California
Since the study takes place in California, it is imperative to understand the current state of
new teacher turnover and the induction policy and supports. This section will include a review of
the teaching profession in the state, address general policy guidelines for California induction
programs, as well as program components required by the CTC New Teacher Induction
Standards (2009). It closes with a brief discussion on the limited research available relating to
beginning teacher perceptions of induction programs nationwide.
The Teaching Profession in California
California shares similarities and differences when compared to the national data sets.
California served roughly 6.2 million students and employed 305,100 teachers in the 2016-2017
school year (CTC Commission Meeting, 2018). The data available for beginning teacher
turnover is not released publicly like the NCES surveys, however, the CTC and California
Department of Education (CDE) released data to the Learning Policy Institute who published
two articles offering an analysis of the data (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018; Sutcher et al., 2018).
Further, a snapshot of statistics on turnover can be found in the CTC’s meeting slides (CTC
Commission Meeting, 2018). Similar to national trends, Darling-Hammond, et al. (2018) suggest
that California is currently in a teacher shortage for specific geographic and subject areas due to
a decline in teacher preparation enrollments, new demand, as well as teacher attrition.
37

Teacher attrition and mobility is a problem in California. Although the data are not
disaggregated by years of experience, overall turnover in the state, including both attrition and
mobility, from 2009-2016 ranged from 15.84% to 22.73% (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018).
More specifically, mobility ranged between 7.8% and 9.19% and attrition averaged around 8%
with the exception of the 2009-2010 school year, which was at 13.85%, where multiple teachers
were laid off due to the recession (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018). The CTC Commission
Meeting (2018) data followed a cohort of first year teachers who were hired in 2012-2013 for
their first five years of teaching and documented attrition rates. Attrition rates ranged between
5% to 7% annually; in total, 2,703 beginning teachers were hired in 2012-2013 and 556 left the
profession by the end of the 2016-2017 school year, representing a 20% reduction (CTC
Commission Meeting, 2018). Based on this data, attrition rates for beginning teachers in the state
of California are slightly lower than the national average.
There is a disparity in turnover rates based on teacher race and specific school
characteristics in California. Darling-Hammond et al., (2018) indicated that from 2015-2016 to
2016-2017, those who identified as African American had a 21% turnover rate, those who shared
they were two or more races moved or left at a rate of 20%, and groups that identified as Asian,
white, or Hispanic moved or left at a rate of roughly 16%. Further, schools with a high number
of students on FRL and schools with a high proportion of students of color had teachers turnover
at a greater rate than those with a low proportion (Darling-Hammond, 2018). The data available
is limited and not disaggregated by years of experience, it demonstrates the similar trends that
occur nationally, contributes to the teacher shortage within the state, and raises concerns relating
to equity for impacted groups (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018; Sutcher et al., 2018).
Comprehensive induction programs with multiple components, supportive statewide policy, and
38

focused standards help guide programming to ensure all teachers receive equitable support (New
Teacher Center, 2018).
Policy and Program Components for Induction
California has a clear set of policies and program standards in place that govern teacher
induction programs. California Education Code provides a clear directive regarding
implementation through the use of mentors in a systematic approach aligned with the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession to support beginning teachers transition and growth in the
profession (California Legislative Information, 2012). This guidance indicates programs will be
administered by the CTC and the state Superintendent where they will jointly develop and
implement policies to govern beginning teacher support programs (California Legislative
Information, 2012). Currently, these are in the form of program standards.
The CTC has released a Teacher Induction Program Standards document that contains
detailed preconditions and standards that provide clear guidance on how programs should be
structured (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC), 2017). The preconditions
indicate that California induction must be two-year, job-embedded, individualized programs tied
to earning a clear credential, with systematic mentoring, support, and other specific embedded
components (CTC, 2017). These components include the assignment of a mentor, regular weekly
meeting time with a mentor, development of professional learning goals and associated action
plan in an Individualized Learning Plan (ILP), and guidance in the implementation of the ILP
completed non-evaluatively or related to employment (CTC, 2017). There are six standards that
address program purpose, components of mentoring design, designing and implementing ILPs,
qualifications of mentors, determining candidate competence for credential recommendation, as
well as program responsibilities for assuring quality of services (CTC, 2017). GCOE is
39

governed under these policies and guidelines. Currently, there is a limited amount of published,
peer-reviewed research that seeks perceptions of beginning teachers governed by these policies.
Perceptions of New Teacher Induction
Although there is an abundant amount of national research available on beginning teacher
turnover as well as systematic evaluations of programs resulting in program recommendations,
there is limited data available on new teachers’ perceptions of programmatic support and how it
impacts their intent to remain in the profession. There are two available peer-reviewed, empirical
studies in the United States, one which determines perceptions of programs within the state of
North Carolina (Algozzine et al., 2007) and another in the state of Ohio (Williams et al., 2016).
Each state has varying policies and unique program components; studies are not generalizable
and difficult to apply to California. The study completed in North Carolina found that teachers
perceived induction supports as more impactful than district wide professional development
offerings (Algozzine et al., 2007). Further, teachers from the study indicated that mentorship was
beneficial and additional time was needed to complete observations (Algozzine et al., 2007).
The study completed in Ohio found a majority of teachers perceived that induction offerings did
not support them in meeting the Ohio Standards for the Teaching Profession (Williams et al.,
2016). Although the study determined that induction had limited impact, most participants
reported that collaboration with mentors and colleagues and strong administrative support
improved their abilities in the classroom. Although these studies are not generalizable and used
different methodological approaches, both concluded that seeking perceptions from beginning
teachers is an important evaluative tool for program improvement (Algozzine et al., 2016;
Williams et al., 2016). Since there is not a peer-reviewed study on the perceptions of beginning
teacher induction programs that take place in California, this study will add to this body of
40

knowledge and support programmatic improvements. More specifically, the reciprocal
determinism lens allows for the examination of factors that impact turnover including the
structured supports offered within GCOE.
Conceptual Framework
This study applies Bandura’s triadic model of reciprocal determinism in social cognitive
theory to examine the interactions of personal, environmental, and behavioral factors that impact
new teacher mobility and attrition (Bandura, 1978, 1989). Within the framework, Bandura
(1978) explains that reciprocal determinism is a complex phenomenon occurring because of
reciprocal, bidirectional interacting factors related to an individual’s behavior, the environment,
and personal factors. Personal, environmental, and behavioral factors do not function
independently, but are related to one another, determining patterns or characteristics within each
factor (Bandura, 1978).
Personal Factors
Personal factors include personal values, beliefs, goals, attitudes, motivation, self-
efficacy, expectations, and attributions (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). Possible personal factors
that may impact new teacher turnover include cognition which is a preconception or knowledge
of the profession, effective pedagogy, classroom management, and assessments; motivation or a
general desire to persist in the profession, continually improve practices and meet student needs.
Other factors may include attitude or specific feelings toward leadership, colleagues, students,
parents, as well as toward supports provided; values and beliefs surrounding education,
leadership, policies and procedures in place to support staff and students, student ability and
efficacy; teacher self-efficacy or belief in the ability to lead to positive outcomes in teaching; and
expectations of school, district, induction program, and the profession as well as expectations of
41

students and community. These are reciprocally impacted by environmental and behavioral
factors.
Environmental Factors
Environmental factors include community and school characteristics, school climate and
norms, working conditions, behaviors of others in the environment, feedback, the availability of
support, instruction, and reinforcement (Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). Community and school
characteristics include community, student, and teacher demographics, poverty-level and percent
of students receiving FRL, student achievement level, and other community or school factors.
School climate and norms may include the availability of resources, the perception of leadership,
colleagues, working conditions, and relationships, quality of collaboration and teamwork,
effectiveness of policies and procedures in place, as well as the systems in place for beginning
teachers to access high-quality feedback. Further, environmental factors may also include the
availability and quality of support systems for new teachers. This consists of policy and program
standards aligned with preparation, availability and quality of mentorship, and the number and
accessibility of high-quality induction supports. Personal and behavioral elements may further
impact these factors.
Behavioral Factors
Behavioral factors include actions, choices, learning, persistence, and achievements
(Zimmerman & Schunk, 1989). For new teachers, this might include personal skills, professional
practices, as well as the ability to reflect on current practices and persist within the profession.
Personal skills may encompass seeking out and implementing effective pedagogy and
differentiated instruction as well as interpersonal skills with colleagues, students, staff, and
parents. Professional practices may include the willingness to grow and continually improve,
42

implement new practices, share and collaborate with others. Beginning teachers may also be
reflective on current practice as a means to self-regulation. This might include the ability to
identify areas of need, select and implement revised strategies and effectively use assessment
data to drive practice. Lastly, beginning teachers may be persistive, or have a high desire to
continue within the profession.
Since these factors reciprocally impact one another, they may affect new teachers’
decisions to stay, move within, or leave the profession. For example, a beginning teacher is
working in a school with a high percentage of impoverished students, in what is known as a
difficult community (environmental). This teacher is paired with an effective mentor in a
comprehensive support program (environmental). The mentor works with the beginning teacher
to improve cognition, or knowledge of effective pedagogy most appropriate for this student
population (personal). In turn, that may positively impact the novice teacher’s professional
practices (behavioral) in the classroom, which may overall have a positive impact on the school
and community. These reciprocal interactions may positively or negatively affect new teacher
turnover, making this theoretical framework helpful in examining how perceptions and
interactions impact new teachers’ decisions to stay or leave the profession.
Using this model, factors that may impact beginning teacher turnover are categorized as
personal, environmental, or behavioral. Further, this theory informs the research questions and
survey design approach in the study. Identifying both the perceptions and interactions between
factors provide a means to create stronger, more effective beginning teacher induction programs.
Figure 1 shows the three factors of reciprocal determinism as it relates to beginning teachers.

43

Figure 1
Reciprocal Determinism of Factors Relating to Beginning Teacher Turnover

Summary
There is a wide array of published data about beginning teacher turnover including
statistics, factors associated, impacts on students, schools, and districts, as well as the benefits of
high quality support programs. Evidence shows that roughly 1 in 4 beginning teachers in a public
setting and 1 in 3 in a private setting move within or leave the profession by the end of their fifth
year (NCES 2005a, 2005b); it is estimated that 90% of demand is due to turnover where only one
44

third of that is from retirement (Caver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Sutcher et al., 2016).
Although some turnover is seen as beneficial by removing ineffective teachers, most turnover is
seen as negative and contributes to the teacher shortage in specific geographic regions and
subject areas (Barth et al., 2016; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; U.S. Department
of Education Office of Postsecondary Education, 2017). This impacts equitable access to quality
education for all students, negatively affects student achievement and diverts financial resources
to fill vacancies causing a financial burden on schools and districts (Barnes et al., 2007; Boyd et
al., 2008; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Glazer, 2018; Hanushek et al., 2016;
Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a; Ingersoll, et.al., 2017c; Ronfeldt et al., 2013; Sutcher et al., 2016).
There are multiple documented causes associated with new teacher attrition and mobility.
Evidence shows that there are a multitude of factors that are associated with beginning
teachers’ decision to move within or leave the profession. These include dissatisfaction with
various aspects of the profession, personal life factors, low compensation compared to other
similarly educated professionals, including a greater number of teachers of color working in high
poverty, high minority schools, workplace characteristics and conditions, lack of effective
teacher preparation and efficacy, and availability of comprehensive, structured support programs
that accelerate beginning teacher growth (Borman and Dowling, 2008; Carver-Thomas &
Darling-Hammond, 2017; Goldring et al., 2014; Gray et al., 2014; Ingersoll et al., 2018a; Ladd,
2009; Podolsky et al., 2016; Sutcher et al., 2016). Access to comprehensive programming with
multiple components is shown to improve attrition and mobility rates. More specifically,
beginning teachers with a mentor leave the profession 50% less than those without (Gray et al.,
2014; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017); access to other supports like a beginning teacher seminar,
effective communications with colleagues and administration, the opportunity to observe highly
45

effective teachers and to be observed non-evaluatively, coupled with the opportunity to reflect,
has shown to further decrease turnover (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a; Kang & Berliner, 2012;
Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). Although there is a healthy body of evidence surrounding this
topic, there is a limited number of peer-reviewed studies that seek out the perspective of the
teacher. Using the lens of Bandura’s reciprocal determinism, this study examined supports
available to beginning teachers in GCOE. The study used a survey and document analysis to
determine supports perceived as most effective in career persistence decisions.

46

Chapter Three: Methodology
Chapter Three reviews the research questions that guide the study and presents study
design. It discusses the researcher’s positionality, the research setting, as well as details about
data sources including participant selection, instrumentation, data collection procedures, and
analysis. The section closes with strategies for maximizing validity and reliability and ethical
considerations for the study.
Research Questions
The goal of this project was to analyze what groups of new teachers in GCOE deem as
effective support and clearly identify what is helping them remain within the profession. The
study applied social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) to understand the various elements
influencing teacher beliefs concerning GCOE and how those beliefs ultimately support career
persistence. Specifically, the study sought to identify factors providing positive support, discern
the areas providing limited value, and identify areas for improving future induction programs. The
questions guiding this study are the following:
1. What do new teachers feel is influencing their intent to continue within the profession?
2. What do new teachers perceive as the most impactful components of their induction
program?
3. How do new teachers feel their relationship with their mentor influenced their intent to
continue in the profession?
Overview of Design
The study methodology utilized a mixed methods approach that combined use of a cross-
sectional survey, with secondary data and document analysis of previously existing survey
results. The prospective survey employs a cross-sectional design protocol defined by Creswell
47

(2012, 2018) as a method used to describe behaviors, attitudes, opinions, or characteristics within
a population. The protocol included an electronic questionnaire with mixed types of questions
(Likert, open-ended, rating, etc.) to discern the perceived practices supportive of new teacher
persistence. Survey questions were designed to align with the conceptual framework and
research questions. A cross-sectional survey design was used because of the standardized
measure as well as the broad reach to ensure many beginning teachers’ responses were accounted
for. Secondary data and document analysis was used from previously collected surveys issued by
the CTC and GCOE.
Data for the document study included results from a survey collected by the CTC for the
2018-2019 school year. The CTC Program Completer Survey is a survey issued to induction
participants that have recently completed the final year of induction (year 2). The survey is
issued while the participant is paying for the clear credential. Questions help determine the
impact of mentorship as well as program components on classroom practice. Data are
disaggregated to compare results from GCOE responses to statewide responses.
A secondary data analysis took place for existing data collected by GCOE for the 2018-
2019 school year. The GCOE End of Program Survey is issued at the close of the induction year
and includes all participants who have completed either year 1 or year 2 in GCOE. Questions
determine effectiveness of program components and impact of mentorship and program elements
on teaching practice. Raw data from the End of Program Survey was analyzed. A combination of
a new survey, document analysis, and secondary survey analysis from previously collected data
was used to address defined research questions. This particular design was selected to determine
trends, attitudes, and opinions of the designated population (Creswell, 2014). Table 2 outlines the
research questions as well as the data sources used to address each question.
48

Table 2
Data Sources

Research Questions

Survey
Document Analysis:
CTC Program
Completer Survey
Secondary Data
Analysis: GCOE
End of Program
Survey Results
RQ1: What do new
teachers feel is
influencing their
intent to continue
within the
profession?

X

RQ2: What do new
teachers perceive as
the most impactful
components of
GCOE?

X

X

X

RQ3: How do new
teachers feel their
relationship with
their mentor
influenced their
intent to continue in
the profession?

X

X

X

Research Setting
GCOE is located in California and serves more than 40 school districts as a commission
approved induction program offering for preliminary credential holders. Teachers served within
the program work in districts that vary in size, student demographics and socioeconomic level,
and are a mix of public and private institutions. GCOE serves roughly 700 teachers annually who
hold a California preliminary multiple subject, single subject, or education specialist credential;
participants complete two years of the GCOE induction to earn a clear professional credential.
The population being sampled had 1 to 6 years of experience, gained entry into the profession
49

through a teacher preparation program and are currently enrolled in or have recently completed
GCOE within the past three years. The study partnered with groups of beginning teachers to
define practices that were perceived as the most positive support. Including current and past
groups of teachers that work in a variety of settings offered various perspectives on the impact of
support received. Current and past participants offer different thoughts on the impact of support
based on career length and teaching experience.
The Researcher
I align with the pragmatic worldview which Creswell (2018) described as a problem-
centered method of inquiry that arises from actions and situations, in which pluralistic approaches
are applied to derive knowledge of real-world problems. In research, pragmatists emphasize the
problem and are concerned with practical applications to find the best solutions (Creswell, 2018).
Further, the pragmatic view is accepting of different worldviews, assumptions and perspectives,
as well as various forms of data collection and analysis to ensure that the most practical approach
to research and pathway to a possible solution is employed (Creswell, 2018). This worldview
impacts the value within the study.
The value centered in this study is the need to ameliorate beginning teacher turnover.
Results gained from this study ensures that the programming being offered is effective in
supporting new teachers as they navigate the first few years of teaching. The purpose of this
research focused on partnering with groups of beginning teachers to hear their perceptions and to
define and appropriately implement practices that are perceived as positive support. Worldview
and past experiences impact the study design, collection, and analysis of data. Positionality may
also impact these factors.
50

Merriam and Tisdell (2016) define researchers’ positionality as the context that creates
identity, possibly relating to race, gender, social class, background, sexual orientation, ability and
status. I am a prior teacher who completed GCOE’s induction program to clear a teaching
credential and now work within GCOE by supporting the delivery of programming to beginning
teachers, schools and districts. Being employed with the program as well as positive past
experience completing the program as a beginning teacher may be a source of potential bias in
data collection and analysis. Additionally, as established by data, BIPOC teacher turnover is seen
at greater rates than white teachers. Since I identify as white and am not within a minoritized
group, it is essential to focus closely on disaggregation of data to ensure that the perspective of
teachers of color is effectively collected and communicated. Additionally, it is important to limit
assumptions that supports in place are equitable and effective for both populations of teachers.
These biases and assumptions were taken into consideration during data collection and analysis in
an attempt to limit the impact on the study.
In order to mitigate positionality and potential bias, several strategies were implemented.
The survey issued was confidential and anonymous. Next, Harvard’s Project Implicit (2011)
suggests blinding identifying information to limit bias. Although the survey asks for race/ethnicity
to ensure all groups have the opportunity to share their perspective, other identifying information,
like name and employing district, were not collected. Anonymity of survey participants was of the
utmost priority. Another strategy emphasized by Project Implicit (2011) is awareness of biases. I
reflected upon my known implicit biases in each phase of the study; this thoughtful reflection
ensures that bias remained limited. Further, direct quotes from open-ended questions are shared to
avoid assumptions in meaning. Lastly, triangulation of the results was also attempted through use
of secondary data previously collected by the CTC and GCOE.
51

