Archived Information

More Swimming, Less Sinking

Perspectives on Teacher Induction in the U.S. and Abroad

by

Edward Britton, Senta Raizen, Lynn Paine, Mary Ann Huntley[^1]

Paper prepared for the March 6-7 meeting of the National Commission on
Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21^st^ Century

# [Table of Contents]{.underline}

**Introduction: Making Teacher Induction More Effective** 1

**Broadening the Goals of Teacher Induction** 2

Including a Subject-Specific Focus 3

Developing Basic Professional Skills 4

Balancing Assistance versus Assessment 5

**Using More Varied Induction Activities** 5

Improving Initial Teaching Conditions 5

Using a Wider Range of Activities 6

**Making the Designs and Implementation of Programs More Effective** 9

Systematic Yet Flexible Sets of Activities 9

Evaluating Program's Effectiveness 11

Providing Sufficient Resources 11

**Recommendations** 12

Appendix 1: State Examples of Teacher Induction Programs 13

Appendix 2: Summary of Induction Programs in Selected Countries 15

References 17

More Swimming, Less Sinking:

Perspectives on Teacher Induction in the U.S. and Abroad

# Introduction: Making Teacher Induction More Effective

Historically, few states, districts, and schools nationwide have had
formal or informal programs to support beginning teachers. But states
and districts are now recognizing the wastefulness of leaving new
teachers to sink or swim, because large numbers of teachers who embark
on this career sink. Just last month, the annual "Quality Counts" report
by *Education Week* reported that 23% of new teachers leave teaching
within their first three years.[^2] Further, the brightest novice
teachers, as measured by their college entrance exams, are the most
likely to leave. A major reason new teachers leave is dissatisfaction
with the job (particularly mathematics and science teachers).[^3]^,^[^4]
"Quality Counts" also reported that beginning teachers who did *not*
participate in an induction program were twice as likely to leave
teaching. This suggests that induction programs can help stem the exodus
of new teachers.

Some good news is that about 30 states now require or provide funds for
districts to offer induction experiences for new teachers.[^5]^,^[^6]
Policy makers increasingly are addressing the issue due to the
escalating pressure to retain new teachers and improve their teaching.
This undoubtedly will lead to the launching of additional teacher
induction programs. Indeed, eight states currently without any induction
program plan to implement one within the next few years, and five states
already having induction programs plan to expand them soon.[^7] The
importance of teacher induction is even being brought to the general
public's attention, for example, by major newspapers such as the
*Washington Post*.[^8]

But as teacher induction policies proliferate, districts and
universities are implementing induction programs without sufficient
resources to meet the needs**.** Only 19 states mandate that districts
offer programs to all beginning teachers, and of those, only 10 states
foot some or all of the bill.[^9] A few states put substantial resources
behind their teacher induction policies. But with most states having
*under*funded or *un*funded mandates, it is no surprise that the
majority of new U.S. teachers still are without substantial assistance.
Clearly, one goal for improving U.S. teacher induction is to reach
*every* novice teacher.

The emphasis of this paper, however, is to sketch how U.S. teacher
induction programs can be made more *effective*. We consider a program's
effectiveness by asking the following questions.

-   What are the goals of the induction program?

-   Can the program's *design* and *activities* accomplish these goals?

New teachers have more types of needs than U.S. teacher induction
programs typically address. Further, U.S. induction programs could take
advantage of a wider range of activities for delivering assistance than
they typically do. Using more substantial and varied activities requires
leaders to design their programs more systematically, yet allowing for
local flexibility.

The paper briefly explains these issues and uses examples of effective
induction programs in the U.S. and from abroad to illustrate potential
solutions to them. The U.S. is not alone in needing to increase and
improve teacher induction. Among 15 of the countries that performed well
in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), most
have no systems, or weak ones, for supporting beginning teachers.[^10]
However, through funding from the National Science Foundation, the
authors and their colleagues found a few countries where some locales
are supporting beginning teachers in innovative ways. Although we only
are at the midpoint of our three-year study, we already are seeing some
examples of induction that could be adapted to refine or supplement
current U.S. induction programs. But attention must be given to the
context of programs abroad when considering how to use them in the U.S.
Some practices may not be appropriate in the U.S., but they challenge us
to think about what we tend to ignore or leave unexamined in the U.S.,
to think "outside the box."

# Broadening the Goals of Induction

Every induction program could be deemed effective in the following
sense: New teachers face such overwhelming challenges that almost *any*
assistance is helpful. Even without an induction program, schools
usually provide orientation for new faculty, such as introducing them to
school and district personnel, resources, and procedures. And virtually
every explicit induction program addresses to some extent the personal
support of new teachers, such as handling stress and maintaining
appropriate relationships with students. Most induction programs go on
to increase novice's skill with general teaching abilities they learned
in teacher preparation, such as handling discipline problems and using
effective questioning techniques. All of these are critical, necessary
types of support.

But more effective induction efforts go beyond this kind of supportive
role.[^11] They are not limited to responding to teachers' day-to-day
crises and providing general teaching tips. They go beyond merely being
a safety net for teachers to *helping them learn* the following:

-   subject-specific issues in curriculum and instructional practices;
    and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   basic professional skills, such as learning how to communicate
    effectively with parents or evaluating students' learning and
    writing informative reports on their progress.