Data Sources
This study used multiple methods to address stated research questions. Primary data were
collected in the form of a cross-sectional survey. Additionally, a document analysis of two
previously collected surveys was used; one survey was collected by the CTC from year 2 program
participants and the other was an end of year program survey for GCOE given to both year 1 and
year 2 participants. Document analysis in the study was used in two ways. First, gaps in
previously collected data were determined in order to ensure thoughtful design of the cross-
sectional survey. Second, previously collected data were used to address components of stated
research questions. This section will cover more detail about each data source utilized in the
study.
Survey
The purpose of using survey design in a methodological approach is to measure
respondent behavior, ability, thoughts, perceptions, and/or attributes (Robinson & Leonard,
2019). The purpose of utilizing the survey, titled Perceptions of Induction (Appendix A) is to
identify factors that beginning teachers feel support them in career persistence. More
specifically, it determines their perceptions and thoughts about induction program components as
it relates to behaviors in persisting in the profession. Respondents include current and past
candidates in GCOE.
Participants
For this research, a survey was delivered to 716 current and past candidates. Fink (2013)
emphasizes that surveys support the collection of data from a broad, targeted population and, in
order to be effective, the researcher must focus on a worthwhile sample. In this scenario, the
survey was sent to a census of GCOE’s current year 2 participants, as well as those who have
52

participated in and completed the program within the past three years. Year 1 participants will
not be surveyed because they have not yet had the opportunity to be part of all supports offered
program wide. All current and past participants who received the survey had an equal
opportunity to respond. The purpose of including a large sample is to ensure differences in
teaching positions across the region were accounted for. For example, this sample included
teachers in special education and general education classrooms, teachers from various grade
levels and content areas, as well as teachers from different geographic and economic areas which
represent differences in school characteristics. For this investigation, a survey was suitable
because it allowed for the analysis of a broad range of teachers with differing backgrounds and
experience, served by GCOE. Further, analysis of secondary data were analyzed as a means to
triangulate responses.
Instrumentation
For this study, the Perceptions of Induction Survey (Appendix A) was used as the
instrument for collecting primary data. The investigation came to fruition after identifying gaps
in secondary data, as related to perceptions of the most effective supports available to beginning
teachers. Survey questions were created to align with the conceptual framework in an attempt to
gain knowledge about the stated research questions and address gaps that both previously
collected surveys did not address. Design included Likert type, multiple choice, rank order, and
open-ended questions.
Data collection procedures
Data collection within the study occurred in a systematic way. 716 current and past
program participants were provided the survey via email, which contained a link to an electronic
questionnaire. The electronic questionnaire took roughly 15 minutes to complete and contained
53

21 questions. Data collection began the first week of September 2020 and was completed the
third week of October 2020. At the start of the survey, participants reviewed general instructions
and an information sheet. USC’s Office for the Protection of Research Subjects (2020) requires a
voluntary information sheet as a prerequisite for participation in a research study. Further, the
information sheet reviewed survey criteria and purpose, as well as emphasized that the survey is
voluntary, anonymous, and confidential, addressing all required components of an information
sheet (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, 2020). The survey was provided via
Qualtrics, USC’s online survey design and collection program. Personal identifying information
was not collected via the survey. Further, data was stored within Qualtrics and Google Drive
using USC’s two-way verification system to support data security.
The survey was sent to a census of GCOE’s current participants and past program
completers from the most recent two years. In order to minimize error and have high confidence
in the results, the Raosoft sample size calculator (2004) was used. Raosoft (2004) indicates that
with 716 participants in the population, 251 responses would be required for a 5% margin of
error with 95% confidence; and 516 responses would be required for a 3% margin of error with
99% confidence. During data collection there was a 33% response rate, with a total of 238 usable
responses, which equates to a 94% confidence interval and 4.98% margin of error.
Data analysis
At the completion of data collection, responses were reviewed and invalid data was
removed. Once data was prepared to be analyzed, it was disaggregated in various ways to
determine differences, similarities and themes. A descriptive analysis was used which Creswell
(2018) defined as describing results through percentages, frequencies, means, standard
deviations, and range scores. In example, for the rank order question, frequency of selection was
54

analyzed to determine the most impactful supports as well as the least impactful supports.
Additionally, inferential statistics was utilized for some disaggregated data. A t-test was used to
compare results from various subgroups, including race/ethnicity, gender, and school
characteristics. open-ended questions were transcribed and coded to analyze patterns, trends,
similarities and differences. In the first phase of analysis, open coding was utilized, looking for
empirical codes and applying codes from the conceptual framework. A second phase of analysis
was conducted where codes are aggregated into analytical/ axial codes. Finally, the third phase of
data analysis of open-ended questions included identification of pattern codes and themes that
emerge in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions.
Document Analysis: CTC Completer Survey
The CTC (2016) developed and implemented program surveys in an effort to improve the
quality of the accreditation system. One of the surveys issued by the CTC is given to all Induction
program candidates that are completing an Induction program and clearing a preliminary
credential. Data is analyzed by the CTC then results are provided to each individual induction
program. This survey is used to determine the effectiveness of the induction program on helping
develop tools, skills, and habits to improve practice (CTC, 2016).
Participants
Participants that were included in this survey collected by the CTC are all induction
participants who have successfully completed the final year of induction in the 2018-2019 school
year. Data were collected when teachers logged in to pay to clear their preliminary credential
after successful completion of GCOE. Responses were required from the CTC.

55

Instrumentation and Data Analysis
In order to analyze the previously collected data, a rubric was used to organize questions
and determine alignment to stated research questions (Appendix B). Of the 34 questions in the
previously collected survey, 10 were purposefully selected for use in the document analysis and
contributed in part to answer stated research questions. This alignment is depicted in Appendix
B. Analysis of data is provided from the CTC comparing statewide results to results specific to
GCOE candidates. Documents were analyzed for evidence to answer the stated research
questions and that were consistent with the conceptual framework. Results from pertinent
questions and connections to primary data are discussed in Chapter Four.
Secondary Data Analysis: GCOE End of Program Results
In an effort for continual improvement, GCOE requires all participants to complete an end
of program survey. The survey asks participants to reflect on experiences as they relate to their
induction experience as well as the impact of mentorship on practices within the classroom.
Results from the 2018-2019 GCOE end of year survey were analyzed to address components of
stated research questions.
Participants
In the survey previously collected by GCOE for the 2018-2019 school year, both year 1
and year 2 participants that were currently enrolled and have completed the year of Induction
took part in the survey. The survey is required as a part of program completion and issued at the
end of the year. Although identifying information is collected from the program office to track
completion, raw data available does not contain names and email addresses to ensure
confidentiality of participants.

56

Instrumentation
In order to analyze the previously collected data, a rubric was used to organize questions
and determine alignment to the conceptual framework and research questions (Appendix C). Of
the 15 questions in the survey, 5 were purposefully selected for use in the secondary data
analysis and contribute in part to answers to stated research questions. This alignment is depicted
in Appendix C.
Data Analysis
Raw data for the previously collected survey was provided by the program without
participant identifiers. A descriptive analysis of available data took place. Frequencies, means,
standard deviations, and range scores were used to describe outcomes and themes.
Validity and Reliability
This study utilized several strategies to maintain a high standard of reliability and
validity. In order to minimize threats to internal and external validity and reliability, multiple
strategies outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Salkind (2014) were implemented. This
included sending the survey to the census of GCOE, year 2 participants, and past completers,
completing multiple survey reviews, pilot testing the survey prior to release, standardization of
question and survey design, as well as transparency of methods and protocol.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) assert that careful design can improve reliability and validity.
In order to support internal validity, survey questions were peer reviewed and tested on multiple
occasions prior to the issuance of the final work. Further, survey design was informed from prior
peer-reviewed research work (Algozzine et al., 2015; Massachusetts Department of Education,
2015; NCES BTLS Questionnaire, 2009). Although it was informed from previously used
surveys, they were adapted greatly to fit the California program components/requirements so
57

psychometric data did not apply. Internal reliability was addressed with a standardized survey
format, the support of the dissertation chairperson in analysis of data as well as the use of
Qualtrics tools to disaggregate and analyze data (Salkind, 2014). To improve external reliability,
the study methods were reviewed by multiple Inquiry professors, the dissertation chair and
committee, and USC’s Institutional Review Board (IRB), prior to being published within the
dissertation work; this emphasized transparency of the methods and data collection protocol
being utilized within the study.
The survey was sent to a census of GCOE’s current participants. In order to minimize
error and have high confidence in the results, the Raosoft sample size calculator (2004) was
used. Raosoft (2004) indicates that with 716 participants in the population, 251 responses would
be required for a 5% margin of error with 95% confidence; and 345 responses would be required
for a 3% margin of error with 99% confidence. The goal was to achieve a response rate
somewhere close to these values to increase external validity and reliability. During data
collection there was a 33% response rate, with a total of 238 usable responses, which equates to a
94% confidence interval and 4.98% margin of error.
In order to maximize response rates, several strategies were implemented. These included
contacting participants multiple times, limited survey length, personalized survey invitations,
assurance of confidential and anonymous responses, as well as sending the survey link from a
credible, trusted source (Malloy, 2020). The survey was sent through the researcher’s USC
email with a clearly outlined information sheet. Follow up reminders were sent via email and
through GCOE’s learning management system. Finally, thank you emails were sent at the close
of the survey to thank individuals for taking the time to participate.
58

For qualitative document analysis, it is important to include practices that increase
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. In order to minimize threats to
these, multiple strategies from Merriam and Tisdell (2016) were implemented. To improve
credibility and dependability, the use of multiple documents were analyzed in an attempt to
triangulate results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, the use of peer review of work and
analysis was implemented (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To increase transferability, thick and rich
descriptions on open-ended questions are included; to improve conformability, the use of a rubric
and analysis of raw data when available were used (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ethics
In order to ensure ethical actions take place, participants reviewed the provided
information sheet notating voluntary participation in the survey. An information sheet was
provided at the start of the research activity where participants were provided a detailed
overview of the study as well as the opportunity to email the researcher and dissertation
chairperson with questions. Issues relating to confidentiality, compensation, and positionality
were disclosed in the information sheet. In order to ensure confidentiality, teacher names and
other personal identifying information were not collected. Raw data obtained was only reviewed
by the researcher and dissertation chair and is stored as a file on USC’s two-way verification
Google Drive. Also, the information sheet outlined that participation in the survey is voluntary
and will not affect participation in the program, employment status, or the pathway to earning a
clear credential. It was also disclosed that data used will be used solely to help improve and
change current program practices to support new teachers. These issues were conveyed to the
University of Southern California’s IRB prior to conducting the study.
59

The value centered in this study is the need to ameliorate beginning teacher turnover;
results gained from this study will ensure programming being offered is effective in supporting
new teachers as they navigate the first few years of teaching. The purpose of this research focused
on partnering with groups of beginning teachers to understand their perceptions and to define and
appropriately implement practices that are perceived as positive support. The results of the study
were used to guide recommendations in hopes to refine, modify and adapt current induction
offerings to continually improve support for beginning teachers. In this circumstance, harm may
be caused to the program and, in turn, affect support offered for new teachers as well as finances
and jobs created from these programs. Results and recommendations will be shared with
participating induction programs statewide in an attempt to help support positive changes. Upon
dissemination, it would be made clear that further research would need to be completed due to the
limited scope of the study.
This study collected primary data from beginning teachers within GCOE using a cross-
sectional survey design. Results from previously collected surveys, including the CTC completer
survey and the GCOE end of year survey were analyzed. Findings are reported in Chapter Four.

60

Chapter Four: Findings
This study used a mixed method approach to address stated research questions. Primary
data were collected in the form of a cross-sectional survey using a mix of Likert scale, rating,
multiple choice, and open-ended questions (Appendix A). Additionally, a document analysis and
secondary data analysis of two previously collected surveys was utilized; one survey was
collected by the CTC from year 2 program participants and the other is an end of year program
survey for GCOE given to both year 1 and year 2 participants. The following chapter will be
organized into three sections. It will begin with a brief overview of survey respondents for the
three methods, then present findings as they relate to the research questions, and finally, close
with a summary of the study findings.
Overview of Survey Respondents
Data from three surveys was utilized to address research questions in this study. Although
all survey respondents were participants in GCOE’s Induction program, each survey had a
unique body of questions as well as different subgroups of respondents, which offered a different
perspective. This section shares a brief overview of respondents for each method.
Primary Data: Cross-Sectional Survey
The cross-sectional survey was issued to all current year 2 participants completing
induction in the 2020-2021 school year and participants who have completed the induction
program in 2018, 2019, or 2020. The cross-sectional survey was anonymous and confidential,
and offered the perspective of both current and past program participants from various ages,
race/ethnicity groups, with varying years of experience and credential types. Participants
responded to a mix of Likert, rating, multiple choice, and open-ended questions. Table 3 outlines
the demographics of the survey respondents.
61

Table 3
Cross-Sectional Survey Demographics
Demographic n % Demographic n %
Gender

Credential Type: CA

Female 195 82% Preliminary 125 45%
Male 40 17%
Clear
150 55%
Prefer Not to Say 3 1%
Years as a Teacher of Record

Race/Ethnicity

One
20 9%
Caucasian 184 72%
Two
41 18%
Hispanic/Latinx 34 13%
Three
52 23%
Asian 9 4%
Four
51 23%
Black/African 6 2%
Five
32 14%
Native American 3 1%
Six +
30 13%
Pacific Islander 3 1% Current Status in Induction

Other 10 4% Comp. Yr. 1; Enrolled Yr. 2 94 40%
Prefer Not to Say 8 3% Comp. Yr. 1; Not Enrolled Yr. 2 6 3%
Age Range

Completed Induction 133 57%
22-25 25 12% Grade- Level Taught

26-30 78 37% PK-5 174 39%
31-34 34 16% 6 - 8 131 29%
35-38 21 10% 9 - 12 141 31%
39-42 17 8% Adult 6 1%
43-46 18 8%

47-50 9 4%

51-54 5 2%

55-58 3 1%

59-62 2 1%

63-66 2 1%

Document Analysis: CTC Completer Survey
The CTC Completer Survey was issued by the CTC when teachers from GCOE paid for
the clear credential after successfully completing the induction program. At the time of
participating, roughly 200 respondents had recently completed year 2 within the induction
62

program. Responses were from 2018-2019 school year, where year 2 participants completed
induction in 2019 or 2018. Roughly 73% of respondents were female, 25.5% were males, with
the remaining answering decline to state or nonbinary. Ninety-one percent of survey participants
identified their race as white with the remaining answering other, with each individual race under
10 responses.
Secondary Data: GCOE End of Program Survey
The GCOE end of program survey was issued in the 2018-2019 school year by the
GCOE Induction office to all year 1 and year 2 participants at the close of the program. The
survey response was required by all participants with the purpose of gaining feedback for
continuous program improvement. In 2018-2019, there were 593 responses. Although no
demographic information was collected through the survey, 40% of respondents indicated they
had one year of teaching experience, 32% had two years of experience, 13% had three years of
experience, and the remaining and had 4 or more years of experience. During the time the survey
was issued, all respondents had completed either year 1 or year 2 of GCOE’s induction program.
Research Question 1: What do new teachers feel is influencing their intent to continue
within the profession?
There are a variety of factors that influence teachers’ intent to continue in the profession
including personal, behavioral, or environmental factors perceived as challenges or supports by
the teacher. This research question identified what beginning teachers feel is influencing their
intent to continue teaching. A combination of evidence from the cross-sectional survey, the CTC
completer survey, as well as the GCOE end of year survey was utilized to answer this research
question. This section will discuss cross-sectional survey respondents' current intent to remain in
63

the profession, the biggest challenges they face within the profession as well as the impact of the
induction program on teaching practices and intent to remain in education.
The cross-sectional survey asked teachers to indicate if they had left teaching, moved
schools or districts, or remained in the school where they began induction. Of 216 responses, 4%
were leavers and 31% were movers, for a total of 35% turnover, where the remaining 65% stayed
in the school where they began induction. Of the leavers, a majority of them exited the
profession before their 5th year as a teacher of record. Figure 2 depicts movers, leavers, and
stayers in the cross-sectional study.

Figure 2
Leavers, Movers, and Stayers in the Cross-Sectional Survey

64

Additionally, the cross-sectional survey asked teachers to indicate possible future
considerations relating to intent to remain in the profession. Of 215 responses, 65% said they
planned to remain teaching at their current school/district. The remaining 35% of candidates
shared if their intent to remain was: to move within the educational field or to a new school or
district; undecided, but leaning toward staying; undecided, but leaning toward leaving; to take a
break from teaching but return to the profession; or, to leave the profession altogether. Figure 3
breaks down the responses from the remaining 25%, who were not planning on remaining at
their current school district.

Figure 3
Possible Future Career Changes for Cross-Sectional Survey Participants

65

Evidence shows that of the remaining 35%, many have plans of moving or leaving in future
school years. It is important to understand the number of people in the cross-sectional study who
are movers, leavers, and stayers or plan to make a change in the future, to better understand how
the challenges and supports they are receiving impact them. There were several common
challenges that respondents in the cross-sectional survey encountered in the profession.
Challenges within the Teaching Profession
Teachers may face a multitude of challenges in their professional practices (personal or
behavioral factors), their classroom (personal or environmental factors), or within the
educational community (environmental factors) where they teach. In the cross-sectional survey,
beginning teachers were asked to select five of the biggest challenges they faced in their career.
When given a selection of 22 options, 211 beginning teachers most commonly selected
challenges related to work/life balance, the COVID-19 pandemic, effectiveness of site or district
leadership, and differentiating instruction to meet individual student needs. Further, there were
little to no differences noted in a descriptive analysis of responses by race/ethnicity but there
were differences in identified challenges noted when data were aggregated by gender, grade-
level, and school characteristics. Figure 4 depicts the top ten most common challenges selected,
showing the total number of responses as well as the percentage of total respondents that chose
that selection.

66

Figure 4
Challenges in the Teaching Profession

Note: Respondents were allowed to select up to 5 challenges. Of the 214 respondents there were
a total of 855 selections. Percentages will not add up to100% .

Of the 214 respondents, 61% of respondents selected maintaining a work/life balance as
significant. The next most selected were difficulties teachers faced with the COVID-19
pandemic, where 45% of teachers indicated this as a challenge. Since this study took place seven
months into the global pandemic, during a time of upheaval, change, and inequities in
educational communities, this was selected as another notable challenge. Thirty-nine percent of
respondents selected effectiveness of site or district leadership, 29% of participants selected
differentiating instruction based on student need and 27% selected enlisting the support of
parents or guardians as a challenge. Twenty-five percent or less selected the remaining 22
67

challenges listed as difficulties they encounter. Further, in the open-ended questions of the cross-
sectional survey, some teachers mentioned the important role leaders play. One participant stated
that “teaching is awful with poor leadership.” One additional candidate said, “I left my old site
and have really enjoyed the leadership and guidance at my new school. It has helped me grow as
a professional.” Another noted the importance of having a trifecta: administration, collaboration,
and mentorship in order to ensure new teachers stay and last in the profession. Further, in the
cross-sectional survey, roughly 58% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their
school leadership provided valuable support that influenced their decision to remain in the
profession demonstrating that effective leadership can play a role in attrition decisions for some
teachers. In a descriptive analysis of the challenges faced, there were marked differences when
disaggregating challenges by gender.
In the cross-sectional survey, several differences were noted when analyzing results for
the most commonly selected challenges by gender. GCOE serves a county of educators that
identify as roughly 25% male and 75% female. Roughly 17% of respondents in the cross-
sectional survey identified as male and 82% identified as female where the remaining 1%
selected prefer not to say. Although the sample of beginning teachers has a slight gender bias
when compared to California’s teaching population as a whole, there were noteworthy
differences in challenges faced by the different genders. Table 4 shows the differences in the
most selected challenges by gender.

68

Table 4
Ranked Challenges in Teaching by Gender
Rank
Male
(n=37)
n (%)
Female
(n=109)
n (%)
1 work/life balance 20 (54%) work/life balance 109 (63%)
2
effectiveness of leadership
(site or district)
11 (30%) COVID-19 pandemic 85 (49%)
3 discipline of students 11 (30%)
effectiveness of leadership
(site or district)
72 (41%)
4 COVID-19 pandemic 9 (24%) differentiating instruction 55 (32%)
5
enlisting support of
parents/guardians
9 (24%) resource availability 48 (28%)
6
ability to obtain needed
materials
7 (19%)
enlisting support of
parents/guardians
47 (27%)
7 resource availability 6 (16%)
ability to obtain needed
materials
43 (25%)
8 differentiating instruction 5 (14%)
communication with
administration
40 (23%)
9
communication with
administration
3 (8%) discipline of students 34 (20%)

Note: candidates selected more than one challenge so percentages will not add up to 100%.

As seen in table 4, work/life balance was the most selected challenge for beginning
teachers of both genders, where 54% of males and 63% of females selected this as significant.
Further, effectiveness of district or site leadership was the second most selected for males (30%),
and third most selected for females (41%). COVID-19 was the fourth most selected for males
(24%) and second most selected for females (49%). Two notable differences is the selection of
69

discipline of students and differentiating instruction as challenges. Within this study, 32% of
females selected differentiating instruction as a difficulty, making it the fourth most selected
challenge, where only 14% of males selected this as a challenge, making it the eighth most
selected challenge. Moreover, 30% of males selected discipline of students as a challenge,
ranking it third in order of most selected, where 20% of females reported this as a challenge,
ranking it as ninth in order of most selected. These results suggest that different genders may
face contrasting challenges within the profession, possibly due to a multitude of reasons
including grade-level taught, school characteristics, or personal characteristics. Additionally,
there were some notable differences when analyzing grade ranges.
There were some specific differences in the following grade-levels: elementary (grades
pre-k to 5th), middle (grades 6th to 8th) and high school (grades 9th to 12th). Figure 5 depicts the
most highly selected challenges by grade-level range.

Figure 5
Ranked Challenges in the Teaching Profession by Grade-Range

70

Although work/life balance, COVID-19, and effectiveness of leadership were
consistently the most communicated difficulties, always within the top three challenges for all
three groups, the subsequent selections showed variance. Teachers working in elementary,
middle, and high school may encounter different challenges based on the grade ranges they work
within. For example, of the 22 total challenges listed, elementary school teachers ranked
discipline much lower compared to both middle and high school teachers, who ranked this as one
of their top six challenges. Similarly, ability to obtain materials and resource availability was
ranked higher for elementary and high school teachers, where middle school teachers found other
challenges more pressing. This shows that different grade-level teachers may face different
environmental factors that they perceive as difficult and likely, need individualized support to
address these challenges. Additionally, when analyzing data by school characteristics, there were
various similarities and differences.
The cross-sectional study asked participants to indicate school characteristics that they
worked in. In the analysis of data, challenges were disaggregated by these characteristics. Figure
6 depicts the most selected challenges faced in the teaching profession divided by various school
characteristics.
71

Figure 6
Ranked Challenges in the Teaching Profession by School Characteristics

72

As seen previously, work/life balance, the COVID-19 pandemic, and effectiveness of
district of site leadership were the most common three selected challenges across a majority of
groups. There was slight differentiation among the next five selected challenges in all groups,
however, it almost always included differentiation, support from parents/guardians, resource
availability or ability to obtain needed materials, and discipline of students. Although the cross-
sectional survey had 22 possible selections of challenges, this indicates there are many similar
challenges beginning teachers face in various subgroups, but often with differing priorities. For
example, teachers who work in schools with 50% or more of students who receive free and
reduced lunch indicated support from parents and guardians as a challenge, where teachers who
worked in a school with lower free and reduced lunch indicated this as a challenge less often.
Beginning teachers who work in schools with high free and reduced lunch, have classrooms with
high numbers of English language learners (ELLs), high minority or Title I schools all
communicated they had difficulty accessing or obtaining needed materials, where teachers who
had low numbers of free and reduced lunch, students of color, and ELLs did not indicate this was
a challenge possibly demonstrating lack of equitable access to required materials. Additionally,
enlisting support from parents/guardians was selected in all subgroups, some with greater
priority than others, suggesting parental involvement is an essential environmental factor for
educators. There were similar trends when analyzing data by race/ethnicity.
As with other subgroups of beginning teachers, when disaggregating data by
race/ethnicity, the three challenges that were most commonly selected included work/life
balance, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the effectiveness of district or site leadership. Although
there were slight differences in subgroups after the first three challenges, it depicts similar trends
to school characteristics.
73

In an analysis of short answer responses, some candidates mentioned other environmental
factors playing a role in their intent to remain. One teacher noted that she felt there needed to be
a shift in public perception. She said, “teachers should be looked at as professionals,
compensated as such, and respected equally.” Another participant stated,
To be honest, I don’t feel that teachers are cared for or cared about in our country and it
shows. Teachers aren’t given choice, but expected to follow orders and do it because we
love teaching and love children. It’s one of the most overworked and underpaid and
undervalued professions. The way I feel about teaching is because of the actions of
administration and those in power. It is why a lot of people leave the profession. None of
the support provided, in my opinion, can make up for this fact.
Another mentioned that she decided to leave the profession because of her well-being and that of
her family. Similarly, one commented that her reasons for thinking outside of teaching have
nothing to do with the support or potential support from induction. This indicates that
environmental factors or challenges in the profession may be a cause for turnover; further that
the environment may reciprocally impact personal or behavioral factors.
The data indicates that beginning teachers within different grade-levels and working with
varied demographic populations may face challenges specific to environmental factors or
challenges faced in their particular job, school or district. These challenges are likely a part of
reciprocal relationships, which impact beginning teachers' career persistence; these relationships
will be addressed in the discussion section of chapter 5. One particular environmental factor is
the COVID-19 global pandemic. Since this study occurred seven months into the pandemic, it is
important to address the challenges that COVID-19 has created for beginning teachers.

74

Challenges of the COVID-19 Pandemic
COVID-19 was one of the most highly indicated challenges beginning teachers selected
among all subgroups. The cross-sectional survey asked participants to share how the COVID-19
pandemic has impacted their intent to remain teaching. Through open coding, it was determined
that 108 responses or 60% of the total 178 responses shared that the pandemic has been
challenging or impacted their intent to remain where the remaining 40% indicated no impact on
intent to remain or specifically mentioned an opportunity created through the pandemic.
Once divided into two groups, a second round of coding was utilized, where responses
were grouped by the main concept that was addressed in the response. Of the 108 responses that
were itemized as a challenge, roughly 85% mentioned one or more of the following: safety,
stress, workload, impact on students or equity, or leadership within their area for challenge.
Teachers who mentioned safety, commonly shared they were concerned for their personal safety
if they had to return to in-person instruction, many noting that they prioritize their personal
health over returning to the classroom to work. Stress was another commonly mentioned
challenge of the pandemic. Teachers noted that they are struggling with the stress of virtual
learning, the expectations that are being required, and the way schools have handled the
situation. One individual mentioned that this stress is greatly impacting physical and mental
health. The stress and overall impact on health and well-being demonstrates that environmental
factors from COVID-19 may be affecting personal factors in a reciprocal relationship for some
educators.
Respondents also mentioned that they struggled with increased workload associated with
the pandemic. Some mentioned additional time to clean to make it safe for students to learn in-
person, while others mentioned working an unsustainable number of hours with unrealistic
75

expectations. As evidenced in the short answer responses, there was increased strain of time,
energy, and effort for respondents. Students were another area of focus in responses. Typically,
when short answer responses mentioned students, teachers emphasized their concern for equity
and access, or lack thereof, created by the pandemic. Another key area of concern was leadership
and the decisions being made on behalf of teachers. Teachers expressed their feelings, most
iterating that the decisions are not supportive of them. Some stated that the decisions were
evidence that leadership does not care about teachers and that it has impacted their intent to
remain in the profession. Table 5 shares partial or direct quotes as evidence to support the idea
that safety, stress, workload, students, and leadership were all challenges teachers faced
associated with the pandemic.
76

Table 5
Impact of COVID-19 on Teachers: Challenges

Safety
* I am not sure I will return to the classroom because of safety.
* I am not willing to risk my life to be an educator if it is not safe to return to the classroom and I am
forced to decide I am willing to leave the profession.
* I do not feel valued or safe based upon the decisions that are being made.
* I don't want to leave teaching but I don't feel safe returning and I am struggling greatly with finding it
worth it virtually.

Stress
* The way to school system has been handling our reopening has had an incredible strain on my physical
and mental health.
* Expectations and students are unrealistic.
* Virtual teaching is extremely stressful and difficult I do not know how I'm going to help the students.
* The situation of the pandemic has been stressful. Reimagining how education works and how children
are supposed to learn through digital learning has been exhausting and thrilling. I am tired and
overwhelmed.
* I have been trying to be a teacher for 11 years. I have always felt marginalized and unwelcomed in the
field, it is the reason why I became a teacher. To show my students that people of color CAN be teachers,
they CAN have careers, they CAN be self-sufficient. I feel really stressed and unsupported, for the first
time in 11 years, I have found myself asking "Do I really want to do this? I am constantly working and
have been put in very compromising situations with little to no support.
* It has made my life and work life more stressful.

Workload
* I spend 40 minutes a day hospital cleaning between groups to keep me safe.
* Virtual learning is a lot more work, time, and energy and often there is no sense of reward.
* I am extremely exhausted and I feel like I am working way more now during distance-learning.
* I feel underappreciated and overworked.
* I'm still here, but now I work 12 to 15 hour days. I can't keep track of all the things I need to do on a
daily and weekly basis but my students need me.
* I was already getting out of teaching now with distance-learning I have even less interest.
* The pandemic has been highly detrimental to morale. The demands currently being put on teachers are
absurd.
77

Students
* My biggest concern is that many students are not receiving adequate support.
* Students with disabilities should not be required to learn through computer. It is extremely difficult
trying to get them to sit in front of the teacher let alone in front of a computer screen.
* It is very difficult to teach students with disabilities if schools were to continue to be virtual indefinitely I
would not remain.
* This is inequitable for many students and teachers are expected to pick up the pieces for the district. It
has made me realize how much I don't matter to my district.
* The pandemic has made me want to leave the profession. It is not equitable for special ed students to be
receiving education virtually and it adds hours upon hours of paperwork.
* Kids are going to have a huge learning gaps and potentially not be ready to learn

Leadership
*Seeing how my district is handled the pandemic has made me question my intent to remain in the
teaching profession. I want to complete induction process to clear my credentials so I can leave the state.
* It has been a struggle and I have not been getting enough support. I feel clueless.
* COVID-19 has made me question remaining in the teaching profession due to the constant unknown
that's been going on.
* It has reaffirmed that to school board and upper administration we are just pieces in a chess board for
them to move as they see fit.
* I feel as if I have zero support for my district and everything falls on the back of the teacher.
* I don't have a choice to leave the profession. It has proven that the majority of people including
administration do not care about teachers.
* The pandemic has demonstrated how teachers are puppets and are expected to bounce around and do
what is told of us.
* The mandates from the state administration and parents is difficult and overwhelming.
* I have lost trust in my administration's willingness to take care of employees.
78

Although 60% of responses mentioned one or more challenges associated with COVID,
there were also the remaining 40%, or 70 of 178 responses that wrote COVID had limited impact
on intent to remain or shared an opportunity they felt the pandemic created. Of the 70 responses,
roughly 45% noted that the COVID-19 pandemic had no impact on their intent to remain, often
discussing that they were committed to the profession regardless of the circumstance or that they
can manage the work just fine. For example, one candidate stated, “It has not impacted me
except that I want to continue teaching.” Another said, “I will continue being a teacher with or
without COVID.” One also noted that the pandemic has had no impact on them, that they will
ride it out.
Of the 70 responses in this category, 55% shared an opportunity that had been created
through the pandemic. A majority of teachers mentioned technology, improved practice,
importance of teachers and schools, or leadership. Teachers shared they felt their technology
skills had improved and that they were forced to rethink how they taught forcing them to utilize
new strategies. Some also shared that they did not feel they could leave the profession because
they provided an essential stability for students. Finally, about 10% of responses mentioned how
important their leadership and school community had been in their success. Table 6 uses whole
or partial direct quotes to summarize the key ideas that were shared about the opportunities
created by the pandemic.

79

Table 6
Impact of COVID-19 on Teachers: Opportunities

Technology

* My computer and technology skills have gotten significantly better.
* I feel though this is challenging and it has helped me learn so much about
technology and its benefits and drawbacks for education.
* It has made me learn how to be an effective online teacher and learning all
kinds of technology.
* I am learning valuable skills that will transfer into other situations
* It has opened up opportunities to use technology and a multitude of assets
that will be transferable into the classroom when we get back to on-campus
instruction.

Improved
Practices

*The pandemic has made me rethink how to teach in the most effective and
efficient way.
* It has been an opportunity to collaborate districtwide with my grade level
team. We work together to develop content and strategies for practice and
routine.
* I have been wanting to try some new technology and this pandemic has
pushed me out of my comfort zone into areas that now I am happy about.

Importance
of Teachers

* The kids need us now more than ever. This is not the time to be leaving.
* The pandemic has shown me the necessity and stability that schools and
educators offer to our students and their families.
* The pandemic has imparted upon me how important schools are and the
burden we place upon them.

Leadership

* COVID that has shown me the big difference in districts and what parts of
education are most valued.
* It helped me understand how lucky I am to be in such a tightknit school
community.
* I have been successful in distance learning because I have a great teammate
and we work really well together. In addition I have an AMAZING principal.

While some teachers continue to have a growth mindset or have been impacted very little
from the pandemic, this evidence suggests that COVID-19 has had drastic impacts for many
teachers. Although the study took place mid-pandemic, California still allowed for induction
support to continue. With this in mind, a majority of teachers communicated that induction had a
positive impact on their teaching practices.
80

Impact of Induction on Teaching Practice
Using a combination of evidence from the cross-sectional survey, the CTC completer
survey, as well as the GCOE end of year survey, a majority of participants communicated the
induction program positively influenced a variety of aspects in their teaching practices. In the
cross-sectional survey, of 235 responses, 75% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the
induction program improved instructional practices and helped to positively impact student
learning. Roughly 15% or 35 respondents indicated they somewhat disagree, and 10% or 23
respondents shared they strongly disagreed that the program supported improvement of practices.
In a separate analysis by race/ethnicity, a t-test between white and non-white showed there was
no statistically significant differences in responses (Cohen’s d= 0.162; p-value =.0.350).
Similarly, with gender, a t-test showed there were no statistically significant differences
(Cohen’s d=0.141; p-value=0.492). Roughly 86% of participants in the CTC completer survey
and 79% in the GCOE end of year survey thought the induction program was effective or very
effective in supporting development of the skills, habits, and tools needed to grow teaching
practice. This triangulation of data supports the notion that induction does improve instructional
practices for a majority of teachers, which reciprocally, may impact efficacy and retention.
Similar trends were noted in the GCOE end of year survey when it asked participants to
rate the degree which their overall induction experience impacted specific areas of teaching
practices. There were ten specific teaching practices addressed, some being: establishing and
maintaining a safe and respectful learning environment; using effective instructional strategies to
teach specific subject matter and skills; selecting, adapting and developing materials, resources
and technologies to support all learners; planning and adapting instruction; involving students in
self-assessment; and, evaluating the effects of actions on student learning and modifying plans
81

accordingly. Beginning teachers rated the impact using the scale: poor, adequate, well, or very
well. As seen in Figure 7, 74% or more of beginning teachers shared that induction impacted all
defined specific areas within their teaching practice well or very well. Figure 7 outlines the
impact of induction on these individual areas.

Figure 7
Impact of Induction on Teaching Practice

82

Although a majority of teachers indicate that induction supports improvement of
practices, there is a consistent 20-25% of responses that indicate it did not provide value in this
area. Using data from the cross-sectional survey, roughly 25% of 235 respondents indicated they
somewhat or strongly disagreed that the program supported improvement of practices. Of the 57
respondents, 68% worked in lower socioeconomic schools with greater than 50% of students
receiving free or reduced lunch and 60% indicated they worked in a designated Title I school.
This group shared the biggest challenges they faced in the profession were, work/life balance
(63%), effectiveness of leadership (52%), COVID-19 pandemic (38%), resources availability
(27%), communication with administration (23%) and discipline of students (23%). Of this
group, 66% shared they disagreed their leadership provided valuable support that influenced
their decision to remain in the profession. Further, only 9% shared that induction positively
influenced their decision to remain as a teacher, with a majority, 58% sharing they strongly or
somewhat disagreed their mentor positively influenced their decision to remain as a teacher.
This evidence indicates that they face a multitude of environmental factors, including difficulties
with leadership, communication with administration, resource availability and discipline of
students as pressing challenges. Most did not feel supported by the program or their mentor. Of
52 people that indicated they did not feel support or mentorship positively impacted them, 56%
shared they planned to remain teaching at their current school, 29% indicated they wanted to
move and 15% said they had planned to leave the profession, demonstrating a turnover rate of
44% for this population. This further emphasizes that more individualized induction support to
deal with perceived challenges as well as improved mentorship may be important for these
candidates. Although this is a small percentage of respondents, it is an important group to
understand because it can help focus improvement initiatives.
83

In addition to a majority of teachers communicating the induction program provided
support to improve practices, the cross-sectional survey results showed that induction helped
two-thirds of teachers navigate the teaching profession, and helped prepare three of five teachers
for the challenges they may face in the profession. Although data suggests that induction may
ease the ability to deal with challenges, support navigation of the profession, and prove
beneficial for improving instructional practices in a variety of areas, not all respondents related
this to influencing intent to remain in the teaching profession.
Impact of Induction on Intent to Remain Teaching
Roughly half of respondents in the cross-sectional survey specified that induction did
little to impact both their intent to stay teaching at their current school as well as to remain in the
teaching profession altogether. The cross-sectional survey asked teachers to specify if induction
had been important to their decision to continue teaching at their current school. More than half
of teachers, 53%, indicated that they somewhat disagree or strongly disagree that induction
impacted this decision. Similarly, when asked if the induction program positively influenced
their decision to remain in the teaching profession, slightly less than half, 48% disagreed or
strongly disagreed that induction impacted this decision. Figure 8 shows the breakdown of these
responses.

84

Figure 8
Impact of Induction on Intent to Remain

Further, a t-test determined there was no statistical differences between white (M=2.49,
SD=1.04) and non-white (M=2.68, SD=1.18) responses (t(198) =.332, p= 0.946) and male (M=
2.32, SD=1.10) and female (M=2.52, SD 1.05) responses (t(216) =-1.085, p= 0.801). When
examining responses by grade-level range, 59% of elementary (grades pk-5) and 52% of high
school level teachers (grades 9-12) indicated they agreed or strongly agreed that induction
positively impacted their decision to remain in the profession. However, only 43% of middle
school level teachers (grades 6-8) shared they agree or strongly agreed. Although analysis is
85

descriptive in nature, these results align with the idea that it may be important to provide more
individualized support for candidates based on specific environmental characteristics; middle,
elementary, and high school grade level teachers may need differentiated support. Although not
all beginning teachers perceive induction as a support that helped them remain in the teaching
profession, some of the components, like mentorship and observations were perceived to be
more effective and supportive to beginning teachers, possibly reciprocally impacting retention.
Research Question 2: What do new teachers perceive as the most impactful components of
GCOE’s Induction Program?
This research question identified what beginning teachers perceive as the most impactful
components of GCOE’s induction program. Data from the cross-sectional survey, the CTC
completer survey, as well as the GCOE end of year survey was utilized to answer this research
question. This section will review what respondents determined as the most impactful supports
related to both career persistence and teaching practice.
Participants overwhelmingly identified observing a highly recommended teacher, being
partnered with and having access to a mentor, and being observed by a mentor and receiving
feedback on teaching practice as the most impactful components related to career persistence in
the cross-sectional survey. The least important supports were receiving feedback on submitted
work and collaborating with other candidates in discussions, both commonly ranked in the
bottom two, where identifying a professional growth goal based on the California Standards for
the Teaching Profession (CTSP), taking part in self-reflection, implementing action research, and
access to free professional development were commonly positioned in the middle of the rankings
in terms of impactfulness. Figure 9 outlines the top 6 selected components that supported career
persistence.
86

Figure 9
Most Impactful Components of GCOE’s Induction Program on Intent to Remain Teaching

In addition, when asked to identify the three most impactful supports for candidates when
dealing with common challenges in the teaching profession, 22% of participants selected
observing a highly recommended teacher, 20% selected being partnered with and having access
to a mentor, and 19% chose being observed by a mentor and receiving feedback, again, making
them the top three selected choices of impactful supports. T-tests determined there was no
statistical significance when comparing the ranking of each support between white and non-
white groups (p-values ranged between 0.323 and 0.781). Further use of a t-test determined there
was no statistical difference between gender in their selection of impactful supports (p-values
ranged between 0.1460 and 0.7930). Descriptive analysis also determined there was limited
difference between most frequently selected impactful supports when disaggregated by different
87

school characteristics. In all cases, observing a highly recommended teacher (“observing”), being
observed by your mentor and receiving feedback (“observed by mentor”), and being partnered
with a mentor were in the top three most impactful supports (“partnered with mentor”). Further,
a majority of the time, access to professional development was the next most selected support by
school characteristic. This evidence supports the idea that observing, mentorship, and being
observed are the most meaningful components of induction however, the small differences
indicate there is a place for allowing more autonomy in support selection. Figure 10 shows the
top four selected supports disaggregated by school characteristics as well as the total number of
times the component was selected as most impactful.
88

Figure 10
Most Impactful Supports By School Characteristic

Note: Participants could select more than one characteristic, some of which are not listed here; n represents the total number of
selections in each category.