Not surprisingly, induction programs that address a broader range of new
teachers' needs require more time. So, more effective teacher induction
programs are likely to work with new teachers for more than just their
first year. For example, Shanghai educators regard new teachers as those
in their first three to five years. While much of the official induction
program emphasizes the first year, administrators and faculty continue
to help teachers develop in subsequent years. They do not regard the
outcome of induction to be a great teacher; they see induction as
guaranteeing basic competence and accelerating the timetable for moving
novices toward becoming master teachers.

Effective programs regard induction as a distinct but not isolated phase
in a teacher's life, taking account of what novices learned in their
teacher preparation and equipping and orienting them for professional
development over their entire career.[^12] In short, induction should be
designed as part of the continuum of a teacher's life, from preservice
through continuous inservice learning.

Including a Subject-Specific Focus

Few U.S. induction programs include a subject-specific focus, for
example, deepening new teachers' understanding of how to teach
mathematics and science. (While teachers need to command general
teaching skills, they also need specific knowledge of how to help
students learn different subjects.) This could be a particularly serious
gap for several groups of new teachers: those assigned to teach
mathematics and science when their preparation is in other subjects
(teaching out of field); middle school teachers whose preparation was in
a program for elementary school teaching; and those who enter the
profession through alternative certification routes, who may deeply
understand mathematics or science but have little specific knowledge of
how to teach it.

Even new teachers with strong content knowledge in their assigned
teaching subject and who graduated from traditional preparation programs
need assistance. Teacher preparation courses often provide only limited
understanding about teaching specific subjects, and prospective teachers
are not able to grapple with many complex aspects of mathematics and
science instruction during their limited practice teaching. At a
minimum, new teachers generally need assistance to implement high
quality instructional goals and use instructional materials
appropriately in the face of many school faculty that are neutral or
resistant toward them. For example, researchers at ten preparation
programs for mathematics and science teachers recently followed the
progress of their graduates for three years and reported the following:
"Observations of teaching practices \[of beginning teachers\] contrasted
starkly with teacher beliefs. While teachers professed student-centered
beliefs, they behaved in teacher-centered ways."[^13]

Some U.S. teacher induction programs do contain a subject-specific
component, for example, Connecticut's program (see Appendix A).[^14]
California's extensive program is slated to add a subject-specific
component with a roll-out for various subjects over the next three
school years. The Exploratorium science center in San Francisco has a
substantial induction program that augments California's induction
program in part by including a central emphasis on science content,
curriculum and instructional practices while still addressing general
induction needs.[^15]

Scheduling and balancing a program's attention to general versus
subject-specific needs require thoughtful attention and monitoring. The
Exploratorium program is finding that it is imperative to regard new
teachers' general instructional issues as legitimate concerns that must
be addressed up front. If you help novices deal with the very real
distractions of discipline problems and the like, the overwhelmed new
teachers cannot pay attention to deepening their understanding of
teaching their subject. Once the new teachers are freed from these
fundamental teaching concerns, they are more receptive to and better
able to absorb subject-specific assistance at the end of the first
induction year and throughout the second year of the program.[^16]

In Shanghai and Japan, new teachers periodically are asked to teach a
best possible lesson while being observed by many experienced
teachers.[^17] New teachers are expected to spend considerable time
becoming familiar with what mathematics is appropriate for children at
different stages of development and what instructional techniques are
most effective for helping children in a particular grade to understand
and use the relevant mathematics. The observed lesson is an opportunity
for the new teachers to show the extent of their learning about teaching
their subject. They put serious thought and effort into their
preparation of this lesson and get considerable help from mentors,
departmental colleagues, or specialists from the district.

During a long debriefing session, their many colleagues collectively but
supportively critique the novice's instructional practices and classroom
management. But, especially, they discuss in detail how best to help
children learn the mathematics and science concepts in that lesson. As
briefly described by Suzanne Wilson during the November Commission
meeting, teachers discuss "important and difficult points." They explore
key mathematics concepts and how a lack of earlier mathematics concepts
or children's naïve ideas can be barriers to learning them. It is rare
for a U.S. teacher to be observed by another teacher (let alone a whole
school department) and subsequently to discuss ways of improving
instruction in a subject. Instead, most U.S. teacher observation deals
with general instructional techniques such as maintaining discipline or
using good questioning techniques.

Developing Basic Professional Skills

Some aspects of teaching definitely are best learned on the job during
the induction period rather than in teacher preparation. More effective
programs identify these professional basic skills and proactively help
new teachers to learn how to carry them out effectively. But U.S.
induction programs generally deal with these skills only as problems
arise.

In New Zealand, Shanghai, and Switzerland, it is striking to see how
induction programs give concentrated attention to such basic skills of
teaching as how to do the following:

-   daily and long-term planning of a lesson's content, teaching
    strategies, and logistics,

-   assessing students' work, including creation and scoring of
    teacher-made tests,

-   writing informative reports to parents about their children's
    progress, and

-   communicating more generally with parents.

For example, these skills become part of the content of school-based
orientations and district-based workshops in Shanghai. Preservice
teacher education is hard-pressed to provide authentic opportunities to
learn such routine tasks, but teachers need competence in these areas
almost as soon as they begin their work. To wait for these issues to be
addressed in some inservice training or to leave it to chance that
teachers will develop the necessary skills through trial and error is,
from the perspective of Shanghai's educators, unrealistic and
irresponsible.