89

Although the GCOE and CTC end of year survey asked about impact on classroom
practice, not specifically asking about components related to career persistence, which was
addressed in the cross-sectional survey, similar trends were noted in terms of support. In the
GCOE end of year survey, candidates scored supports on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 was low impact
on classroom practice and 5 was high impact on classroom practice. Roughly 80% or more of
candidates scored the following supports as a 4 or 5 in terms of impact on classroom practice:
observing other educators (89%), being observed by your mentor (83%), data collection and
analysis of my teaching practice (91%), data collection and analysis of student impact (81%),
self-assessment of teaching practice within the CSTP (80%), and the inquiry process (81%). The
CTC completer survey had a similar question, asking beginning teachers to identify the level of
impact supports had on teaching and learning, scoring items no impact, some impact, moderate
impact, or strong impact. The following supports had more than 80% of candidates mark
moderate or strong impact: observations of colleagues and peers (86%), consistent reflection on
the practice of instruction (87%), analysis of student data to inform planning and instruction
(84%) and development of collaborative connections with colleagues (82%). The data showing
the rated impact of each support by survey is outlined in Table 7.

90

Table 7
Impact of Induction Supports on Teaching Practices by Survey
GCOE Survey
Rated Support
Impactful/
Highly
Impactful on
Teaching
Practice
CTC Survey
Rated Support
Moderate
Impact/Strong
Impact on
Teaching
Practice
observing other educators 89%
observations of colleagues
and peers
86%
being observed by your
mentor
83%
analysis of student data to
inform planning and
instruction
84%
data collection and
analysis of my teaching
practice
91% consistent reflection on the
practice of instruction
87%
data collection and
analysis of student impact
81%
development of collaborative
connections with colleagues
82%
self-assessment of teaching
practice within the CSTP
80%

inquiry process 80%

This data reverberates the importance of observations and mentorship, but also brings
forth the importance of data collection, analysis, and reflection associated with the process of
improving teaching practice. Across the three methods, observing a highly recommended
teacher, being observed and receiving feedback, the opportunity to partake in reflection on
teaching, and mentorship were the components in induction that candidates consistently
communicated as important for both career persistence and improvement of practices. Moreover,
short answer data from the cross-sectional survey emphasized why these components were so
meaningful to program participants.
Evidence from several short answer responses in the cross-sectional survey provided
insight as to why some teachers found specific components of induction impactful on their career
91

and teaching practice. Responses were extrapolated from an analysis of three short answer
response questions. One question asked all respondents to share their overall perception of the
induction program. The second question was asked, using skip logic, only to teachers who
indicated they were planning on moving or leaving the profession in the future. Participants who
selected that they had planned to move or leave the profession were asked to share how induction
could have played more of a role in supporting them as a teacher. The third question asked
candidates to justify their reasoning as to why they ranked specific components above others.
Through coding of short answer responses, important benefits were identified, specifically,
related to observations of a highly recommended teacher, reflection, being observed and
receiving feedback, and mentorship. Short answer findings are discussed in the following
paragraphs.
Observing a Highly Recommended Teacher
Through coding, several benefits from observing another teacher were identified. These
benefits included the ability of beginning teachers to: improve practice, learn or support
implementation of new strategies, gain ideas to solve challenges or difficult situations, create
connections with colleagues, or support continual learning or professional growth. Of the 64
teachers who wrote that observing a highly recommended teacher was the most impactful, 54
responses (roughly 85%) mentioned one or more of these benefits in their response. Table 8
provides examples of partial or whole direct quotes from short answer responses organized by
benefit.

92

Table 8
Benefits from Observing a Highly Recommended Teacher
Benefit Evidence

Improve
Practice

*Observing other teachers was one of the most rewarding experiences, I quickly found ways to improve my practice
* By watching a teacher model great teaching practices, I was able to see what works and does not work for classroom
management, classwork patterns, and curriculum.
* I feel this component supports my persistence in teaching because I was able to improve in the moment by observing
sound practices while piecing together a picture of what my classroom could look like in the future as I improve my
practice.

Learn or
Implement
New
Strategies

* I felt very inspired by seeing high quality teaching at work. I observed an incredible math teacher and I was able to
incorporate a lot of her best practices into my practice.
* It is by far one of the best ways to learn new effective strategies, whether you are in an induction program or not.
* Watching someone who has knowledge of the profession and years of experience is so beneficial and I leave with
strategies and techniques that I can immediately implement.
* I feel this component supports my persistence in teaching because in the credential program, we learn about a lot of
strategies, but many are not applicable when we finally get our own class. Seeing a veteran teacher in the special education
field implementing strategies that are effective is one of the most beneficial things that has come out of induction.
* I was able to extract key strategies that would have previously been invisible to me as a novice teacher. I took 4 pages of
notes in a 30 minutes session. I witnessed layers of strategies, including tiered levels of differentiation happening at once.

Ideas to
Solve
Challenges/
Situations

* I learned the most by watching other teachers. I paid the most attention to the things that were frustrating me and causing
me stress in my own classroom. It can feel really isolating to be in your own classroom all by yourself all the time, so
seeing someone else do what you do is really helpful.
* Seeing how other teacher handle the same issues you are dealing with really helps. for instance, "What do you do with
students who are constantly causing disruptions?" Well, I saw firsthand how other teachers handled this.
* Providing me that resource was the most beneficial for me because it gave me ideas and allowed me a chance to see how
someone with more experience handles similar situations. It helped me to feel validated in what I was doing, and to get new
ideas in areas where I was having more difficulty.
93

Connection
with
Colleagues

* It links me to another teacher who is available to support me.
* This increases the sense of a professional learning community.
* Observing highly recommended teachers supported me in staying in the teaching profession because it allowed me the
opportunity to observe, discuss, and collaborate with a teacher who was running a similar program to my own.
* The best experience for me was to observe another teacher in action. I was able to not only observed but then ask
questions which was extremely helpful as a first year teacher.

Continual
Learning
or Growth

* I feel I learn best from watching others, and by given the opportunity to observe highly recommended teachers, I feel
more motivated and inspired to be as great as they are. I have so much to learn, and I feel this is the best way I can learn.
* I feel that observing a high recommended teacher allowed me to grow the most has a teacher. I was able to see a teacher
implement all of the CSTP in a lesson.
* Having the chance to actually witness what another adult does (and not just hear about it later) creates solidarity,
connection, and actionable ideas
94

Multiple responses noted that observations supported an improvement of practices
because the candidate was able to observe a more experienced teacher model how to implement
effective practices. This support allowed beginning teachers the opportunity to see best practices
and often provided a chance to expand the current set of strategies being utilized in their
classroom. Candidates stated this support was beneficial because they could bring back many of
the strategies observed and easily and confidently implement them within their own practice. For
example, one participant stated that “observing an experienced teacher allowed me to implement
teaching strategies that I learned during the observation. Implementing those strategies improved
my teaching immediately.”
Other responses noted that observations helped them solve difficult situations they were
facing. Observers were able to see how veteran teachers handle classroom management
strategies and policies, behavior disruptions, differentiation, and other challenges firsthand. One
teacher said that she, “paid the most attention to the things that were frustrating me and causing
me stress in my own classroom.” This in turn, allowed her to bring back new strategies and ideas
that made her days run more smoothly and better meet the needs of her students.
Observations for some candidates were also a collaborative opportunity, where they were
able to build connections with colleagues and/or their school community. These connections
were important for some because they could debrief strategies, share ideas, discuss challenges,
and gain new insights. Further, some also noted that this support contributed positively to their
continual growth and development as a teacher. For example, one respondent said this factor,
“played a huge part in my growth as a teacher.” This evidence demonstrates that there are several
possible benefits teachers glean from the opportunity to observe highly effective teachers.

95

Being Observed and Receiving Feedback
Being observed by a mentor and receiving feedback was another commonly selected
support that teachers felt was impactful to career retention decisions and professional practice.
Through use of open coding, several benefits were identified. These benefits include: access to
feedback, developing a personal relationship or connection through observations and feedback,
as well as support in improving instructional practices. Table 9 outlines partial or whole direct
questions that show evidence of each benefit.
96

Table 9
Benefits from Being Observed and Receiving Feedback from a Mentor
Benefit Evidence

Feedback
* I feel this component supports my persistence in teaching because it provided me with
direct feedback on my authentic teaching practices in which I couldn’t hide behind a
screen.
* Feedback from observations were key in my growth and development as a teacher and
I valued the expertise of my mentor.
* I feel this component supports my persistence in teaching because the observer was
able to give me meaningful feedback about my practice. Feedback and suggestions on
how one can improve are great resources.
* I feel this component supports my persistence in teaching because I received valuable
feedback and had valuable conversations with my mentor about my current teaching and
areas of growth I wanted to see.

Personal
Connection
with Mentor
through
Observation
/ Feedback
* In-person feedback made me feel closer to my mentor
* I feel this component supports my persistence in teaching because my mentor allowed
me to discuss challenges I had with my students and/or instruction. She helped me to
work through challenges and acted as a sounding board on lessons and activities I had
planned.
* My mentor made me feel safe to teach with my own style
*I didn’t feel so isolated and alone in my classroom.
* I feel this component supports my persistence in teaching because in the credential
program, we learn about a lot of strategies, but many are not applicable when we finally
get our own class. Seeing a veteran teacher in the special education field implementing
strategies that are effective is one of the most beneficial things that has come out of the
induction program.
* Watching a master teacher (in my subject area) was extremely helpful to my teaching
practice. I was able to extract key strategies that would have previously been invisible to
me as a novice teacher. I took 4 pages of notes in a 30 minutes session. I witnessed
layers of strategies, including tiered levels of differentiation happening at once.

Improved
Practices
* Those components supported my persistence in teaching because I was given direct
praise and constructive criticism to perfect the art that is teaching.
* I feel that observations by my mentor as well as my admin has made me a better
teacher. It has helped me to not get stuck in my ways and opened me up to continue to
try new things which in turn helps with avoiding the burnout.
* The feedback I received from my mentor was helpful because I received a perspective
that was not necessarily focused on my school site but focused on my personal teaching
development.
* It is the only thing that helped me grow in real time.
* I feel this component supports my persistence in teaching because it allowed me to see
perspectives outside of my own.

97

The most commonly noted benefits from those who selected mentor observations and
feedback as the most impactful support was the idea that constructive feedback allowed mentees
to: engage in continual reflection, growth and development, use critical feedback to improve
practices, and have support in the implementation of new strategies and ideas to improve
practices. An example of this is when a participant shared,
The observations with my mentor were imperative to my professional growth because I
was able to discuss and reflect on my teaching practices. Then, we would discuss her
feedback and find new goals to sharpen my teaching skills. This was imperative to my
teaching because it helped me become a reflective teacher.
Other responses emphasized the importance of feedback on improving instructional practices and
implementing new ideas. This was noted by one participant when they said, “Being observed and
receiving feedback opens up a discussion about best practice that we can learn from.” This
evidence supports the idea that beginning teachers participating in the induction program benefit
from observations coupled with feedback on practices.
Reflection
The opportunity to partake in reflective practices was another area that teachers found
impactful on career persistence or improvement of instructional practices. Although it was
ranked between 5th or 6th when asked to order most impactful support on intent to remain
teaching in the cross-sectional survey, both the CTC completer survey and GCOE end of year
survey, which asked about the impactfulness of reflection of classroom practice, found it was of
high importance to teachers in the development and improvement of practice. This is important
to analyze because of the possible reciprocal relationship between more effective teachers and
career persistence. The CTC completer survey found that 87% of respondents said consistent
98

reflection on the practice of instruction supported improvement of classroom practice. Similar
findings were communicated in the GCOE end of year survey where 91% of participants said
data collection and analysis of teaching practice was impactful on classroom practice. Further,
about 5% of responses from the justification of ranking in the cross-sectional survey referenced
reflection providing some insight to its importance. One candidate shared that they felt “the
program is great because it makes you reflect on your teaching.” Another emphasized that
“reflecting on teaching practices is the most useful use of time to determine gaps/areas of need or
strengths.” One other shared that “taking part in self-reflection forced me to take the time to
really consider what I was doing and how I was doing it.” The candidate further emphasized that
it helped her become a better teacher and classroom manager and gave her the confidence to
continue teaching. Another commented that “it helped me deepen my knowledge of teaching and
ways to implement things that made me and my students more successful.” These quotes
demonstrate that although not always ranked highest in terms of most impactful support,
partaking in reflective practices can improve instructional practices and, likely reciprocally,
effectiveness and retention.
Mentorship
Through analyzing available data, it is clear that mentorship is a highly impactful support
for many candidates in the GCOE program. Partnership with a mentor was the second most
highly ranked support in the cross-sectional survey with 30% of participants ranking in first, and
62% of participants ranking it in the top three. Many teachers communicated that their mentor
was a strong support system in helping them navigate their first few years. A mentor is a
dedicated person to go to with questions as well as a person who could provide feedback,
clarification, and support in the many aspects of teaching. In addition to supporting mentees with
99

induction, responses noted that veteran teachers assigned as mentors were able to provide
guidance answering questions, providing specific ways to improve practices, and provide
assistance in navigating difficult challenges or situations, making mentorship an important
support for beginning teachers. Since this is the focus of the next research question, findings
regarding the impact of mentorship will be shared in the next section.
Research Question 3: How do new teachers feel their relationship with their mentor
influenced their intent to continue in the profession?
This research question examined how mentorship impacts intent to remain in the
profession. Survey data from the cross-sectional survey, the CTC completer survey, as well as
the GCOE end of year survey were utilized to answer this research question. Findings indicate
that when mentors are appropriately assigned, they are an essential factor that support beginning
teacher success, improvement of classroom practice and for some, career persistence.
The cross-sectional survey asked if mentors positively impacted their intent to remain in
the profession. From 221 responses, the 75% of teachers said they agreed or strongly agreed that
their mentor positively influenced their intent to remain in the profession, where 25% somewhat
or strongly disagreed that their mentor impacted their career persistence decisions. Further, short
answer responses that asked participants to explain how their mentor did or did not impact their
intent to remain in the profession, were coded into three categories: positive, where mentors
positively impacted intent to remain; neutral, where responses indicated they were satisfied with
their mentor but their intent to remain was independent of mentorship; and, negative, where
candidates indicated their mentor did not support their intent to remain. This section will discuss
data showing the positive aspects of mentorship, where data showing neutral and negative will
be discussed in subsequent sections.
100

Positive Support from Mentor
In order to understand why mentors were so impactful, an analysis of mentorship specific
multiple choice and short answer questions from all three data sources was completed. The CTC
completer survey questioned participants about the effectiveness of their mentor match, how
collaborative their relationship with the mentor was, and to comment about their perception of
the mentor’s skills in supporting their needs. Roughly 81% of respondents said they were well
matched, 17% said they were somewhat well matched, where the remaining 2% shared they were
not well matched. Further, 90% stated they had a collaborative or highly collaborative
relationship with their mentor and 94% shared their mentor was skilled or highly skilled at
meeting the teacher’s needs.
The GCOE end of year survey asked specific questions about how mentors supported
candidates, including frequency of communication, observations, and interactions as well as the
perception of the overall support mentors provided. Of 592 responses, 76% of mentors
communicated on a daily or weekly basis with their mentee, while 20% communicated twice per
month and 23% communicated less than twice per month. Further, during the school year, 24%
of mentors were able to observe and provide feedback to their mentee once or twice, 50% were
able to 3 to 5 times, and 26% were able to 6 or more times. Although there were differences in
communication and observation levels, 86% of respondents indicated that they received the
appropriate amount of interaction, where 11% shared they would have appreciated more
interaction and 2% wished for less. Despite the variability in support provided, 94% of
candidates in the program rated the support they received from their mentor as excellent or good.
The finding that high quality mentorship can support retention was triangulated when it
was shared by several candidates in open-ended responses. In an analysis of the short answer
101

questions regarding the importance of mentorship on intent to remain, there were 115 who spoke
positively about their mentor (55%) and 94 who spoke neutrally or negatively about their mentor
(45%). The positive responses reverberated the idea that mentors impact intent to remain, where
several responses shared the sentiment of one particular candidate when she said “I would have
left the profession had it not been for my mentor.” One example of how a mentor improved
intent to remain is when a candidate stated,
I feel this component supports my persistence in teaching because I was able to receive
support and guidance through a tumultuous year. I had many changes that occurred early
in the school year and having someone there to support me, helped me maintain my level
of resiliency throughout the process.
Another mentioned, “Without my mentor, I wouldn’t have had 1:1 support in my first position
and that may have steered me out of the teaching profession forever.” One other participant
noted that the camaraderie between her mentor as well as her support to keep pushing through
the first few years, is what kept her in the teaching profession. This is evidence that effective
mentorship is a strong support for beginning teachers.
The idea that good mentorship improves classroom practices, the ability to build effective
relationships with students and leaders, being prepared for challenges, and navigating the
challenges within the teacher profession were also triangulated when these ideas were shared in
short answer responses. In addition to fulfilling required induction roles, it was also noted that
mentors provided support in numerous other areas in the profession. Roughly 87% of positive
comments in the short answer response were related to the various forms of assistance the
mentor provided or specific characteristics the mentor had that were perceived as supportive.
Through open coding, it was determined that this includes support in: navigating difficult
102

situations or challenges, improving professional or classroom practices, or modeling effective
practices. Further, responses also mentioned how mentors were helpful/available or
supportive/encouraging. Finally, many responses emphasized the importance of the relationship
or connection the mentee had with the mentor. Table 10 outlines a representative sample of
quotes within each category as well as the percentage of responses that mentioned the particular
category from the 115 candidates who noted a positive overall mentor impact.
103

Table 10
Areas of Mentor Support by Category
Mentor: Evidence

helped
navigate
challenges/
difficult
situations/
questions
(19%)
* My mentor did impact my intention to remain in the teaching profession because she helped me navigate difficult
situations when teaching and encouraged me to continue.
* My mentor helped me navigate my first year as I had a lot on my plate to manage.
*My mentor did impact my intent to remain the teaching profession because she supported me through challenging times
and gave me great advice.
*My mentor greatly impacted my intent to remain teaching. She was an incredible resource who called out my strengths,
and mentored me in a way that helped me navigate my weaknesses and overall become a better teacher.
*She helped my understand systems that occur outside of the classroom too. student teaching/credential prepares you for
inside of the classroom, but not all the systems that occur around it. My mentor helped me understand those.

helped
improve
practices
(24%)
* My mentor in induction showed me how to analyze student needs and bring more exploratory and project based activities
to my students…She taught me how to move forward with low level students, help them be productive, and work with low-
risk tasks to support the growth of all. So yes, she did continue to impact my intent to remain in teaching.
* My mentor did impact my intent to remain in the teaching profession because my mentor provided me ideas and
suggestions that helped my improve my instruction. I incorporated better strategies and student activities.
*My mentor did impact my intent to remain in the teaching profession because she provided the support, feedback, and
positive reinforcement that I needed to get through some difficult transitions during my first year as a teacher at our school.
* My mentor did impact my intent to remain in the teaching profession because she showed me useful engagement and
teaching strategies to use with my students and the strategies that yielded results.
* My mentor did impact my intent to remain in the teaching profession because she provided me with tools and strategies
to use with students to create connections and create a productive learning environment.

was helpful/
available
(7%)
*I think it did impact me because she was helpful and readily available when needed.
* My mentor was amazing last year and super helpful.
* I was very grateful for my mentor as she was someone who I could come to for help and perspective as a much more
experienced teacher.
*She was always willing to help in the moment that is needed. She is extremely helpful with new teaching practices and
simply checking in to see how I am doing.
104

was
supportive/
encouraging
(28%)
* My mentor did impact my intent to remain in the teaching profession because of her constant support and encouragement.
*My mentor did impact my intent to remain in the teaching profession because he was encouraging and also offered
practical advice and constructive criticism.
* My mentor did impact my intent to remain because she helped me realize it's hard for everyone. I was feeling
overwhelmed and believed I wasn't capable of being a good teacher but we would have conversations where she admitted
she had moments of not feeling good enough even after all this time. she also forced me out of my comfort zone and had
me watch/introduce myself to other teachers who made me feel empowered to continue.
* My mentor did impact my intent to remain in teaching because she encouraged me though the hard times and told me it
would get easier.
* My mentor was very supportive when I was lacking support from administration and other teachers. My mentor went
above and beyond to inform me of district guidelines and policies; she made me feel as though there was someone in my
corner.

modeled
instructional
practices
(7%)
*My mentor did impact my intent to remain in the teaching profession because she demonstrated to me a love of teaching
and showed me the impact she had made on her students.
*My mentor did a very good job demonstrating flexibility and toughness under very challenging situations.
*My mentor did impact my intent to remain in the teaching profession because she was able to demonstrate her passion for
teaching, that this can be a rewarding career emotionally.
* She was able to demonstrate how to teach in different ways and offer advice.

had strong
relationship
with mentee
(21%)
*I was so thankful for my mentor. She was there for me everyday and anytime I had a question or concern. I don’t think I
would have survive my first year at my new school site without her help and support. She still helps me even though she
moved across the country.
*My mentor did impact my intent to remain in the teaching profession because she was kind and supportive. I knew i could
count on her to be there for me when I needed her.
*She has continued to check in on me even after induction was over; building that community made me feel lie i belonged
in the teaching profession, even when I am having an off day.
*My mentor is an amazing educator, friend, mom and general human being. She is someone I admire and aspire to be more
like. She has inspired me to be a better teacher. There should be more people like her serving as mentors to new teachers
because then we'd have less people leaving the field and more knowledgeable, dedicated teachers within it.

Note: some responses mentioned multiple reasons so percent does not add up to 100%
105

To further analyze the impact of mentorship on classroom practice, both the CTC
completer survey and GCOE end of year survey asked how helpful the assigned mentor was in
helping impact students in learning in various areas of classroom practice. Participants were
asked to rate the listed classroom practices as not helpful, somewhat helpful, helpful or very
helpful. Figure 11 shows the percentages of teachers who answered helpful or very helpful on the
CTC and GCOE survey when asked to respond to the impact of mentorship on the given
classroom supports.

Figure 11
Impact of Mentor Support on Classroom Practices

106

This demonstrates that a good majority of teachers' classroom practices have improved as
a result of mentorship provided. Further, when teachers were asked about the impact of the
pandemic on intent to remain in an open-ended question, five responses commented on how their
mentor helped support them during the challenges. Although this is only a few responses, it is
important to note that mentorship was not specifically asked about in this question. One
participant said,
The COVID-19 pandemic definitely threw many curveballs my way, but the support I
have received from my mentor teacher, the administrators at my school, and my fellow
colleagues have helped me see the silver lining in all of this. I have grown stronger, more
resilient, and it has had a positive effect on my teaching and my relationships with my
students.
Another mentioned the following:
This pandemic has shown me the necessity and stability that schools and educators offer
to our students and their families. It’s been a challenge to teach virtually and sometimes I
don’t find as much joy then when I did before COVID. However, my mentor and other
teachers have helped in reminding me to go back to my why of my decision to enter the
teaching field in the first place.
The idea that mentorship played a role in supporting beginning teachers during the COVID
pandemic was also triangulated in the cross-sectional survey, when 75% of teachers said they
agree or strongly agree that their mentor supported them in the COVID-19 transition to distance
learning. The remaining 25% said their mentors disagreed or strongly disagreed that their mentor
supported them in the transition for distance learning during the pandemic. Although the cross-
sectional survey did not ask for elaboration, it is likely that mentors also faced various challenges
107

due to the pandemic. It is important to note that these responses were taken from the 136
candidates in the cross-sectional survey that were enrolled in induction during the COVID-19
pandemic; those who had completed induction and did not have direct access to a mentor were
removed from this analysis.
Neutral and Negative Support from Mentor
Evidence supports that high quality mentorship is an essential support for new teachers.
Not only does it impact retention, it helps beginning teachers improve various instructional and
professional practices. Although a large number of teachers in the cross-sectional survey
communicated the importance of their mentor, 25% indicated they disagree or strongly disagree
that their mentor positively influenced their intent to remain in the profession. Further, in the
short answer asking candidates to explain how their mentor did or did not impact their intent to
remain, 45% (94 responses) offered neutral or negative comments. In an analysis of these
responses, 58% said that their decision to teach was independent of their mentor, 34% said their
mentor did not impact them because of the quality of mentorship, 6% mentioned they would
have benefited more with a better pairing (better grade-level, content-area, school/district match),
and the remaining 2% mentioned other reasons, such as career choice not being discussed or
mentor only helping with induction work.
Of the respondents that mentioned their decision to teach was independent of their
mentor, roughly half shared that their mentor was a positive influence, helpful or encouraging
but the decision to remain a teacher had nothing to do with mentorship. For example, one
response said, “My mentor did not impact my intent to remain in the profession because I had no
intention of leaving. She was supportive as she could be.” Another stated, “My mentor was very
supportive during my first year in the induction program. However, she did not influence
108

positively or negatively my decision to remain in the teaching profession.” Similarly, a third
mentioned that her mentor was a positive influence, kind, helpful and available when needed.
However, her mentor had no role in whether or not she continued in the profession. The other
half did not mention their mentor’s impact but noted it was an independent decision. For
example, one comment said, “My mentor did not impact my intent to remain in the teaching
profession because I never wanted to leave.” Another stated, “ I am committed to my profession,
so no outside influence was necessary.” One teacher who was on the fence about leaving stated
that she had a lot of negative situations occur in her 3 years of teaching and if she decided to stay
it wouldn’t be because of anything her mentor did or did not do. A teacher who had left the
profession stated that her mentor had no impact on her intent to remain because there were
stronger factors that impacted her decision.
Aside from the decision to move, leave, or stay being independent of the mentor, the
other issue that was commonly expressed was the quality of mentorship. In the responses, this
was a factor that limited the benefit of mentorship. Common challenges with the quality was lack
of: communication, support or feedback, a relationship with the mentee, and knowledge.
Lack of communication was a common concern and is evidenced when an individual
stated, “my mentor did not impact my intent to remain because I rarely got to communicate with
my mentor.” Another stated that her mentor did not impact her intent to remain because the
mentor was inaccessible and unavailable. Similarly, a third stated that it was a “constant struggle
to get a hold of the mentor.”
Lack of support and feedback was another commonly addressed issue noted in the short
answer responses. Some responses simply stated that they received minimal support or their
mentor provided minimal feedback that helped them grow as an educator, therefore, mentorship
109

did not impact their intent to remain. Others shared more detail, stating, “my mentor did not
impact my intent to remain in teaching because we had very little one on one time discussing
teaching and teaching strategies. She was hands off.” Similarly, another shared,
I spoke with my induction mentor maybe four times total. She was experienced and
probably a great teacher, but she couldn’t help me. When she observed my class, the
students did not act out in the way they did when it was only me in the room, so my
mentor could not really offer much help. At one point, I talked to her about the trouble I
was having and she made a couple of suggestions for classroom management techniques
but nothing that could have made a big difference. She was not very engaged.
One also said that the induction program inhibited his desire to become a teacher because work
was redundant and his mentor had no idea what he was doing. This evidence further
demonstrates that effective mentorship is an important factor for beginning teachers, however,
the data brings further questions about what candidates perceive as effective mentorship.
Additionally, in this short answer response, about 6 candidates mentioned a level of
disappointment with the induction program. For example, one candidate stated,
As a beginning teacher there are many unfamiliar challenges, I feel that the induction as a
whole added to the workload. As a teacher, new in the field, required to do added work
that doesn’t really contribute to my students or my own success was not time well spent.
The induction program had no implications on my long term decision to teach, but rather
complicated my first couple of years of developing a program by taking time away from
me to satisfy requirements, which many were addressed through the credential process.
My mentor was helpful and was available for many questions I had along the way.
110

This was also heavily noted in the open-ended question asking induction participants to share
their overall perception of the induction program bringing forward critical feedback and key
takeaways for program improvement. Although outside of the research questions, there was a
pattern in the factors communicated that might help to improve induction support and policy in
the future.
Other Findings: Examining Critical Feedback for Program Improvement
In an analysis of 206 responses regarding overall perception of the induction program in
the cross-sectional survey, roughly 60% shared a comment indicating that they had a negative
perception. Many of these responses shared one or more of the following as a reasoning for their
perception: workload (time, busy work), additional stress, program cost, program focus,
repetitive nature of program compared to credential program, or format/structure of the program.
Analyzing these responses provides critically important feedback that can be used to improve
state policy or program offerings for the future. Table 11 provides a representative sample of the
quotations shared along with the percentage of negative responses that communicated the area of
improvement.
111

Table 11
Common Feedback Related to Perception of Induction
Areas of
Feedback
Evidence
Workload
(too much
work, lost
time,
busywork,
etc.) (40%)
*Lots of busywork that didn't actually mean much.
* It was a waste of time and money; it was a lot of time explaining myself but not learning new things
*There is a lot of extra work for induction. It seems like there could be a better way.
* The program needs to update their expectations. The amount of work a first-year teacher does is already beyond their paid
hours. The program requires way to much with very little payout. The amount of effort did not match what I learned.
* It is too much of a time strain on an already very strained first few years.
Stress
(11%)
* From my experience it added a lot of unnecessary stress and work on top of our already full plates.
* With being a new teacher, I am already extremely busy and the added stress of completing the CSTPs and inquiry
questions is overwhelming and time consuming.
* I was so stressed out by the job that it was hard having another thing to do.
* We are already busy, this is just another stress.
Cost (21%)
* It is a money making scheme designed to take $5,000 from new teachers under the threat that if you do not complete the
'program' then your credential will not be renewed.
* If universities informed teachers that there is a $5000 expense to clear your credential, that would be helpful.
*It is a financial hardship after I just went to school and paid for a credential.
*The downfall of the program is it is so expensive. To ask a teacher to obtain a BA, then a credential, then an induction
program is hard financially.
* Induction is a ploy from the state to get more money out of already broke teachers.
Repetitive
Nature
(25%)
* It feels like an extension of my credential program
* It honestly was like repeating my masters again and I feel like the program does not acknowledge that I have a master's in
education, I have done all this before.
*The induction program closely resembles the TPA from 3 years ago.
* The program is repetitive and outmoded. Student teaching and having a mentor would be far more important to becoming
a great teacher. The induction program requires a high stress project that no one cares about.
* It was very similar to my teacher preparation program. I felt like I was jumping through hoops.
112

Program
Format/
Structure
(15%)
* Other teachers that I had the opportunity to collaborate with struggled with their own stuff and needed help in that regard
* I would like more opportunities to do observations and to be observed
* Our time may be better suited working on classroom management methods, observing teachers, going over how to support
ELs, small group instruction based on levels, and provided with paid sub days to allow for time with your mentor.
* The program could improve by having us find new teaching practices that we could attend a PD for and implement to
collect data on its effectiveness.
* The most beneficial aspects could be blended into one year. The program should be easier to access and understand for
new teachers. It could also help us navigate the teacher career and provide future options in education.
* For mentors, the program requires volunteers willing to do the extra work and that narrows down who is available.
* Just as we differentiate work and assignments for our students the induction program should be differentiated based on the
strengths and needs of each teacher.
* Some of the work was laborious and not helpful. The more practical it can be the better.
* More thought and investigation should go into who your mentor is.
* Having a good mentor could make or break your experience
* I would rather spend the time I spent writing engaged in conversations with my successful teachers.
* My only suggestion is working toward better connecting teachers to mentors

Note: some response mentioned more than one component; percent will not add up to 100%
113

There are several key takeaways from the feedback provided. One area commonly noted
was that the program was redundant or too similar to teacher preparation programs, not allowing
an extension of professional growth. Many responses noted that the mentor and observations
were the most impactful components, however, they felt other parts of induction were not helpful
or meaningful but more stress and work in an already overwhelming time. Additionally, some
commented on the format or structure of the program. One participant shared, “The way the
program is designed is for a ‘one size fits all’ and I don’t think that it was very beneficial to me.”
Others wished for increased access to the supports they felt were most impactful, like additional
opportunities to observe, be observed and receive feedback as well as additional scope of
mentorship support, where mentors guide candidates through various challenges in the teaching
profession not just induction work. These key takeaways along with other findings will help
guide the recommendations in Chapter Five.
Summary
The purpose of this study was to analyze what impacts intent to remain in the teaching
profession, what beginning teachers consider effective support in their induction program as well
as how their relationship with their mentor affects career persistence decisions. Findings from the
study indicate there are a variety of factors that impact beginning teachers’ intent to remain in the
profession. More specifically, descriptive evidence showed that environmental, personal, and
behavioral factors may reciprocally impact teachers’ intent to remain teaching. The factors
within the study that impact intent to remain include the challenges teachers face as well as the
support they did or did not receive from induction, mentorship, and leadership. Further, data
showed that teachers in diverse contexts, like varied grade-level or school characteristics, may
have different challenges. Therefore, they may need a more individualized support system to
114

mitigate the challenges faced in their particular context. For example, a middle school teacher in
a lower socioeconomic level school may need different support to address challenges than an
elementary teacher in an affluent suburban area. Findings also showed that a majority of teachers
found induction as a positive support to improve teaching practice but did not necessarily relate
the support they received in induction to positively impacting their intent to remain. Observing
other teachers, being observed and receiving feedback, the opportunity to reflect on teaching
practices, and mentorship were all perceived as helpful components of induction that supported
improved teaching practices and retention. Evidence from all three data sources showed high-
quality mentorship was specifically impactful on improved teaching and professional practices as
well as positively impacting retention. Strong mentors supported beginning teachers through the
process of induction as well as in areas outside of induction, including some commonly faced
challenges. Lastly, a combination of survey data from the three methods and detailed open-ended
responses in the cross-sectional survey uncovered possible areas for policy or program
improvement. Creating a stronger induction support system should include ensuring all
beginning teachers have access to an effective, supportive mentor. It is imperative that induction
provides a framework to address the challenges beginning teachers are facing, allowing for
autonomy to individualize support, providing only the most impactful components based on the
teacher’s strengths, areas for growth, and context. Ultimately, strengthening induction program
offerings to address the factors associated with turnover, would improve mobility and attrition of
beginning teachers. Further discussion and specific recommendations based on these findings are
presented in Chapter Five.

115

Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations
The purpose of this dissertation was to analyze what beginning teachers in the GCOE
induction program deem as effective support and identify what is impacting their intent to remain
within the profession. The study applies reciprocal determinism in social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1986) to understand the various factors influencing teacher perceptions of induction
support and how those beliefs ultimately support career persistence. Specifically, the goal was to
identify factors providing positive support, discern the areas providing limited value, and identify
areas for improving the future of induction programs. The questions guiding this study were the
following:
1. What do new teachers feel is influencing their intent to continue within the profession?
2. What do new teachers perceive as the most impactful components of their induction
program?
3. How do new teachers feel their relationship with their mentor influenced their intent to
continue in the profession?
This chapter focuses on a discussion of important findings, while exploring how I connect these
findings to the conceptual framework and previously published literature. Next, it provides ideas
for possible recommendations for practice to improve identified areas of need. It will close with
a review of the limitations and delimitations of the study as well as possible ideas for future
studies.
Discussion of Findings
Bandura’s triadic model of reciprocal determinism in social cognitive theory can be used
to examine the findings in this study. Bandura (1978) explains that reciprocal determinism is a
complex phenomenon occurring because of reciprocal, bidirectional interacting factors related to
116

an individual’s behavior, the environment, and personal factors. Personal, environmental, and
behavioral factors do not function independently, but are related to one another (Bandura, 1978,
1989). Personal, environmental, and behavioral factors in the teaching profession can have a
reciprocal relationship, and ultimately, influence new teacher turnover decisions.
Personal factors for teachers can be described as their values, beliefs, goals, attitudes,
cognition, motivation, teacher self-efficacy, expectations, and attributions (Zimmerman &
Schunk, 1989). Behavioral factors might include their professional practices, actions and
choices, learning, achievements, as well as their persistive and reflective qualities.
Environmental factors include community and school characteristics, school climate and norms,
working conditions, the general educational climate, effectiveness of leadership, relationships
with colleagues and administration, mentorship, the ability to obtain support and feedback or
other external factors. Applying Bandura’s (1978) theory to the findings from this study, we can
examine how these factors reciprocally impact one another and how they may affect new
teachers’ mobility and attrition decisions.
Findings from this study show that teachers are exposed to a variety of challenges in the
teaching profession. One common challenge communicated in the findings was the perceived
effectiveness of site or district leadership. Similarly, in research, teachers indicated they were
commonly dissatisfied with leadership or the lack of support provided (Carver-Thomas &
Darling Hammond, 2017). Perception of ineffective leadership (environmental) affects the
school climate and norms (environmental). This can reciprocally impact a teacher's attitudes or
motivation (personal) which as a result, may impact professional practices and persistive
behaviors (behavioral). Beginning teachers’ decisions to stay, move, or leave may then
reciprocally influence the school climate, norms, and community. Research demonstrates that
117

effective leadership at the school and district level can support improved workplace factors and
ultimately, improve turnover (Carver-Thomas, 2018; Moir, 2009; New Teacher Center, 2016).
Although effective leadership is outside of the induction lens, a changed induction model may be
able to provide support for beginning teachers who are dealing with difficult or ineffective
leadership as well as strategies to assist them in improving communication with administration.
Figure 12 is a depiction of perception of ineffective leadership in a reciprocal relationship.