**Balancing Assistance versus Assessment**

An important issue in designing teacher support is whether the purpose
is solely to assist or also includes assessing new teachers. There are
U.S. examples of programs of each type that are generally well-regarded
by experts and participants (e.g., see Appendix I.)

These seemingly conflicting purposes can be accomplished in the same
program. In New Zealand, for example, department heads typically serve
as mentors of new teachers but also are the formal appraisers of their
performance. Yet, a new mathematics teacher whom we interviewed had
asked her department head (her mentor) during the first months of school
to observe her most problematic class of mathematics students. When
researchers asked whether she felt threatened about letting the
department head see this situation, she protested: "Goodness! They are
here to *help*, after all. If you don't let them see what you are
dealing with, how in the world will it make a difference where I need it
most?" In Switzerland, however, the induction programs emphasize
separation of teacher assessment and assistance. These roles are now
assigned to different, specially trained personnel, whereas they
originally had been vested in the same people. Induction programs need
to consider how assessment functions can best be handled to prevent a
damping effect on new teachers' willingness to disclose the very
problems for which they most need assistance.

Using a Greater Variety of Induction Activities

In this section, we briefly discuss initial teaching assignments. There
are some U.S. school practices that do actual harm to beginning teachers
and their students rather than support them. The rest of this section
describes a wider range of induction activities that could be used in
U.S. programs, where one-on-one mentoring is the most dominant or sole
strategy.

**Improving Initial Teaching Assignments**

The typical extent to which a U.S. induction program would attend to new
teachers' assignments would be to arrange circumstances that permit new
teachers and their induction providers to participate in induction
programs. Typically, some common periods of non-instructional time for
novices and their mentors are scheduled so that they can work together.
Determining a teacher's specific assignment (courses to teach, students
assigned, non-instructional duties, etc.) within the entire school's
needs is very complex and must be done at the school level. While states
and districts could not stipulate specific requirements for new teacher
assignments, they could provide guidelines on what is appropriate.

But schools must tackle some beliefs about school staffing that run
counter to supporting new teachers. Common practice is to assign
experienced teachers (those who have "earned" it due to seniority) the
best courses and students. As a consequence, new teachers may receive
the most difficult courses and students. Further, new teachers may be
disproportionately urged to take on such non-instructional duties as
monitoring halls and lunch rooms, or sponsoring clubs and sports after
school. Indeed, it is common practice for administrators during
interviews to all but require new teachers to take on these
extra-curricular responsibilities as an off-the-record condition of
hire. Burdening new teachers with the most demanding teaching
assignments in the school and non-curricular responsibilities is often
self-perpetuating. Veteran faculty regard this as a rite of
passage---they went through it at the beginning, so new teachers should
bear these hardships as well.

There certainly are U.S. schools that behave differently, basing new
teachers' assignments on their nascent skills and needs for development
as well as the needs of their students. And in our international study,
we are finding some locales or countries where the prevailing mindset is
to put a premium on the needs of new teachers. In these locales,
programs arrange new teacher assignments to ensure the most appropriate
teaching assignments that are possible within the particular school's
circumstances. Perhaps the strongest examples of such beliefs and
practices are found in New Zealand.

-   The national government for over 25 years has provided supplemental
    salary funds to every school with a new teacher. These funds are
    earmarked for the new teacher's support. Schools almost universally
    decide to provide new teachers with a full-time salary but only an
    80% teaching load in their first year. Further, the national
    ministry requires schools to develop a professional development
    program for the induction of the new teachers, tailored to the
    school's local circumstances and the individual new teacher's needs.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Beginning teacher coordinators, designated by schools having more
    than one new teacher, view it as their responsibility to counsel
    novices on striking an appropriate balance among successfully
    teaching, volunteering for extra-curricular responsibilities, and
    maintaining psychological well-being and a personal life. While all
    teachers should be involved in the school's extracurricular
    activities, new teachers must not forget that their first
    responsibility is to learn how to provide good instruction. This
    means saying no to other duties, if necessary.

**Using a Wider Range of Activities**

One-on-one mentoring is the most prevalent U.S. strategy for supporting
new teachers. We are observing some enhanced mentoring practices abroad.
We also are observing a greater range of induction practices. These
include, in addition to improving initial teaching assignments and
conditions: (1) organizing facilitated peer support, (2) using more
varieties of teaching observation, (3) providing science laboratory
technicians, and (4) several smaller support mechanisms.

Enhanced mentoring practices. Effective mentoring practices include:

-   selecting mentors who meet the individual's needs,

-   solid training of mentors, and

-   using multiple mentors for support.

Regarding the last suggestion, multiple providers could assist with
induction if their activities were coordinated. Also, a general culture
of support for new teachers can play a strong informal role in their
induction. This is a strong aspect of induction in some Asian
countries.[^18]^,^[^19] This feature is surfacing in our current studies
in China, Japan, New Zealand, and Switzerland. As for training, too many
mentors in the U.S. receive no or little training.

But the means of selecting mentors is as important or more so than the
training they receive. It is not uncommon in the U.S. for mentors to be
assigned in name only in order to fulfill a policy requirement and for
them to interact rarely with new teachers. Where mentors receive
supplemental pay, administrators need to avoid viewing mentor slots as a
perk to be awarded to teachers based on seniority rather than their
ability to mentor. But even in the many places where mentors are
thoughtfully selected and their efforts are substantial, the pool of
teachers considered for mentor roles is restricted to other teachers in
the school.