Figure 12
Perception of Ineffective Leadership using Reciprocal Determinism

118

In addition to effectiveness of leadership, teachers indicated a variety of other challenges,
such as work/life balance, the COVID-19 pandemic, differentiation, enlisting the support of
parents and guardians, discipline, and availability of resources; with challenges often varying by
school characteristics and grade-level. Some of the supports available in induction that
candidates deemed effective at supporting improved practices and persistence, include: effective
mentorship, access to professional development, as well as the opportunity to observe high-
quality teachers or be observed and receive feedback (environmental). Access to these specific
components can improve teachers’ professional practice (behavioral) and in turn, increase
teacher self-efficacy (personal), mitigating some of the challenges beginning teachers face
(environmental).
Teacher self-efficacy is the belief that teaching ability and actions can lead to positive
impacts (Tschannen-Moran, et al., 1998). It is an important factor to consider because multiple
bodies of literature note that improved teacher self-efficacy can impact effort, persistence,
attitudes, motivation and behaviors of teachers (Bandura, 1997; Bray-Clark & Bates 2003; Hoy
& Spero, 2005; Tschannen-Mora & Hoy, 2007). Further, current literature suggests that
induction programs that include multiple support components have the ability to accelerate new
teacher effectiveness and improve efficacy in teaching (Goldrick, 2016; New Teacher Center,
2016; New Teacher Center, 2018; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). A majority of respondents in all
three data sources communicated they perceived specific induction supports (mentorship,
observations, etc.) to positively influence their teaching practices, including improved
instructional strategies, use of technology, classroom environment, planning and assessment. The
perception that induction supports improved classroom practices is in alignment with published
research; it shows that candidates recognize induction as helpful in becoming a better teacher,
119

demonstrating increased self-efficacy in teaching. Ultimately, improved classroom practice is an
important factor in teachers’ efficaciousness, which, peer-reviewed literature shows, reciprocally
affects persistence.
This study concluded that access to a highly effective mentor can improve professional
practices, positively impact career persistence decisions, and help mitigate some of the
challenges described by teachers in this study. These findings are in alignment with current
literature, emphasizing the importance of strong mentorship for beginning teachers (Gray et al.,
2015; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a). For example, a teacher may be struggling to differentiate for
students based on their specific needs (behavioral). Without access to a supportive mentor that
makes himself/herself available to support the candidate outside of induction, this factor may
negatively affect teacher self-efficacy, attitudes, and motivation (personal). In turn, this could
negatively impact career persistence decisions (behavioral) as well as student outcomes, school
climate and the community (environmental). However, access to an effective mentor who
provides collaborative opportunities to discuss strategies for differentiation and proactively
encourages the candidate to observe other teachers differentiating (environmental), will
positively impact teacher self-efficacy, motivation, and attitudes when dealing with this
challenge (personal). This will ultimately impact persistive behaviors (behavioral) and likely,
improve student outcomes (environmental). Figure 13 illustrates the reciprocal relationship
between these factors.

120

Figure 13
Perception of Effective Mentorship using Reciprocal Determinism

The current model of induction at the county office in this study provides a mentor for
beginning teachers, however, evidence from the cross-sectional survey shows that not all
mentors were effective at supporting candidates outside of components of induction. Southern
Regional Education Board: Educator Effectiveness (2018) emphasizes that high-quality
mentorship should not be compliance-driven, or solely focused on induction work, but should be
problem and people-driven, focusing on professional growth and the challenges that most plague
the beginning teachers. The ability to support beginning teachers outside of induction work and
121

with other challenges was reported by some beginning teachers as a positive characteristic of
their mentor within this study, however, some indicated the opposite, stating their mentor
provided limited support outside of induction. This ultimately can improve overall experience
and benefit of the program.
Although a majority of teachers in the study found the induction program to be
supportive of improving effectiveness, there was a consistent 20-25% who perceived that the
induction program did not support their growth or improved effectiveness. In analyzing the 25%
of responses, 68% worked in a lower socioeconomic school and 60% worked in a school
classified as Title I. Only 9% indicated they felt induction positively influenced their decision to
remain in the profession and 58% shared they did not feel supported by their mentor. This
evidence is an indicator that teachers in Title I schools and within areas that serve lower income
communities may not be receiving adequate support from the induction program or their
mentors, reverberating the idea that more individualized support may be necessary based on the
specific teaching context. Further, the lack of support impacted attrition rate. In examining data
from all participants in the cross-sectional survey, 4% indicated they wanted to leave the
teaching profession. When analyzing the subgroup of teachers that perceived the induction
program as unsupportive, 15% indicated they wanted to leave, demonstrating a 9% difference in
attrition rate between the two groups. Although this is a small subset of teachers, the analysis is
important because additional support and strong mentorship may have positively influenced
intent to remain in the profession.
Although findings within the study did not show any significant differences in the
challenges reported or perception of induction supports between white and minoritized groups,
this is reported in the literature as an area of concern because educators of color move and leave
122

within the profession at a greater rate than white teachers (Gray et al., 2015; Ingersoll & May,
2011a). One possible reason for the difference in the cross-sectional study could be due to the
limited sample size, compared to the larger studies, often reporting on trends from thousands of
teachers, making this an important issue to take into consideration for recommendations. Several
bodies of research demonstrate that educators of color were dissatisfied with: leadership, the
demands of accountability/testing, student discipline, lack of autonomy, poor organizational
working conditions, classroom intrusions, and poor salary/benefits and, that these factors impact
retention (Albert Shanker Institute, 2015; Ingersoll, et al., 2017a). Current literature shows that
turnover rates are 50% higher for teachers in Title I schools and 70% higher for teachers in
schools serving the largest concentrations of students of color (Carver-Thomas & Darling-
Hammond, 2017). Turnover is also greater in high poverty schools (Gray et al., 2015) and high
minority schools (Sutcher et al., 2016). Turnover more greatly impacts teachers of color because
they are 2 to 3 times more likely than white teachers to work in hard-to-staff schools, classified
as high poverty, high minority, and/or schools within urban communities (Ingersoll, et al.,
2017b). Although there was not a difference in this particular study, it is a problem in the
educational field related to this study. Beginning teachers who work in schools with high levels
of poverty, with large percentages of students of color or English language learners may need
more individualized support to address the challenges within these environments, including
strategies to improve professional practices, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher effectiveness.
Data from the cross-sectional survey suggests that induction may ease the ability to deal
with challenges, support navigation of the profession, and prove beneficial for improving
instructional practices in a variety of areas, however, not all respondents related this to
influencing intent to remain in the teaching profession. Roughly half of respondents in the cross-
123

sectional survey specified that induction had little to impact on their intent to remain teaching at
their current school and within the teaching profession altogether. One factor that influences
teachers’ perceptions of induction on intent to remain is their overall perception of effectiveness
and benefit of the program. Roughly 60% of respondents perceived the program negatively;
many found limited benefit in the current program offerings. Within the group that had a
negative perception, many cited the program caused increased workload (time, busy work),
additional stress and financial burden. Respondents also noted that they felt the learning
opportunities were repetitive in nature when compared to their credential program, not providing
new learning opportunities and some specifically mentioned the program could improve by
updating the current format/structure of the program. Specifically, some candidates requested
increased access to the supports they felt were most impactful, like additional opportunities to
observe, be observed and receive feedback and additional scope of mentorship support, where
mentors guide candidates through various challenges in the teaching profession not just induction
work. Within the responses where candidates had a positive perception of the program, many
clearly communicated that mentorship and observations, either observing or being observed, as
the most meaningful part of the program.
There were clearly communicated components of induction that candidates found more
beneficial than others. The cross-sectional survey found that candidates overwhelmingly felt
observing a highly recommended teacher, being partnered with a mentor, being observed and
receiving feedback, and access to professional development as the most impactful components of
the GCOE program. Current research recommends that induction programs often offer a
combination of comprehensive mentorship that focuses on collaboration, reflection, and high-
leverage practices in the classroom, structured observation time, beginning teacher seminars,
124

access to professional development as well as additional support in the classroom; including
release time, reduced workload, or limited responsibilities (Carver-Thomas & Darling-
Hammond, 2017; Kang & Berliner, 2012; Kearney, 2014; Moir, 2009; Ronfeldt, & McQueen,
2017). Although the GCOE program offers many of these components, the program is designed
as a one size fits all, where teachers are required to complete specific components in a specific
order, offering limited flexibility. Access to observe a highly recommended teacher is only
required in the current program model once, and being observed is required twice. Further,
GCOE suggests mentors speak with candidates weekly, but findings from the secondary data
analysis indicated there was a difference in the level and type of support mentors provide during
those times. Since GCOE candidates perceive observation and mentorship as the most impactful
components, and effective mentorship is shown to improve professional practices and retention
rates (Gray et al., 2015; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a), more focus should be put on providing
additional access to these components as well as some accountability measures to ensure
effective mentorship is being delivered.
Current literature suggests high-quality, comprehensive mentoring and induction support
can help accelerate new teacher effectiveness as well as reduce turnover rates for beginning
teachers (Gray et al.,2015; Ingersoll & Strong, 2011a; DeAngelis et al., 2013; Moir, 2009).
Within this study, 75% of respondents indicated that their mentor positively impacted their intent
to remain in the profession. Of the 25% who did not perceive their mentor as impactful to their
decision to continue teaching, 58% said that their decision to teach was independent of their
mentor. Thirty-four percent said their mentor did not impact them because of the quality of
mentorship and 6% mentioned they would have benefitted more with a better pairing (better
grade-level, content-area, school/district match). The remaining 2% mentioned other reasons. In
125

alignment with current literature, when mentors are appropriately assigned, they are an essential
factor that support beginning teacher success, improvement of classroom practice and career
persistence (Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). This is also important because in order for mentors to
provide the full benefit, it must be a holistic mentoring approach and not limited to induction.
Research suggests that mentor selection should be purposeful; pairings should ideally be a
similar grade-level range, subject-area and within the same school/district or geographic region
(CCSESA, 2016). Additionally, literature outlines clear qualities an effective mentor must have;
mentors must be: communicative, accountable, and trustworthy; they should maintain a positive,
confident, enthusiastic attitude; have experience coaching, collaborating, facilitating learning,
observing critically, as well as demonstrate a vast knowledge of pedagogy, classroom
management and working with and assessing diverse student groups (CCSESA, 2016; Martin et
al., 2016; New Teacher Center, 2018). Improved mentor selection and accountability criteria is
an important area for program improvement. Although a small number of teachers expressed
dissatisfaction with the quality of mentorship received, making changes to ensure the most
effective mentors are selected as well as embedding accountability measures for mentors can
help guarantee high-quality mentorship is being delivered to all candidates.
As research suggests, support for beginning teachers should be comprehensive (Kang &
Berliner, 2012; Ronfeldt & McQueen, 2017). It should encompass strong mentorship, reflective
practices, the chance for multiple observation opportunities, as well as various means to address
the specific environmental factors or challenges faced in different teaching contexts. It is
imperative that induction program design includes flexible access to a variety of structured
supports. Each teacher should be able to utilize a combination of program components that best
addresses their strengths, growths, and challenges in their unique teaching environment. With
126

this knowledge, there are multiple recommendations that may help improve current program
offerings.
Recommendations For Practice
There are several recommendations for practice that became apparent through the
analysis of data and application to the theoretical framework. This section will discuss possible
change ideas that, if implemented, could improve program offerings to allow for a differentiated
induction experience with highly-effective mentorship for all candidates. Although this study
was not generalizable and had a limited scope of one county office of education, some of these
recommendations may be applicable to other programs with a similar structure within the state of
California. Further, if future studies triangulate findings, recommendations may be considered in
future policy decisions relating to induction program and beginning teacher support.
Recommendation 1: Provide Autonomy to Individualize Induction
The current induction format should be updated to embed additional opportunities for
autonomy or choice in program component selection for teacher candidates within the program.
Different subgroups of teachers may encounter unique challenges due to a combination of their
strengths and areas for growth in their professional practice as well as the specific environmental
factors they encounter in their teaching context. Further, data from the study indicated that
teachers found some supports highly impactful, where other supports were not. Embedding
autonomy within the program format would allow teachers to utilize the program components
they deem as most highly impactful. This would allow teachers to select a combination of
structured supports that focus on the specific challenges being faced in their context while
improving identified areas of growth and accelerating effectiveness. Further, autonomy would
127

provide a differentiated experience, individualizing induction while improving equity and access
to the components teachers working in hard-to-staff schools deem as most impactful.
One specific framework to embed more autonomy would be the use of an Induction
Choice Board. A Choice Board is a type of graphic organizer that provides autonomy in learning
options to meet a stated goal. With the Induction Choice Board, the induction model would still
be delivered through the mentor and offer the effective current supports, however, it would
outline program requirements and visually display all of the program choices available to meet
the stated requirements. Working with an assigned mentor, candidates would have the
opportunity to select components that best support their individual needs. Each component
offered would have a focus of improving high-leverage practices based on the specific teaching
context and take into account individual strengths and growths. This would also promote equity
amongst teachers who work in harder-to-staff schools because it would provide access to a
unique set of supports for each teacher to be successful in their context. Figure 14 provides an
example of an Induction Choice Board.
128

Figure 14
Sample Induction Choice Board
Induction Choice Board

Required to Complete
Fall
Column A - Choice Supports
Select a combination of 6
(each can be used more than once)
Column B - Professional
Growth Project
Select 1
❏ Complete “Examining Your
Teaching Context: A
Classroom, Student, and
Community Study”
❏ Complete “Challenge Survey”
❏ Complete “Professional
Growth Goal Identification”
❏ Based on the challenges you
identified and your goals,
identify your professional
growth pathway using the
supports in column A and B
❏ Weekly mentor meetings
record on meeting log
❏ Begin Choice Supports and
Presentation of Professional
Growth Project (Column A
and Column B)
❏ Mentor/mentee observation
and feedback (minimum 1 -
required)
❏ Administrator coaching
observation (minimum 1 –
required)
❏ Peer observation and debrief
(minimum 1 - required)
❏ Attend provided GCOE
Professional Development
Workshops/Webinars
(a variety of free PD will be
offered throughout the year.
Topics include:
• Beginning Teacher Seminars
• Leadership Support,
• Differentiating to Meet the
Needs of All Students,
• Equity and Access,
• Trauma-Informed Practices,
• Strategies to Maintain a
Work/Life Balance,
• Strategies to Gain Access to
Resources and Materials,
etc.)
❏ Literature/Research/ Text
Review
❏ Grade-range/ content-area/
school characteristic
collaboration meetings (four
collaborative meetings)
❏ Shadow a colleague for a day
❏ Strategy Implementation
Study
❏ Action Research/Inquiry
❏ Behavior Management
Study
❏ Professional
Development
Implementation Study
❏ Literature
Implementation Study
❏ Professional
Observation and
Collaboration Study (a
minimum of 4
observations are
required for this cycle)

Required to Complete
Spring
❏ Revise your Challenge Survey
and discuss changes with your
mentor
❏ Weekly mentor meetings
record on meeting log
❏ Complete choice supports
❏ Complete your presentation of
professional growth project
(column B)
❏ Complete “Reflection on
Professional Practices”

129

The idea behind the Induction Choice Board would be to provide teachers the
opportunity, with the support of their mentor, to deeply examine the context (school, student,
community characteristics) which they are teaching (“Examining Your Teaching Context: A
Classroom, Student, and Community Study”), identify challenges they are facing (“Challenge
Survey”), and articulate their professional strengths and areas for growth (“Professional Growth
Goal Identification”). Based on this information, the mentor and mentee would devise a plan of
action (“Professional Growth Goal Pathway”), where the candidate and mentor can work
together to select and utilize the supports that best meet their unique needs. Candidates may
select a number of choice supports (Column A) that focus on their areas of need. This may
include opportunities to: observe and debrief with colleagues; be observed and get feedback;
attend one or more specifically developed professional workshops or beginning teacher
seminars; complete a literature, research, or text review based on identified challenges, areas for
growth, or written for a specific teaching context (i.e. culturally responsive instruction for high
minority schools); attend grade-range or content-area collaboration meetings to share best
practices; or select a teacher to observe for an entire day.
Options would also be provided to demonstrate the utilization of the information learned
through the choice supports, through a professional growth project (Column B). For example,
teachers could complete one of the following to demonstrate application of their learning:
● a strategy implementation study, where the teacher implements a group of newly
learned strategies for a specific set of students
● an action research/ inquiry cycle, driven by the professional growth goal
● a behavior management study, where the teacher implements new behavior
management techniques
130

● a professional development implementation study, where the candidate enacts
newly learned skill from a professional development workshop to improve
classroom practices
● a literature implementation study, where candidates utilize research they find to
analyze impact
● a professional observation and collaboration study, where candidates have the
opportunity to observe other teachers multiple times, be observed by groups
taking part in this component, and participate in a debrief focused of best
practices
Each project would contain embedded reflection on teaching practice to ensure the opportunity
for reflection was present for each modality. Further, the program could encourage the
presentation of projects using technology to provide a database of techniques for other beginning
teachers facing similar challenges.
Mentors would continue to be the main method for program delivery, however,
conversations outside of induction work would be encouraged. Mentors should be provided a list
of topics to review and discuss as needed, but meetings and support should be focused around
the challenges the mentee is encountering as well as appropriate supports needed to be successful
in the context of the mentee’s practice. Although Figure 14 is just a sample, it outlines one way
to provide choice in the support being extended to beginning teachers. For example, if a teacher
was working in a school with a high percentage of English language learners, and differentiating
for the lower levels of language acquisition was a challenge, the mentor and mentee could focus
weekly meetings on ways to differentiate for this particular population of students and
supporting the mentee in implementing high-leverage practices specific to English language
131

learners that support both language and content acquisition opportunities. Further, the mentee
may want to observe several other teachers of English language learners, attend a workshop on
differentiation, and be observed multiple times by the mentor to receive feedback on the
implementation of new strategies to support the language learners. The beginning teacher may
then select a strategy implementation study to track if the newly learned strategies are supporting
language and content acquisition for these particular students.
Another teacher may identify discipline and classroom distractions as a challenge they
are encountering. In this case, the teacher may choose to complete a research review on effective
strategies to minimize disruptions, attend a classroom management webinar, participate in grade-
range collaboration meetings to gain ideas about dealing with disruptive behaviors from other
teachers, observe others for ideas and be observed for feedback when implementing newly
learned behavior management strategies. The teacher may complete a behavior management
study where they implement a combination of what they learned in the research, through the
webinar, collaboration, and observations to specifically track changes in behaviors for their most
difficult students. Further, these components would be supplemented with focused mentor
meetings regarding discipline, classroom management, and behavior outcomes for students.
Although mentors are the main method for program delivery, effective leadership and
critical feedback from the mentor were communicated as important for teachers within the cross-
sectional study. In order to increase access to relevant feedback within the Choice Board model,
the program can promote both site/district leadership and mentors in providing non-evaluative
feedback to beginning teacher candidates. California Education Code 44279.1(f) emphasizes that
work within induction should provide useful feedback to beginning teachers and mentors but not
be used for employment-related evaluations or as a condition for employment (California
132

Legislative Information, 2012). Embedding a framework for site/district leaders to provide non-
evaluative, coaching commentary in addition to mentor feedback, will possibly help improve the
perception of ineffective leadership that many teachers communicated as a challenge. Moreover,
supplementary access to feedback will support beginning teachers in developing professional
growth goals, assist in the improvement of teaching practices, and promote increased
communication between administration and beginning teachers.
Providing the flexibility to have increased access to the supports that candidates deem
impactful and that are targeted to the challenges they are facing, will make the program more
meaningful. Ultimately, would support improved retention rates because selected components
can directly address many of the reasons teachers move or leave within the profession.
Additionally, this may provide flexibility and increased opportunities for teachers working in
schools with a high number of language learners, students of color, and poverty rates to access
the components of induction they feel can best support their improvement on challenge areas and
professional practices.
Recommendation 2: Ensure High-Quality Mentorship
Both current literature and the findings in the study showed the positive impact that
effective mentors play on improved practices and career persistence decisions. However, the
cross-sectional study indicated there was a small group of candidates who were not paired with
high-quality mentors or their mentor provided minimal support outside of induction, limiting the
positive impact of mentorship. Considering the substantial impact that high-quality mentorship
can have on reduced turnover and improved professional practices, it is important to ensure that
all candidates are paired with effective mentors. Currently, the GCOE program works with a
school and/or district representative (administration, teacher on special assignment, human
133

resources staff, etc.) to assign mentorship. In order to be selected as a mentor, a teacher must
have a minimum of three full time years of teaching experience, a clear California credential, and
attend an online mentor training held by GCOE. Although there are some requirements, they are
minimal and within the selection process, there is often subjectivity in determining if a veteran
teacher will be an effective mentor. Further, aside from completing mentor logs to generally
track the time spent with candidates and providing feedback on induction work, there is limited
mentor accountability in terms of the outside support they are providing to teacher candidates.
Utilizing current research on the characteristics of effective mentorship, the GCOE program
should consider creating a rubric for the mentor selection process that outlines characteristics of
an effective mentor and also provide accountability checkpoints throughout the year to ensure
effective mentorship is being delivered. Figure 15 shares an example of a mentor selection and
accountability rubric that may be utilized to minimize subjectivity in the selection process as
well as provide accountability measures to ensure delivery of effective mentorship. The model
incorporates the qualities of an effective mentor for the selection process, provides the
opportunity for mentors to self-assess their skills and efforts, and gives mentees the chance to
provide feedback on perceived support provided by their mentor.
134

Figure 15
Sample Mentor Selection and Accountability Rubric
GCOE Induction Mentor Selection Requirements
o Three or more years of teaching experience
o Clear California Teaching Credential
o Attendance of GCOE’s Mentor Skill Building Training
o Considered “Integrating” or above on all six CSTPs as identified on the Continuum of Teaching Practice
o Able to provide mentor services to a beginning teacher as defined within the mentor standards below.

Standard 1:
Demonstrates the qualities of an
effective mentor

Standard 2:
Provides evidence-based, high-
quality supports to beginning
teacher candidates
Standard 3:
Adheres to GCOE’s Induction
program mission by following
outlined program guidelines
1.1 Mentor has a strong inter/intra
personal skills and demonstrates the
ability to communicate effectively (oral,
written) Rating:
2.1 Mentor relates work with candidate to
CSTP Continuum of Teaching Practice

Rating:
3.1 Mentor reviews and follows guidelines
as outlined on the GCOE Mentor
Memorandum of Understanding
Rating:
1.2 Mentor demonstrates the ability to
develop and maintain professional
relationships Rating:
2.2 Mentor models and encourages data-
based decision making through the use of
available data (i.e. student work,
assessment scores) Rating:
3.2 Mentor attends all required face-to-face
and virtual meetings; completes required
work review Rating:
1.3 Mentor is accessible and responsive

Rating:
2.3 Mentor demonstrates strong, clear
communication skills with all stakeholders

Rating:
3.3 Mentor provides: at minimum 1
hour/week of guidance to beginning
teacher and on-going support for the
duration of the two year program (if
applicable). Rating:
1.4 Mentor has current knowledge of
various professional practices in education
and maintains a growth mindset where the
focus is continual improvement of
practices

Rating:
2.4 Mentor assists candidate in the
development and implementation of choice
supports and projects

Rating:
3.4 Mentor assists candidate in completing
graduate-level work aligned with choice
supports and projects; mentor reviews
work in a timely fashion, provides
constructive feedback, and opportunities
for reflection as necessary
Rating:
1.5 Mentor is reflective and possesses
problem-solving skills

Rating:
2.5 Mentor provides timely, effective, non-
evaluative feedback related to identified
professional development goals and
perceived challenges
Rating:
3.5 Mentor completes required
documentation by specified deadlines (i.e.
mentor/mentee meeting logs, surveys)
Rating:
Professional standards for high-quality mentorship
135

1.6 Mentor demonstrates the ability to
provide professional guidance

Rating:
2.6 Mentor observes beginning teacher,
evaluates progress toward professional
growth goals and improvement on
perceived challenges, and suggests
research, resources and/or strategies to
improve performance Rating:

1.7 Mentor implements ideals of adult
learning theories, such as: andragogy, self-
directed/self-regulated learning, and
transformational learning when working
with adults
Rating:
2.7 Mentor supports reflective practices
through guidance implementing the plan-
teach-reflect-apply instructional cycle

Rating:

1.8 Mentor models professional and
ethical behavior. Rating:
2.8 Mentor maintains confidentiality of
candidate progress Rating:

1.9 Mentor fosters equity and inclusion
and demonstrates culturally relevant
practices

Rating:
2.9 Mentor provides the appropriate
support level and structures based on
candidate need; support includes working
with beginning teacher to move toward
integrating or above on the CSTP
Continuum of Teaching Practice
Rating:

1.10 Mentor implements common
technologies (i.e. Canvas, Google
Documents, Youtube etc.)
Rating:
2.10 Mentor is reflective on practice and
attends provided workshops to improve on
areas for growth
Rating:

Rating Scale
1 - Strongly Disagree 2 - Disagree 3 - Agree 4 - Strongly Agree
Administration Score (standard 1 only):
/40
Self-Assessment Score (all standards):
/100
Candidate Score (all standards):
/100

Note: Model adapted from Public Schools of North Carolina (n.d.), Beginning Educator Support
Team (2017), and Southern Regional Education Board: Educator Effectiveness (2018).

136

Using the set of standards, the following accountability measures would be utilized for
mentor selection and accountability.
● Accountability Measure 1 - Mentor Selection: - Administration or the district contact
responsible for mentor selection could utilize Standard 1 to improve selection of mentors.
Standard 1 outlines the qualities that a mentor must demonstrate in order to be considered
effective. These factors include the ability to communicate effectively, demonstrate
strong pedagogical skills or knowledge of education, model professional, ethical, and
inclusive behaviors, demonstrate reflective practice, and have strong technology skills.
Another consideration may be to work to diversify the mentor pool in order to provide
the opportunity for beginning teachers of color to be paired with a mentor of color,
ideally to further support teachers in minoritized groups in challenges they may
encounter. Further, selection criteria may differ slightly based on the particular context of
the district, collective bargaining groups, and pay structure for mentors.
● Accountability Measure 2 - Mentor Self-Reflection on Skills and Effort : Mentors
will self-assess skills and effort by providing a rating on standards 1 through 3. This
would allow mentors to identify areas of growth in their mentoring practice. GCOE
should provide targeted coaching to assist mentors in improving identified areas of
growth so mentors can continually improve their ability to support beginning teachers.
This accountability measure includes self-assessment on: quality and timeliness of
feedback provided, alignment of guidance to state teaching standards, communication
skills and responsiveness, and the ability to support the mentee in their identified areas of
growth.
137

● Accountability Measure 3 - Mentee Assessment of Mentor Effectiveness: Mentees
would assess perceived effectiveness of assigned mentor’s skills and effort by providing a
rating on standards 1 through 3. This measure includes assessment on the qualities of an
effective mentor (defined in the mentor selection criteria) as well as components from the
mentor self-assessment.
In order to make these measurable, ratings would be on a defined scale. GCOE could utilize
survey technology to collect and disaggregate data regarding mentor accountability. Further,
accountability measures would be completed by the school or district staff responsible for
mentor pairing at the start of the year (selection process). Environmental factors that are unique
to each district and school such as collective bargaining, mentor pay structure, and teacher
contract must also be considered in the creation and implementation of a criteria. Additionally,
mentors and mentees would utilize this rubric periodically during the year to aid the program
office in the creation of needed professional development and coaching opportunities for
mentors. Transparency related to mentor performance will help improve selection and
accountability, and GCOE could target coaching and professional development opportunities for
mentors.
Additionally, one area for consideration in providing increased accountability is that it
may limit the current mentor pool. Although mentors are compensated for their time, one idea
would be to increase pay or decrease the responsibilities required for mentors within
participating schools at districts. Although this would take considerable effort and policy
adjustment, it may increase the available mentor pool. The investment into developing a strong
mentor pool will help ensure all beginning teachers receive high-quality mentorship in their
beginning years.
138

Recommendations 3: Embed Technology to Increase Access to Supports
In the cross-sectional study, some candidates requested increased access to the supports
that they deem most beneficial. Embedding the use of various technology tools and making
virtual formats for all components could help support this need during and after the pandemic.
The GCOE program could design both in-person and virtual opportunities to allow candidates
increased access to all supports more readily. For example, many teachers indicated they wanted
more access to observe other colleagues. To limit the impact of student learning loss from the
teacher leaving to observe and to minimize the cost of substitutes, GCOE could purposefully
design opportunities for teachers to use technology to increase access to peer observations. For
example, different grade-level teachers could video record and upload specific practices to a
shared space. Teachers wanting increased opportunities for observations could access this
database of recorded practices to review and analyze. Videos could be sorted by grade-level,
school characteristics (i.e. urban, low-socioeconomic area, Title I school), and the specific aspect
being recorded (i.e. classroom management, formative assessments, differentiation for high
achieving students, etc.). Further, including other live opportunities (both in-person or live
virtually via online meeting applications) would increase the ability for teachers to utilize this
component of induction more frequently. A similar idea could be utilized for mentor-mentee
observations. GCOE could design opportunities for mentors to observe virtually, either live or
video recorded then debrief in-person or via online meeting technology. Professional
development or workshops could also be offered virtually (live and recorded) or in-person, with
access to downloadable materials. Mentorship could also be provided in a virtual format when
in-person, on-campus, or interdistrict mentorship is unavailable. Purposeful and thoughtful
139

design to include ingress to a virtual option for all components would increase equitable access
of both highly qualified mentors and supports beginning teachers deem as effective.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are defined as the possible shortcomings within a study that come from a
variety of sources including the chosen research design, statistical model and analysis, and other
factors that may impact the methodology, which ultimately can impact the conclusions being
drawn (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). Limitations within the study include the research
design. The study is not generalizable because of the limited scope of respondents and limited
sample size compared to the number of beginning teachers within the state of California as well
as the focus on only one county office of education. Additionally, multiple questions in the
survey are nominal and ordinal, leaving less statistical analysis options available. Although I
utilized several tools to address validity and reliability, my lack of experience leaves room for
validity and reliability issues. Further, this study took place seven months into the global
COVID-19 pandemic when many teachers had been forced to quickly change the way in which
they educate students. It caused an upheaval of the education system creating stress and new
challenges for teachers, including those being surveyed. This environmental factor could have
greatly impacted the findings in this study.
Delimitations are choices that are made by the researcher that create the limitations or
boundaries for the study; it is the decisions the researcher made to limit the work (Theofanidis &
Fountouki, 2018). Delimitations in the study include the analysis of only one induction Program
in the state of California. Although all programs in the state are aligned with the CTC Induction
Program Standards, there are inherent differences in the support available through each program.
Studying only one induction program creates a limited scope to the area in California that GCOE
140

serves. Additionally, the researcher has purposefully chosen beginning teachers to include one to
six years of teaching experience, where some national studies include one to three years of
experience. Data analysis and the process of drawing conclusions from data could also be
considered a delimitation in the study. Each researcher may interpret available data and variances
differently, or run different statistical analyses on available data leaving room for variance in
findings. Further, since there were a variety of short answer responses available to code, another
researcher might have concluded other findings based on their understanding, worldview, and
experiences.
Recommendations for Future Research
Through the process of conducting the research study and analyzing data, multiple
questions surfaced that would be suitable for future research projects. Since each induction
program is aligned to the CTC standards but is individual in nature, it would be interesting to
repeat this study with different induction programs to see if results of most impactful supports
and effect of various components on retention could be repeated. In order to further identify
ways to individualize program offerings it may prove beneficial to analyze the differences of the
impact of induction for public, private, and charter school teachers in their individual context.
Additionally, one area that was commonly reported as a challenge in this study was effectiveness
of leadership. This could be an area of focus for a future study, examining how leadership
impacts retention decisions as well as what teachers perceive as characteristics of an effective
school leader. Study results also indicated that mentors are an important aspect for new teacher
growth and development. The questions that arise from this finding are related to effective
mentorship. What are the characteristics of effective mentors? How do these characteristics or
141

qualities support beginning teachers in success? How do these qualities impact career
persistence? Determining this would help improve mentor selection and accountability.
Another area of focus for future research is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
teachers. It is important to understand how reciprocal relationships can impact each individual's
ability to persevere in the face of the challenges associated with the global pandemic. Although
there is limited research in this area, Kini (2020) suggests that there will be long-term
implications from COVID-19, including increased turnover, long-term effects on the teacher
pipeline creating decreased teacher supply, as well as lack of progress being made toward
diversifying the education field. The impact of the pandemic will be an important area to focus
future research.
Conclusion
Beginning teacher turnover is a problem of practice that we must address with urgency. It
has far reaching consequences impacting students, teachers, and districts. Further, it is an issue of
equity because it disproportionately impacts schools who serve high concentrations of
impoverished, English language learners, and students of color (Darling-Hammond et al., 2018a)
as well as educators of color, who more regularly work in hard-to-staff schools (Ingersoll, et al.,
2017b). Induction programs in the state of California were designed to accelerate beginning
teacher effectiveness and reduce beginning teacher turnover rates. Findings from this study
indicate the beginning teachers recognize some induction supports as beneficial to improving
classroom practice, however, roughly half do not feel that induction positively impacts their
career persistence decisions. Further, about 60% of respondents indicated they had a negative
perception of the program overall, citing increased workload, additional stress, program cost,
program focus, repetitive nature of program compared to credential program, or format/structure
142

of the program as reasoning for this perception. This evidence must be used to drive change - to
make beginning teacher support systems more meaningful and effective. Although there may be
overarching policies that need updating, improving induction offerings is work that can begin
immediately. Induction programming should be based on research; one that offers high-quality
and effective mentorship and flexible access to various supports beginning teachers need to be
successful in their context. Providing a differentiated, individualized experience will ensure that
teachers who are new to the profession receive the support needed to address both their areas of
growth and the challenges they encounter within their teaching context, ultimately, creating more
effective teachers who want to remain in the profession.

143

References
Albert Shanker Institute. (2015). The State of Teacher Diversity in American Education.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2426481/the-state-of-teacher-diversity.pdf
Algozzine, B., Gretes, J., Queen, A., & Cowan-Hathcock, M. (2007). Beginning Teachers’
Perceptions of Their Induction Program Experiences. The Clearing House: A Journal of
Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(3), 137–143.
https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.80.3.137-143
Allegretto, S., & Lawrence, M. (2018). The teacher penalty has hit a new high. Economic
Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/teacher-pay-gap-2018/
Bandura, A. (1978, April). The Self System in Reciprocal Determinism. American Psychologist,
344-358.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/38b8/c2961074cff6145dccefba4f4b0ac16000df.pdf.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall, Inc
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Vol.
6. Six theories of child development (pp. 1-60). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Barnes, G., Crowe, E., & Schafer, B. (2007). The Cost of Teacher Turnover in Five School
Districts: A Pilot Study. https://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NCTAF-Cost-of-
Teacher-Turnover-2007-full-report.pdf
Barth, P., Dillon, N., Hull, J., & Holland Higgins, B. (2016). Fixing the holes in the teacher
pipeline: an overview of teacher shortages. (April). https://www.nsba.org/-
/media/NSBA/File/cpe-fixing-the-holes-in-the-teacher-pipeline-report-april-
2016.pdf?la=en&hash=0C7A0EC38C6C448C0281A6AC4B0FDCD8A297D4D5
144

Beginning Educator Support Team. (2017). Washington State Standards for Mentoring.
https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/best/pubdocs/bestmentorstandards.pdf
Borman, G., & Dowling, N. (2008). Teacher Attrition and Retention: A Meta-Analytic and
Narrative Review of the Research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321455
Bowsher, A., Sparks, D., Mulvaney Hoyer, K., & Ralph, J. (2018). U.S. Department of
Education: Preparation and Support for Teachers in Public Schools: Reflections on the
First Year of Teaching. National Center for Education Statistics.
https://doi:10.3897/bdj.4.e7720
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). Who leaves?: Teacher
attrition and student achievement (Vol. 14022). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Bray-Clark, N., & Bates, R. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs and teacher effectiveness: Implications
for professional development. The Professional Educator, XXVI(1), 13–22.
http://www.theprofessionaleducator.org/articles/archives/fall2003.pdf#page=17
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2015). Report on New Teacher Induction.
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/commission/reports/new-teacher-induction-
2015.pdf?sfvrsn=8c80da92_0
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2016). Program Completion Surveys.
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/program-completion-surveys
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2017). Teacher Induction Program
Preconditions and Program Standards. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-
source/educator-prep/standards/teacher-induction-precon-standards-
pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=59e14eb1_2
145

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Commission Meeting (2018). Initial
Employment and Retention of New Teachers in California.
https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/commission/agendas/2018-11/2018-11-3f-
presentation.pdf?sfvrsn=2
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing: Professional Services Committee, (2010).
Update on BTSA Induction. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-
source/commission/agendas/2010-09/2010-09-2g-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0
California County Superintendents Educational Services Association (CCSESA) (2016). Best
practices in teacher and administrator induction programs. http://ccsesa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Best-Practices-in-Teacher-and-Administrator-Induction-
Programs.pdf
California Department of Education: DataQuest (n.d.).
https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
California Legislative Information. (2012). California Education Code 44279.1.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§i
onNum=44279.1
Carver-Thomas, D. (2018). Diversifying the teaching profession: How to recruit and retain
teachers of color. Learning Policy Institute.
Carver-Thomas, D. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher turnover: Why it matters and what
we can do about it. Learning Policy Institute.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/productfiles/Teacher_Turnover_REP
ORT.pdf
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How
146

teacher attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(36).
Chan, T. (2014). Effective Induction and Mentoring Programs for K-12 Teachers and Teacher
Education Faculty: Perspectives of an Operational Model. New Waves, 17(2), 45–55.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1683976959/
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting,
and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research, pp. 375–421.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., Sutcher, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2018). Teacher Shortages in
California: Status, Sources, and Potential Solutions. (September), 1–12.
https://gettingdowntofacts.com/sites/default/files/2018-09/GDTFII_Report_Darling-
Hammond.pdf
DeAngelis, K.J., Wall, A.F., & Che, J. (2013). The Impact of Preservice Preparation and Early
Career Support on Early- to Mid-Career Teachers’ Career Intentions and Decisions.
Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4): 338–355.
Education Commission of the States (2020a). Teacher Recruitment and Retention State Profiles.
https://www.ecs.org/teacher-recruitment-and-retention-state-profiles/
Education Commission of the States (2020b). Does the state require induction and mentoring for
new teachers. http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/MBQuest2rtanw?Rep=TRR1916
Ed Data: Education Data Partnership. (2020). Ed Data. https://www.ed-data.org/ Espinoza, D.,
Saunders, R., Kini, T., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Taking the long view:
State efforts to solve teacher shortages by strengthening the profession. Learning Policy
147

Institute.
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). (2018). https://www.ed.gov/essa
Fink, A,. (2013). How to conduct surveys. (5th edition). Sage Publications.
Fisher, M. H. (2011). Factors Influencing Stress, Burnout, and Retention of Secondary Teachers.
Current Issues in Education, 14(1). http://cie.asu.edu/
Freedman, S. W., & Appleman, D. (2009). “In It for the Long Haul” How Teacher Education
Can Contribute to Teacher Retention in High-Poverty, Urban Schools. Journal of
Teacher Education,60(3), 323-337. DOI:10.1177/0022487109336181
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: a construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569–582
Goldrick, L. (2009). A Teacher Development Continuum.
https://newteachercenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/BRF_ATeacherDevelopmentContinuum_TheRoleofPolicy.pdf
Goldrick, L. (2016, March). New Teacher Center: A 50-State Review of Policies on New
Educator Induction. https://newteachercenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016CompleteReportStatePolicies.pdf
Goldring, R., Taie, S., & Riddles, M. (2014). Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results From the
2012–13 Teacher Follow-up Survey (NCES 2014-077). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014077.pdf
Glazer, J. (2018). Leaving lessons: learning from the exit decisions of experienced teachers.
Teachers and Teaching, 24(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1383238
Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., & Jacobus, M.
148