What if the overall quality of a school's faculty is weak or mediocre?
In the case of middle or secondary schools, what if the new science
teacher is the *only* science teacher there? In Japan and Shanghai,
school districts go to great lengths to diagnose this kind of problem
and to solve it, even to the extent of relocating a teacher from one
school for a year to be the mentor for a new teacher at another school,
or providing release days for them to visit the other school. Using the
Internet for networking mentors and novices also can help solve these
problems. With support from the National Science Foundation, the Montana
Early Career Support Program uses telecommunications to link novice
mathematics and science teachers in Montana's many small rural schools
with appropriate mentors.[^20] The National Science Teachers Association
is developing an Internet-based network for linking volunteer science
teachers to novices who request support, beginning with elementary
school teachers who seek help with science instruction.

Facilitated peer support. It is important to provide mentors, but new
teachers get other kinds of benefits from speaking with each other.
Among U.S. programs, creating occasions for new teachers to meet is a
rare but not unknown strategy.[^21] The biggest benefit is simple, but
profound. Time and again, the new teachers we interview who have
participated in peer support groups say it was absolutely crucial for
them to learn that "It's not just me." In other words, most new teachers
feel overwhelmed and inadequate. Learning that almost every new teacher
shares this experience helps them realize that their teaching
difficulties are not necessarily an indictment of their abilities or
preparation.

The most intensive use of this induction strategy is in Lucerne and
Zurich, Switzerland, where states orchestrate the establishment of
"practice groups." Groups of 5-6 new teachers from different schools are
formed and meet biweekly. Participants found that meeting with peers
from other schools made them free to be more candid about difficulties
at their own school. Experienced and highly competent teachers who are
specially trained for this role are assigned as facilitators for each
group. Meetings alternate among participants' schools. Typically these
sessions deal in depth with the basic professional skills, such as how
to communicate with parents. The new teachers decide upon their meeting
topics, although facilitators also make sure that vital topics are
covered. While the new teachers find it burdensome to regularly travel
across town to meet, many describe this induction activity as invaluable
and worth the effort.

New Zealand schools employ a variant of this strategy. Each school
appoints an "Advice and Guidance" coordinator who convenes first- and
second-year teachers biweekly on site (although often less frequently
for the second year teachers).

**More varieties of teaching observation.** Typically, experienced
teachers observe new teachers. But, in the countries we are studying, it
is more common than in the U.S. to have new teachers observe other
teachers, among these categories: (1) other new teachers, (2) mentors,
(3) teachers in the same subject or grade, and (4) teachers of other
subjects or grades.

Different kinds of benefits arise from each type of observation.
Observing peers can be part of the peer support process, although it is
important to avoid creating situations where the "blind are leading the
blind." Observing your mentor's practice can illustrate the advice they
are offering. Observing other teachers in the same subject or grade
helps increase your knowledge of how to teach similar material and
diversify the teaching practices and styles you could consider
developing. In some countries, whenever a beginning teacher is alone in
their subject area in their school, efforts sometimes are made to send
that teacher to a different school to observe a teacher with similar
classes. Also, observing teachers in other subjects helps you focus on
classroom management and similar issues without being distracted by the
subject of the lesson.

Science laboratory technicians. In New Zealand (also England and
Australia), secondary school science departments have laboratory
technicians who prepare solutions and equipment, repair apparatus, order
supplies, and more. This feature of the education system is not part of
the induction program. But the presence of technicians enables new
teachers, particularly, as well as experienced teachers to teach
hands-on science virtually every day, a chronically unfulfilled goal of
U.S. science education.

Some smaller induction activities. Programs abroad also use smaller
induction activities, such as those listed below. Undoubtedly, these
induction activities can also be found among U.S. programs.

-   creating a required reading list,

-   establishing an 18-hour district hot-line for new teachers,

-   getting new teachers involved in their subjects' professional
    associations,

-   sending them to professional conferences along with experienced
    teachers,

-   writing new-teacher handbooks,

-   gaining advice by using Internet networks,

-   conducting action-research on their own development, and

-   providing access to confidential counseling.

**Making Designs and Implementation of Programs More Effective**

Using a greater range of induction activities and involving more types
of induction providers require well-designed specification of different
roles and systematic means for coordinating the multiple activities. And
the implementation of induction programs could be improved if evaluation
of the programs' functioning and outcomes were built-in.

**Systematic Yet Flexible Sets of Activities**

Both the Japan and Shanghai induction systems illustrate how different
levels of policy actors and induction providers can work in coordinated
fashion to support new teachers. Japan's teacher induction has
well-articulated roles for different levels of the system. For example,
the national ministry operates a cruise ship which over the course of a
year takes 20% of the country's beginning teachers on a retreat.
Day-to-day support is provided by local schools, while weekly and
monthly activities are run by school districts.

Shanghai's system simultaneously relies on at least three levels---the
municipal education bureau (for all of Shanghai), districts (of
Shanghai) and individual schools. Each level has a unique function, yet
there is tight alignment among the different activities. Schools provide
intensive mentoring for new teachers, while districts offer a planned
curriculum of workshops and study groups over the new teachers' first
year that broaden the range of opportunities these teachers have. This
results in providing teachers all the benefits of close support and
assistance by mentor teachers who are most familiar with the new
teacher's school, subject area, and students.

District involvement allows teachers to view an expanded range of
excellent teaching, to connect with other novices in ways that encourage
reflection and exchange, to identify resources beyond their own school,
and to learn knowledge and skills that complement what any one mentor
teacher can provide. The district involvement avoids dependence on the
luck of the draw that so often happens in induction that involves only
mentoring. The district participation also allows the scope of learning
to be broadened without unduly raising demands on schools, some of which
are already hard pressed to do their work.

The municipal level sets policy requirements and licensing standards for
the induction of new teachers, yet it delegates much discretionary
authority to the district to determine how best to support new teachers
in its community. By having the municipal education bureau involved,
induction in Shanghai has become system-wide, not something only
available to districts with sufficient resources or visionary leaders
committed to such work. Having leadership from the top means that
districts have to take induction seriously.

Well-articulated programs must also plan on variation that is at the
heart of schooling. Shanghai's approach builds this into the policy
system. For example, the municipal level policy states that all new
teachers should have both school-based mentoring and district-level
induction training. This policy requires districts to offer 100 hours of
induction-focused support to all new teachers, but the districts are to
determine the content and form of such support. In places there is a
relatively small number of veteran teachers in the area or where the
teaching is considered only mediocre or even weak, districts compensate
in innovative ways. One district's solution has been to create district
subject matter experts who are available to help new teachers through a
weekly telephone hot line. Another district assigns each new teacher its
own district mentor, as well as the school mentor he or she is working
with. Some districts have created an extensive curriculum of district
workshops that work across and within subject areas and grade level,
while another district---a stable, high-achieving district with few new
teachers---locates most of its induction program in existing curriculum
development and teaching research efforts.

By contrast, most induction in the U.S. is delivered by personnel at the
school and, occasionally, district levels. Half of the school district
programs in the Recruiting New Teachers study involved no partners
whatsoever.[^22] The most common outside partner was teacher preparation
faculty. However, it is challenging for U.S. teacher preparation
institutions to follow up with their graduates in order to assist in
their induction. For example, many preparation programs currently do not
even keep records of where their students gain employment, let alone
interact with them. However, there are examples of U.S. institutions
working effectively with their graduates.[^23]^,^[^24] The American
Council on Education (a leading organization for higher education)
recently urged university and college presidents to "ensure that
graduates of their teacher preparation programs are supported,
monitored, and mentored."[^25]

In some other countries, teacher preparation institutions are partners
in induction programs. For example, in Taiwan, the government recently
mandated that all teacher preparation institutions provide technical
assistance and professional development to their graduates, and faculty
are developing ways of doing so, often based on using technology to help
overcome the problem that most graduates go on to teaching positions
scattered throughout the island. In Zurich, Switzerland, the institution
for elementary teacher preparation brings all its graduates who are
working in Zurich back for a three-week institute at the end of their
second year of teaching. The teachers themselves have a hand in
designing this institute, which is considered the culminating activity
in their induction period.

**Evaluating Program Effectiveness**

How can programs determine whether they are successful in meeting their
goals? It is difficult to link teacher induction activities to changes
in student achievement, but some linkage may be possible. More direct
relationships can be explored between teacher induction and changes in
teachers' beliefs and practices. But many induction programs do not put
significant effort into evaluation of their outcomes. The
Exploratorium's program for beginning science teachers is planning a
substantial study of the effects of induction activities on teachers'
content knowledge and instructional practices, as well as student
achievement, evidenced by juried inspection of samples of student work.
This research also will follow cohorts to provide direct longitudinal
data on the retention of beginning teachers. Substantial evaluation
components need to be more prevalent among U.S. induction efforts.

There also needs to be more research on U.S. teacher induction issues,
as illustrated by Fideler and Haselkorn's remarks in their recent study
of teacher induction in urban districts:

> Not enough is known about the degree to which induction is integrated
> into the teacher development continuum and how it is funded; the
> nature and scope of what schools and districts/systems *actually
> implement* \[emphasis added\] as an induction process; and whether or
> how well support providers are trained, how well their roles are
> defined, and the conditions under which they attempt to carry out
> their duties.[^26]

## Providing Sufficient Resources

Effective teacher induction will cost more than U.S. programs generally
have allocated. First, few of even the limited programs now in place
reach *every* beginning teacher. But, additional resources also will be
needed to include the program improvements discussed in this paper. It
is beyond our scope here to provide even ballpark cost estimates, but
such fiscal analysis must be done to avoid failure by broadening
policies for teacher induction without fully considering the cost of
implementing them effectively.

**Recommendations**[^27]

**1. Broaden the goals of U.S. teacher induction.**

More effective induction efforts go beyond responding to teachers'
day-to-day crises and providing general teaching tips. They also help
new teachers *learn* the following:

-   subject-specific issues in curriculum and instructional practices,
    and

-   basic professional skills, such as learning how to assess student
    work or communicate effectively with parents.

2\. Use a greater range of induction activities.

Deepen the predominant U.S. induction practice of one-on-mentoring:

-   by carefully selecting and thoroughly training the mentors, and

-   making use of school-wide support of beginning teachers.

Use sets of induction activities by adding ones that are rare in the
U.S. but common in countries placing an emphasis on teacher induction:

-   improved initial teaching assignments and conditions,

-   facilitated peer support groups, and

-   more varied observation of teaching.

3\. Implement induction activities more effectively.

Broader teaching induction programs that use more varied induction
activities and providers are most effective when:

-   Programs include evaluation of their outcomes;

-   Induction activities are systematically coordinated, and involve
    complementary participation by schools, districts and states;

-   Programs involve preservice institutions and professional
    associations;

-   Policies and programs are flexible enough to address the needs of
    individual schools and teachers; and

-   Sufficient resources are provided.

**Appendix 1: State Examples of Induction Programs--California and
Connecticut**

The induction programs in California and Connecticut are two of the most
well-regarded for incorporating many of the features of "effective"
programs discussed in this paper such as taking more than one year,
dealing carefully with assessment and assistance in the same program,
and including a subject-specific component. Like most U.S. programs,
however, they might benefit from broadening the program focus,
diversifying the induction activities employed, and investing all the
resources needed to help every new teacher address the entire range of
needs faced by novices.

**California.** Extensive programs are in place to support beginning
teachers in California. The state currently allocates \$80 million[^28]
to the state mentor teacher program, and \$72 million[^29] to its
voluntary induction program--Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
(BTSA). As of 1996, 5% of new teachers participated in BTSA, and plans
are underway to expand the program to all beginning teachers in the
state.[^30] Key elements of the BTSA program include support (from a
mentor) and individualized formative assessment (assessment for the
purpose of improving practice, not for formal teacher evaluation).
Whenever possible, support and assessment are provided by the same
person. BTSA is adding a subject-specific component with a roll-out for
various subjects over the next three school years.

During a two-year induction period each BTSA teacher and the support
provider/assessor develops, and regularly revises, an Individualized
Induction Plan (IIP) based on the novice teacher's emerging needs. An
IIP includes a beginning teacher's growth goals, specific strategies for
achieving those goals, and documentation of progress in meeting those
goals. In addition, first- and second-year teachers participate in
intensive learning activities that build on their pre-service
preparation and lead to lifelong learning.

While each BTSA program has distinct characteristics that reflect local
circumstances, state standards[^31] provide criteria for designing,
implementing, and evaluating induction programs; for instance:

-   Support providers/assessors and beginning teachers should be given
    dedicated time (e.g., release time; reduced teaching load) to work
    together;

-   Beginning teachers who are placed in challenging settings should
    receive increased support (e.g., intensive mentoring; specialized
    training); and

-   \$5,000 should be allocated for each beginning teacher---\$3,000
    from state resources and \$2,000 from local sources.

**Connecticut.** New teachers must successfully complete the state
induction program---Beginning Educator Support and Training
(BEST)---within 3 years of beginning their first teaching assignment. As
outlined in Table 1, BEST is a comprehensive program that provides
novice teachers with support and opportunities for learning (emphasized
the first year), and assessment of their teaching (emphasized the second
year).

*Table 1*. Key Features of Connecticut's Induction Program[^32]

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Year One**          | **Year Two**          | **Year Three (if      |
|                       |                       | needed)**             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ## School Support     | School Support        | **State Support**     |
|                       | (Optional)            |                       |
| by mentor or support  |                       | portfolio conferences |
| team                  | by mentor or support  | for beginning         |
|                       | team                  | teachers not meeting  |
| ## State Support      |                       | the portfolio         |
|                       | ## State Support      | standard in Year Two  |
| discipline-specific   |                       |                       |
| seminars;             | discipline-specific   | ## Assessment         |
|                       | seminars              |                       |
| state teacher         |                       | re-submission of a    |
| assessment instrument | portfolio clinics     | teaching portfolio    |
| clinics               |                       |                       |
|                       | ## Assessment         |                       |
| #                     |                       |                       |
| # Assessment Activity | submission of a       |                       |
|                       | teaching portfolio by |                       |
| only for science      | May 1                 |                       |
| teachers, science     |                       |                       |
| safety assessment     |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

BEST is the central component of the Connecticut teacher improvement
initiatives that began in 1986, which rest on tight coupling of the
state teaching standards, teacher assessment, induction, and licensure.
In addition to impacting beginning teachers, nearly 40% of the state's
experienced teachers have been trained in effective teaching practices
in order to serve as mentors and assessors of beginning teachers. The
majority of Connecticut's \$3.4 million budget for BEST is used for the
state-run mentor teacher workshops. Also, each district receives about
\$200 per new teacher from the state to pay for mentor teachers'
stipends.

**Appendix 2: Summary of Induction Programs in Selected Countries**[^33]

Table 2 summarizes the induction features that are discussed in the
paper and found in the selected countries we are visiting in our
NSF-funded study. Compared to common practice in the U.S., teacher
induction in the other countries has a broader focus, improves teachers'
initial assignments, uses a greater variety of induction activities, and
systematically coordinates induction with multiple providers.

Context is an important caveat when considering whether and how
induction programs from abroad could be useful in the U.S. Some
practices from abroad may not be appropriate in the U.S., but they
challenge us to think "outside the box," specifically, about what we
tend to ignore or leave unexamined in the U.S.

For example, it is important to know something about teacher preparation
in each country in order to understand the nature or extent of the new
teacher induction programs, so we also are studying teacher preparation
in our project. We are finding some interesting contrasts between the
U.S. and the selected countries in the preparation of mathematics and
science teachers, but discussion of these findings was outside the scope
of this paper.

To illustrate, prospective teachers in Japan and China only have *two
weeks* of practice teaching in their preparation programs, which creates
the need for induction programs that provide practical advice on
teaching, including attention to knowledge of how to teach specific
subjects. (By contrast, U.S. students participate in at least 12 weeks
of practice teaching.) Experts in Japan have made unofficial remarks
that the extensive induction program was mandated by the National
Ministry because reforms in teacher preparation were needed, but little
chance of success was envisioned for changing the country's teacher
preparation programs. So, induction programs were added to complement
teacher preparation.

Particularly in France, Japan and Switzerland, graduates from teacher
preparation have stronger mathematics or science content preparation
than U.S. graduates. In Switzerland, prospective secondary teachers take
a masters-degree equivalent in mathematics or science during their
preparation. Therefore, induction programs in these countries put no
emphasis on deepening new teachers' content knowledge.

*Table 2*. Induction Policies, Programs, and Practices in Selected
Countries

Summary of induction features used in other countries, keyed to page
where they are discussed. Features may be used in specific locales
within countries rather than nationally; e.g., study in China is limited
to the greater metropolitan area of Shanghai, and study in Switzerland
is investigating school districts of Bern, Lucerne, and Zurich. Letter E
indicates feature is extensively used in the country.

+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| **Feature of Induction**     | #     | #     | ##    | ###   | * |
|                              | ####  | ####  | ####  | ####  | * |
|                              |       |       |       |       | P |
|                              | #     | ##    | ##### | ####  | a |
|                              | ####  | ### N | # Sha | ### S | g |
|                              | Japan | ew Ze | nghai | witze | e |
|                              |       | aland |       | rland | * |
|                              |       |       |       |       | * |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| ### Broader Focus            |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| induction more than one year |       |       |       |       | 3 |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| includes subject-specific    |       |       |       |       | 4 |
| focus                        |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| includes focus on basic      |       |       |       |       | 4 |
| professional skills          |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
|                              |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| ### Improved                 |       |       |       |       |   |
| Initial Teaching Assignments |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| release time provided        |       | ##    |       |       | 6 |
|                              |       | ### E |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| assign less challenging      |       |       |       |       | 7 |
| courses/students             |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
|                              |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| ### G                        |       |       |       |       |   |
| reater Variety of Activities |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| entire department            |       |       |       |       | 4 |
| observes/critiques lessons   |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| use multiple mentors at      |       |       |       |       | 7 |
| school                       |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| substantial mentor training  |       |       |       | ##    | 8 |
|                              |       |       |       | ### E |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| use mentors from other       |       |       |       |       | 8 |
| schools, if necessary        |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| facilitated support, groups  |       |       |       | ##    | 8 |
| from different schools       |       |       |       | ### E |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| facilitated support, groups  |       | ##    |       |       | 9 |
| within school                |       | ### E |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| varied types of teaching     |       |       |       |       | 9 |
| observation                  |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| provide science laboratory   |       | ##    |       |       | 9 |
| technicians                  |       | ### E |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
|                              |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| ######### Systematic Coor    |       |       |       |       |   |
| dination, Multiple Providers |       |       |       |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| school districts provide     | ##### |       | ##### |       | 9 |
| workshops/courses            | ### E |       | ### E |       |   |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| systematic coordination of   |       |       |       |       | 1 |
| different providers          |       |       |       |       | 0 |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+
| involve teacher preparation  |       |       |       | ##### | 1 |
| institutions                 |       |       |       | ### E | 1 |
+------------------------------+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+

**References**

[^1]: Britton, Raizen and Huntley are at WestEd's National Center for
    Improving Education (NCISE) in Washington DC. Paine is at Michigan
    State University, where David Pimm, Suzanne Wilson and Dan Chazan
    also are contributing to the international research discussed in
    this paper. Michael Padilla and Joseph Riley at the University of
    Georgia shared their research in progress on induction in Japan with
    us.

[^2]: Jerald, C. D., & Boser, U. (2000). Setting policies for new
    teachers. *Education Week, 19*(18), 44-45, 47.

[^3]: Ingersoll, R. M. (1999, September). *Turnover among mathematics
    and science teachers in the U.S.* Paper prepared for the National
    Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21^st^
    Century, Washington, DC.

[^4]: Merrow, J. (1999). *Teacher shortage: False alarm?* \[Videotape\].
    NY: Learning Matters.

[^5]: National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and
    Certification (1998). *The NASDTEC manual: 1998-1999* (4^th^ ed.).
    Washington, DC: Kendall/Hunt.

[^6]: Fideler, E. F., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). *Learning the ropes: Urban
    teacher induction programs and practices in the United States*.
    Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.

[^7]: Jerald, C. D., & Boser, U. (2000). Setting policies for new
    teachers. *Education Week, 19*(18), 44-45, 47.

[^8]: Samuels, C. A. (2000, February 7). New teachers, wise mentors.
    *The Washington Post*, pp. B1, B4.

[^9]: Jerald, C. D., & Boser, U. (2000). Setting policies for new
    teachers. *Education Week, 19*(18), 44-45, 47.

[^10]: Raizen, S. A., Britton, E., Huntley, M. A., Paine, L., Chazan,
    D., Fang, Y., Pimm, D., & Wilson, S. (1999). *Middle grades
    mathematics and science teacher induction in several countries:
    Synthesis of preliminary data collection*. Washington, DC: National
    Center for Improving Science Education.

[^11]: Feiman-Nemser, S., Carver, C., Schwille, S., & Yusko, B. (1999).
    Beyond support: Taking new teachers seriously as learners. In
    Scherer, M. (Ed.), *A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new
    teachers*. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
    Curriculum Development.

[^12]: Feiman-Nemser, S. (2000). *From preparation to practice:
    Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching*
    \[Occasional Paper Series\]. NY: Bank Street College of Education.

[^13]: Simmons, P. E., Emory, A., Carter, T., Coker, T., Finnegan, B.,
    Crockett, D., Richardson,L., Yager, R., Craven, J., Tillotson, J.,
    Brunkhorst, H., Tweist, M., Hossain, K., Gallagher, J., Duggan-Haas,
    D., Parker, J., Caja, F., Alshannag, Q., McGlannery, S., Krockover,
    J., Adams, P., Spector, B., LaPorta, T., James, B., Rearden, K., &
    Labuda, K. (1999). Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom
    actions. *Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36*, 930-954.

[^14]: Bureau of Curriculum and Teacher Standards (1999). *A guide to
    the BEST program for beginning teachers*. Hartford, CT: Connecticut
    State Department of Education.

[^15]: Shore, L. S., Doherty, P. M., & Bartels, D. M. (1999). *Content,
    coaching, and acculturation: Exploratorium proposal to the National
    Science Foundation*. San Francisco: Exploratorium.

[^16]: L. S. Shore, personal communication, February 10, 2000.

[^17]: Padilla, M. J., Riley, J. P., Bryan, L., & Ikeda, H. (1999,
    March). *Induction of first-year teachers in Japan: Program
    description and a case study of two new teachers*. Paper presented
    at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in
    Science Teaching, Boston, MA.

[^18]: Moskowitz, J., & Stephens, M. (1997). *From students of teaching
    to teachers of students: Teacher induction around the Pacific Rim*.
    Washington, DC: Asia-Pacific Education Forum.

[^19]: Paine, L. (1997). Chinese teachers as mirrors of reformed
    possibilities. In W. Cummings & P. Altbach (Eds.), *The challenge of
    Eastern Asian educators: Implications for America* (pp. 65-83).
    Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

[^20]: Thoresen, C. (1997). Early career support program:
    Telecommunication mentoring for rural teachers. *Journal of Science
    Teacher Education, 8*, 283-293.

[^21]: Rogers, D. L., & Babinski, L. (1999). Breaking through isolation
    with new teacher groups. *Educational Leadership, 56*(8), 38-40.

[^22]: Fideler, E. F., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). *Learning the ropes:
    Urban teacher induction programs and practices in the United
    States*. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.

[^23]: For a description of the University of California/Santa Cruz New
    Teacher Project (SCNTP), see p. 24 of Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999.

[^24]: Ganser, T., Koskela, R., Allen, D. M., Eirich, G. T., Nerad, R.
    M., Rissmann-Joyce, S., & Sobocinski, P. (1997). A comparison of six
    Wisconsin mentoring programs for beginning teachers. *NASSP
    Bulletin*, *81*(591), 71-80.

[^25]: American Council on Education (1999). *To touch the future:
    Transforming the way teachers are taught---an action agenda for
    college and university presidents*. Washington, DC: Author.

[^26]: Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999, p. 25.

[^27]: ^B^ The authors advance these recommendations for improving U.S.
    teacher induction while fully recognizing that the Commission must
    decide whether to discuss teacher induction in its report and what
    recommendations it advocates for improving it.

[^28]: Olebe, M. Jackson, A., & Danielson, C. (1999). Investing in
    beginning teachers---the California model. *Educational Leadership,
    56*(8), 41-44.

[^29]: Jerald & Boser, 2000, p. 56.

[^30]: Fideler, E. F., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). *Learning the ropes:
    Urban teacher induction programs and practices in the United
    States*. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.

[^31]: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing & State
    Superintendent of Public Instruction (1997). *Standards of quality
    and effectiveness for beginning teacher support and assessment
    programs: A description of professional induction for beginning
    teachers*. Sacramento, CA: State of California.

[^32]: Adapted from the Bureau of Curriculum and Teacher Standards
    (1999). *A guide to the BEST program for beginning teachers*.
    Hartford, CT: Connecticut State Department of Education.

[^33]: ^C^ The National Center for Improving Science Education at WestEd
    (NCISE) and Michigan State University (MSU) are studying induction
    of mathematics and science teachers at the middle grades. At NCISE,
    Ted Britton and Senta Raizen (study co-directors) and Mary Ann
    Huntley are investigating best practices in New Zealand and
    Switzerland. MSU researchers Lynn Paine (study co-director), David
    Pimm, Suzanne Wilson, and Dan Chazan are studying teacher induction
    in France and Shanghai, China. The paper does not discuss teacher
    induction in France because data collection for France is just
    beginning. Information about Japan is drawn in part from a separate
    NSF-funded study by Michael Padilla, Joe Riley, and colleagues at
    the University of Georgia. Current studies in Japan and New Zealand
    also build upon research led in the mid-1990s by Jay Moskowitz at
    the American Institutes for Research.