(2010). Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction Final Results from a Randomized
Controlled Study. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104027/pdf/20104027.pdf
Grant, L. (2006). Persistence and Self-Efficacy: A Key to Understanding Teacher Turnover.
Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 72(2), 50–54.
http://search.proquest.com/docview/2033634159/
Gray, L., Taie, S., & O'Rear, I. (2015, April). Public School Teacher Attrition and Mobility in
the First Five Years: Results From the First Through Fifth Waves of the 2007–08
Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study. National Center for Education Statistics 2015-
337. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015337.pdf
Hanushek, E., Rivkin, S., & Schiman, J. (2016). Dynamic effects of teacher turnover on the
quality of instruction. Economics of Education Review, 55(C), 132–148.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2016.08.004
Hoy, A., & Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A
comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007
Hughes, G. (2012). Teacher Retention: Teacher Characteristics, School Characteristics,
Organizational Characteristics, and Teacher Efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research,
105(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.584922
Ingersoll, R. M. (2012). Beginning teacher induction: what the data tells us. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 93(8), 47-51.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1239&context=gse_pubs
Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2011b, September). Recruitment, Retention and the Minority Teacher
149

Shortage.
http://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/researchreport/1221_minorityteachershortagerepor
trr69septfinal.pdf
Ingersoll, R., & May, H. (2011c, September). The minority teacher shortage: Fact or fable?
https://www.gse.upenn.edu/pdf/rmi/Fact_or_Fable.pdfm
Ingersoll, R., May, H., & Collins, G. (2017a, September). Minority Teacher Recruitment,
Employment, and Retention: 1987 to 2013.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-
files/Minority_Teacher_Recruitment_REPORT.pdf
Ingersoll, R., May, H., & Collins, G. (2017b). Minority teacher recruitment, employment, and
retention: 1987 to 2013. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/496/
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & May, H. (2016). Do accountability policies push teachers out?
Educational Leadership, 73(8), 44–49.
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1561&context=gse_pubs
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., Owens, C., & Zuckerberg, A. (2017c, April). A Quarter Century of
Changes in the Elementary and Secondary Teaching Force: From 1987 to 2012.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017092.pdf
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, E., Stuckey, D., & Collins, G. (2018a). Seven Trends: The Transformation
of the Teaching Force, updated October 2018. Research Report (#RR 2018–2).
Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
Ingersoll, R., Sirinides, P., & Dougherty, P. (2018b). Leadership Matters Teachers’ Roles in
150

School Decision Making and School Performance. American Educator, Spring, 13–17.
http://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/15.%0Ahttps://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ11734
52%0Ahttp://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/15
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. M. (2004). Do Teacher Induction and Mentoring Matter?.
https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/134
Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011a). The Impact of Induction and Mentoring Programs for
Beginning Teachers: A Critical Review of the Research. Review of Educational
Research, 81(2), 201–233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323
Johnson, S. M. (2006). The Workplace Matters: Teacher Quality, Retention, and Effectiveness.
Working Paper. In National Education Association Research Department.
http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED495822
Lavigne, A. L. (2014). Beginning teachers who stay: Beliefs about students. Teaching and
Teacher Education,39, 31-43. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.12.002
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: SAGE
Kan, L. (2014). In California, Teacher Turnover Higher Than Other Public Sector Workers.
https://www.teacherpensions.org/blog/california-teacher-turnover-higher-other-public-
sector-workers
Kang, S., & Berliner, D. C., (2012) Characteristics of Teacher Induction Programs and Turnover
Rates of Beginning Teachers, The Teacher Educator, 47:4, 268-282, DOI:
10.1080/08878730.2012.707758
Kelly, S., & Northrup, L. (2015). Early Career Outcomes for the ‘‘Best and the Brightest’’:
Selectivity, Satisfaction, and Attrition in the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Survey.
American Educational Research Journal,52(4), 624-656. doi:DOI:
151

10.3102/0002831215587352
Kini, T. (2020). Covid Raising Demands and Reducing Capacity.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/covid-raising-demands-reducing-capacity-
educator-workforce
Kini, T., & Podolsky, A. (2016). Does teaching experience increase teacher effectiveness?
Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/does-teaching-
experience-increase-teacher-effectiveness-review-research
Ladd, H. (2009). Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Working Conditions: How Predictive of Policy-
Relevant Outcomes.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/33306/1001440-Teachers-
Perceptions-of-Their-Working-Conditions-How-Predictive-of-Policy-Relevant-
Outcomes-.PDF
Learning Policy Institute. (2017). The Cost of Teacher turnover.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/the-cost-of-teacher-turnover
Malloy, C. (2020). Educ 536 2U Lecture.
https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=171546
Martin, K., Buelow, S., & Hoffman, J. (2016). New teacher induction: Support that impacts
beginning middle-level educators, Middle School Journal, 47:1, 4-12, DOI:
10.1080/00940771.2016.1059725
Mathew, P., Mathew, P., & Peechattu, J. (2017). Reflective Practices: A Means To Teacher
Development. Asia Pacific Journal of Contemporary Education and Communication
Technology, ISSN(3), 2205–6181. https://apiar.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2017/02/13_APJCECT_Feb_BRR798_EDU-126-131.pdf
152

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moir, E. (2009). Accelerating Teacher Effectiveness: Lessons Learned from Two Decades of
New Teacher Induction. Phi Delta Kappan Magazine, 91(2), 14–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909100204
Moore, C. (2012). The Role of School Environment in Teacher Dissatisfaction Among U.S.
Public School Teachers. SAGE Open, 2(1), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244012438888
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2018). Facts to Know about Teacher Shortages
A Resource for Journalists.
https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Shortage_Fact_Sheet
National Center for Education Statistics: Schools and Staffing Survey Teacher Follow Up
Survey. (2010). Percentage distribution of public school teachers by stayer, mover, and
leaver status for selected teacher and school characteristics in the base year: 1994–95,
2000–01, 2004–05, and 2008–09.
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/tfs0809_021_cf1n.asp
National Center for Education Statistics: Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). (2014a). Table 2.
Number and percentage distribution of public school teacher stayers, movers, and leavers,
by selected teacher and school characteristics in the base year: 2012-13.
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/TFS1213_2014077_cf1n_002.asp
National Center for Education Statistics: Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). (2014b).
153

Number and percentage distribution of public school teachers, by stayer/mover/leaver
status, race/ethnicity, and reason for moving or leaving: 2012–13.
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/TFS1213__2016001_cf1n.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). New Findings on the Retention of Novice
Teachers From Teaching Residency Programs. In NCEE Evaluation Brief (Vol. 151).
https://doi.org/10.1145/3132847.3132886
National Center for Education Statistics: Schools and Staffing Survey Teacher Follow Up
Survey. (2005a). Percentage distribution of public school teachers by stayer, mover, and
leaver status for selected teacher and school characteristics in the base year: 1991–92,
1994–95, 2000–01, and 2004–05. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/tfs_2005_01.asp
National Center for Education Statistics: Schools and Staffing Survey Teacher Follow Up
Survey. (2005b). Percentage distribution of private school teachers by stayer, mover, and
leaver status for selected teacher and school characteristics in the base year: 1991–92,
1994–95, 2000–01, and 2004–05. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/tfs_2005_02.asp
National Center for Education Statistics: Schools and Staffing Survey. (2009a). Number and
percentage of public and private school teacher leavers who rated various factors as very
important or extremely important in their decision to leave their 2007–08 base year
school, by selected teacher and school characteristics in the base year.
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/tfs0809_027_f12n.asp
National Center for Education Statistics: Schools and Staffing Survey. (2009b). Percentage
distribution of public school teachers by stayer, mover, and leaver status for selected
teacher and school characteristics in the base year: 1994–95, 2000–01, 2004–05, and
2008–09. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/tfs0809_021_cf1n.asp
154

National Center for Education Statistics: Schools and Staffing Survey. (2009c). Percentage of
public school teacher stayers, movers, and leavers who strongly or somewhat agreed with
statements about their 2007–08 base year school: 2008–09
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/tfs0809_023_cf1n.asp
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2018). Facts to Know about Teacher Shortages: Resource
for Journalists. https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Teacher_Shortage_Fact_Sheet
National Center for Education Statistics: Teacher Follow-Up Survey Questionnaire. (2014).
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/pdf/1213/tfs-2.pdf
National Education Association. (2018). Rankings of the States 2017 and Estimates of School
Statistics 2018. https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/180413-
Rankings_And_Estimates_Report_2018.pdf
National Teacher and Principal Survey. (2015). U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ntps/pdf/1516/Teacher_Questionnaire_2015-16.pdf
New Teacher Center. (2018). Teacher Induction Program Standards.
New Teacher Center. (2016). The Big Picture: Comprehensive Systems of Teacher Induction.
https://newteachercenter.org/wp-content/uploads/the-big-picture_induction-brief.pdf
Phillips, D. C., & Orton, R. (1983). The new causal principle of cognitive learning theory:
Perspectives on bandura's "reciprocal determinism". Psychological Review, 90(2), 158.
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1290954878?accountid=14749
Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Bishop, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Solving the teacher shortage:
155

how to retain excellent educators. Learning Policy Institute.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-
files/Solving_Teacher_Shortage_Attract_Retain_Educators_REPORT.pdf
Prince, C. (2002). Attracting Well-Qualified Teachers to Struggling Schools.
https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/winter-2002/attracting-well-qualified-
teachers-struggling
Price, D., & McCallum, F. (2014). Ecological influences on teachers’ well-being and “fitness.”
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.932329
Project Implicit. (2011). https://implicit.harvard.edu
Public Schools of North Carolina: Department of Public Instruction. (n.d.).
http://www.dpi.state.nc.us/docs/educatoreffectiveness/regional/jobfairs/nc-mentor-
standards.pdf
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How Teacher Turnover Harms Student
Achievement. American Educational Research Journal 50 (1): 4–36.
doi:10.3102/0002831212463813.
http://journals.sagepub.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/doi/pdf/10.3102/0002831212463813
Ronfeldt, M., Schwartz, N., Jacob, B. (2014). Does Pre-Service Preparation Matter? Examining
an Old Question in New Ways. Teachers College Record, 116(10).
Ronfeldt, M., & McQueen, K. (2017). Does New Teacher Induction Really Improve Retention?
Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 394-410. doi:10.1177/0022487117702583
Raue, K., & Gray, L. (2015). Career Paths of Beginning Public School Teachers Results From
156

the First Through Fifth Waves of the Beginning Teacher Longitudinal Study. U.S.
Department of Education, (196), 1–36.
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Chapter 6: Just the truth. In Statistics for people who (think they) hate
statistics. (pp. 105-128). Sage.
Smithers, A., & Robinson, P. (2003). Factors Affecting Teachers’ Decisions to Leave the
Profession.
Southern Regional Education Board: Educator Effectiveness. (2018). Mentoring New Teachers.
https://www.sreb.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/mentoring_new_teachers_2.pdf?15
16727553
Sutcher, L., Darling-Hammond, L., & Carver-Thomas, D. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching?
Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the U.S. Learning Policy
Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/product-
files/A_Coming_Crisis_in_Teaching_REPORT.pdf
Sutcher, L., Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Understaffed and
underprepared: California districts report ongoing teacher shortages. Learning Policy
Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/ca-district-teacher-shortage-brief
Suckow, M. (2018). Annual Report Card on California Teacher Preparation Programs for the
Academic Year 2016-2017. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED592981.pdf
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure.
Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002202
157

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs
of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944-956.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012a). Educator Equity Profile: California.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/equitable/caeep.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2012b). Educator Equity Profile: New York.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/equitable/nyeep.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2012c). Educator Equity Profile: North Dakota.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/equitable/ndeep.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2012d). Educator Equity Profile: Pennsylvania.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/equitable/paeep.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2012e). Educator Equity Profile: Tennessee.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/equitable/tneep.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2012f). Educator Equity Profile: Texas.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/equitable/txeep.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2012g). Educator Equity Profile: Washington.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/equitable/waeep.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2016, July). The State of Diversity in the Educator Workforce.
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-diversity/state-racial-diversity-
workforce.pdf
U.S. Department of Education Office of Postsecondary Education. (2017). Teacher Shortage
Areas Nationwide Listing.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/teacheshortageareasreport2017.pdf
Williams, N., & Gillham, J. (2016). New Teacher Perceptions of Induction Programs: A Study of
158

Open-Ended Commentary. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 28(3), 218–231.
Worrell, F. Brabeck, M., Dwyer, C., Geisinger, K., Marx, R., Noell, G., and Pianta R. (2014).
Assessing and evaluating teacher preparation programs. American Psychological
Association.
Yost, D. (2006). Reflection and Self-Efficacy: Enhancing the Retention of Qualified Teachers
from a Teacher Education Perspective. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(4), 59–76.
Zhang, G., & Zeller, N. (2016). A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between teacher
preparation and teacher retention. 43(2), 73–92.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic
achievement: Theory, research, and practice. Self-Regulated Learning and Academic
Achievement: Theory, Research, and Practice., pp. xiv, 212–xiv, 212.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3618-4
159

Appendix A

160

161

162

Appendix B
Document Analysis: CTC Completer Survey

Question of Importance
RQ1: What do new
teachers feel is influencing
their intent to continue
within the profession?

*Answer includes:
factors associated with
intent to continue
RQ2: What do new
teachers perceive as the
most impactful components
of GCOE?

*Answer includes: factors
associated with induction
RQ3: How do new teachers
feel their relationship with
their mentor influenced their
intent to continue in the
profession?

*Answer includes: factors
associated with mentor
6. How helpful was your Mentor in helping you impact
students in learning regarding the following:
6a. Modeling instruction while I observed
6b. Identifying Resources 6c. Providing feedback from
observations to improve my instruction
6d. Teaching Practices 6e. Content Support
6f. Instructional Design and Planning
6g. Creating and Maintaining a Safe and Positive
Climate 6h. Using strategies to support English Learners
6i. Using strategies to support. students with disabilities
6j. Minimizing bias and using culturally responsive
pedagogy 6k. Setting and reaching Professional Learning
Goals
X

X
7. How well matched were you with your mentor?
1- not well matched 3- well matched
X
15. I would describe my relationship with my mentor as: X
163

1- not collaborative 4- collaborative
16. I would describe my mentor's skills in meeting my
needs as: 1- unable to meet needs 4- highly skilled
X
18. How strong was the collaboration between your
induction program and your site administration?
1- not strong 3- very strong
X X
19. To what extent did the following activities or
strategies have a positive impact on your teaching and
learning? (Consider your system of support: mentor,
colleagues, site/district resources, induction program
staff, etc.) 19a. Observations of colleagues and peers
19b. Consistent reflection on the practice of instruction
19c. Analysis of student data to inform planning and
instruction 19d. Development of
collaborative connections with colleagues
19e. Access to available resources
X
27. Overall, how effective was your induction program at
helping you develop the skills, habits, or tools you
needed to grow your teaching practice?
1- not effective 4- very effective
X
29. Are you planning on staying in teaching?
Yes/No
X
If you answered "No" to question 29, please answer
question 29a. If you
answered "Yes", please skip to the next question.

29a. Do you plan on staying in education as a
profession?
X
164

Appendix C
Secondary Data Analysis: GCOE End of Program Survey

Question of Importance
RQ1: What do new
teachers feel is
influencing their intent
to continue within the
profession?

*Answer includes:
factors associated with
intent to continue
RQ2: What do new
teachers perceive as the
most impactful
components of GCOE?

*Answer includes:
factors associated with
induction
RQ3: How do new
teachers feel their
relationship with their
mentor influenced their
intent to continue in the
profession?

*Answer includes:
factors associated with
mentor
How helpful was your Support Provider/Mentor/System of
Support in helping you impact students in learning regarding
the following: Very Helpful - Not Helpful
X
What amount of interaction with your Support Provider
would have been best for you? None - 10+ times
X
How much impact did participating in the following activities
have on your classroom practice? 5-High 1- Low
X
To what degree did your overall induction experience impact
your classroom practice in the following areas?
Very Well - Not At All
X
Overall, how effective was the Induction program at
developing the skills, habits, or tools you needed to grow
your teaching practice? Very Effective - Not Effective At All
X

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study utilized Bandura’s triadic model of reciprocal determinism in social cognitive theory to examine the interactions of personal, environmental, and behavioral factors that impact new teacher mobility and attrition in one county office of education in the state of California. The goal of the study was to identify the factors that beginning teachers feel influence their intent to continue within the profession, what they perceive as the most impactful components of induction, and how their relationship with their mentor affects their intent to continue within the teaching profession. A cross-sectional survey, secondary data and document analysis of previously administered surveys were utilized to answer stated research questions. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used in the analysis of quantitative data, while coding helped identify themes from open-ended responses. This study examined the challenges beginning teachers encounter and the support they receive within the induction program then applied Bandura’s reciprocal determinism to analyze their impact on career persistence decisions. Results show observing a highly recommended teacher, being partnered with a mentor, taking part in self-reflection, and being observed and receiving feedback were perceived as the most impactful supports on improved classroom practice and turnover decisions. Respondents shared critical feedback that was used in conjunction with findings to make recommendations. Recommendations include: offering additional autonomy to individualize induction, augmenting criteria for mentor selection and accountability, as well as increasing use of technology tools to create increased access to supports that candidates deem as effective for the challenges they encounter. With these meaningful changes, the induction program can ensure all beginning teachers have access to the support they need to be successful in their individual teaching context and encourage improved retention rates in the beginning years.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Beginning teachers' perceptions of effective practices used by their mentor

PDF

Mentoring new teachers of color: how induction mentors characterize their preparation and practices that support new teachers of color

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Administrators' role in supporting teachers through feedback

PDF

How can I help you? A study of onboarding and ongoing supports for new teachers

PDF

Better together: teacher attrition, burnout, and efficacy

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

The art of leadership: investigating the decision-making process of how charter school leaders utilize the arts

PDF

Factors impacting the effectiveness of mentor teachers in a national teacher residency

PDF

Factors influencing special education teacher attrition in a Hawaii school district

PDF

No teacher left behind: an examination of beginning teachers' preconceptions and attitudes about induction

PDF

Learning the language of math: supporting students who are learning English in acquiring math proficiency through language development

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

BTSA mentors: the costs and benefits to mentors and their fidelity to constructivist practice

PDF

A legacy of resilience: the experiences of African-American female attorneys: a case study

PDF

Women in information technology senior leadership: incremental progress and continuing challenges

PDF

Principal leadership influences teacher retention in schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support: an evaluation study

PDF

The teachers are breaking: personal, behavioral, and environmental influences on emotional fatigue

PDF

Using restorative practice community-building activities to meet the social-emotional needs of students

Asset Metadata

Creator O'Connor Marsano, Erin (author)

Core Title Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 04/24/2021

Defense Date 03/31/2021

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

Tag attrition,Beginning Teacher support,beginning teachers,induction,mentoring,mobility,OAI-PMH Harvest,turnover

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Jones, Sheiveh (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email eoconnormarsano@gmail.com,erinocon@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-451942

Unique identifier UC11668795

Identifier etd-OConnorMar-9522.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-451942 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-OConnorMar-9522.pdf

Dmrecord 451942

Document Type Dissertation

Rights O'Connor Marsano, Erin

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 a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA