# Mentoring and Other Supports for Newly Hired Teachers

## Highlights

-   Forty‑six percent of TTT teachers reported they received some kind
    of support from the TTT project before they became teachers of
    record in the classroom. Thirty‑seven percent said the TTT support
    began concurrently with assuming their responsibilities as teachers.
    About 17 percent reported the project began its support some time
    after they became teachers of record.

-   Sixty‑three percent of TTT teachers reported having a mentor in
    2005--06 (the year in which they were surveyed). This is slightly
    lower than reported by teachers in the workforce. Survey
    participants could have been hired between 2002 and 2004, they may
    have had mentors in one of those beginning teaching years but not in
    the one in which they were surveyed.

-   At the three‑year mark, TTT projects reported relatively high
    one-year retention rates (87-94 percent) and a two-year rate of 74
    percent among newly hired teachers. These retention rates are
    consistent generally with the most recent studies of beginning
    teacher mobility (Smith and Ingersoll, 2004; Marvel, et al., 2006).
    They are also notable because these teachers are in the schools with
    the greatest needs. While attrition in TTT projects was reported to
    be low in a given project year, it did occur and was due to a
    variety of concerns, not all directly related to the project
    components, placement or requirements. Participants did indicate,
    when asked, that working conditions in schools would be most likely
    to cause them to consider giving up teaching.

## TTT Project Support for TTT Participants

Support, in its broadest sense, refers to the range of programmatic
means by which TTT projects offer assistance and encouragement to
participants, both before and after they attain teacher‑of‑record
status. TTT projects provide various kinds of support to participants at
each step of their journey to realize full certification. Since
participants begin teaching at different points in their project
experience, and the length of projects vary, it is helpful to be more
descriptive about this support. Forty‑six percent of TTT teachers
reported they received some kind of support from the TTT project before
they became teachers of record in the classroom. Thirty‑seven percent
said the TTT support began concurrently with assuming their
responsibilities as teachers. About 17 percent reported the project
began its support some time after they became teachers of record.

Once their participants are hired and teaching, TTT projects provide
support to newly hired teachers who are participating in the project or
by facilitating support through participating organizations. Nearly all
projects reported they offered some degree of site‑based mentoring and
62 percent offered mentoring once a week or more often. Most projects
(89 percent) provided support through organized meetings with groups of
participants, ranging in frequency from once or twice a semester (23
percent) to once or twice a month (37 percent) and once or twice a week
(24 percent). In addition, 77 percent of grantees provided supervision
to teachers, with 39 percent providing this once or twice a month. Also,
most projects (89 percent) organized workshops or classes for
participants (see Exhibit 49).

1.  Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees Reporting Frequency and Type of
    Support Offered

  ---------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  Type of Support        Once or     Once or     Once or     Almost      Not
                         Twice a     Twice a     Twice a     Daily       Provided
                         Semester    Month       Week        (Percent)   (Percent)
                         (Percent)   (Percent)   (Percent)               

  Site‑based mentoring   11          21          38          24          6

  Meetings with other    23          37          24          4           11
  participants                                                           

  Project‑provided       17          39          13          8           23
  supervisors                                                            

  Workshops/classes      30          28          30          1           11
  focused on teaching                                                    

  Other                  23          5           7           8           57
  ---------------------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

Exhibit reads: Eleven percent of FY 2002 grantees reported offering
site‑based mentoring once or twice a semester.

Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

The duration of the support offered to TTT participants varied from one
to three years; in other words, grantees provided different levels of
support to participants as they progressed toward fulfilling the
three‑year retention goal. Mentoring, the type of support most widely
provided, was offered for one year by 36 percent of grantees, two years
by 41 percent and three years by 23 percent. For both cohort meetings
and workshops or classes, similar percentages of grantees reported
offering these supports for one, two, and three years. More grantees (41
percent) provided project supervisory support in participants' first
year as teacher of record than in the second and third years of teaching
(see Exhibit 50). It is important to keep in mind that some types of
support were provided by participating organizations, others by
collaboration with the grantee, and still others by the grantee itself.

2.  Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees\
    Offering Support, by Number of Years

![](media/image1.pct)

> Exhibit reads: FY 2002 grantees provided a range of other kinds of
> support to participants: 32 percent did so for one year; 12 percent
> for two years; and 56 percent for three years.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

As has been reported, approximately 40 percent of participants indicated
that the promise of support---both during teaching and as they worked
toward teacher certification---was important in their decision to
participate in TTT. Elaborating on the types of support actually
received, high numbers of project teachers of record from all three
target groups reported experiencing beginning teacher support and
attending seminars for beginning teachers, while small percentages
reported reduced teaching schedules or reduced preparations (see Exhibit
51). Sixty‑six percent of paraprofessionals reported having common
planning time, compared to recent college graduates and midcareer
professionals at 44 percent and 41 percent respectively, and more than
half of participants across target groups reported regular supportive
communication with their school administrators. TTT projects reported a
variety of relationships with schools and districts regarding this
support. Some projects instituted mentoring programs, including the
training of mentors. Others relied on existing programs and supplemented
them with focused seminars. Supports such as reduced schedule, fewer
class preparations (for example, teaching four rather than five unique
classes in a subject), and common planning time were the purview of the
school and its administrator and may also be related to teacher
contracts.

3.  Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting\
    Types of Support Experienced During TTT Participation,\
    by Target Group

+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
|                           | Par            | Recent     | Midcareer |
|                           | aprofessionals | College    | Prof      |
|                           |                | Graduates  | essionals |
|                           | (Percent)      |            |           |
|                           |                | (Percent)  | (Percent) |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Beginning teacher support | 80             | 88         | 80        |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Reduced schedule          | 5              | 5          | 2         |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Reduced preparations      | 7              | 12         | 8         |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Common planning time      | 66             | 44         | 41        |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Seminars for beginning    | 79             | 78         | 80        |
| teachers                  |                |            |           |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Extra classroom           | 34             | 31         | 30        |
| assistance                |                |            |           |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+
| Regular communication     | 73             | 63         | 66        |
| with administrators       |                |            |           |
+---------------------------+----------------+------------+-----------+

> Exhibit reads: Eighty percent of TTT teachers who were
> paraprofessionals reported benefiting from a beginning teacher support
> program while participating in their TTT projects.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

## Mentoring in TTT Projects

A literature review by Ingersoll and Kralik (2004) notes that mentoring
is such a key component of induction programs for new teachers that the
terms have become synonymous; further, an analysis of data of the
Schools and Staffing Survey by Smith and Ingersoll (2004) suggests that
teachers' experiences with some kind of support while in their first
three years of teaching have increased greatly from 1990--2000 and that
the likelihood of teacher turnover decreases when mentoring is combined
with other supports, such as common planning time, collaboration, and
time to network. While not required to create and offer a mentorship
component, the TTT projects recognize the importance of supporting
participants in meeting this requirement and have explored a variety of
options toward meeting the needs of participants, including providing a
mentoring component and facilitating one with a participating district.

Among TTT participants, 63 percent reported having a mentor during the
year they were surveyed. By comparison, 73 percent of teachers in the
workforce who came into teaching through alternative programs and 71
percent of teachers who came through traditional routes reported having
a mentor in the year they were surveyed (see Exhibit 52). The
differences reported by TTT teachers and other groups of teachers, while
seeming substantial, may actually be due to the variation within TTT
projects as to when participants begin teaching and when and for how
long mentoring is provided through the TTT or other existing programs.
Also, the surveyed teachers for this evaluation could have been hired
and teaching at any time from 2002--04; during any one of those years, a
higher percentage may have worked with a mentor than in the year during
which they were surveyed on this support.

4.  Percentage of Teachers Reporting Having\
    a Mentor This Year\*

![](media/image2.pct)

> \*Note: "This year" refers to the survey year. For TTT teachers,
> 2005--06; for teachers surveyed by SASS, 2003--04.
>
> Exhibit reads: Seventy‑one percent of traditional route teachers in
> the workforce reported having a mentor in the 2003--04 year.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06; Schools
> and Staffing Public School Teacher Survey, 2003--04.

There was some variation in mentoring reported also according to the
type of grant recipient. For example, 70 percent of TTT teachers in
nonprofit grantees reported they had a mentor, 58 percent of TTT
teachers participating through district grantees had mentors, and
teachers of record in grantees administered by IHEs and state grantees
reported having a mentor at about the same level\
(64 percent--68 percent).

Largely, participants reported that mentoring was provided by the school
districts in which they were placed (54 percent) or the TTT project (35
percent) (see Exhibit 53). In a few projects, participants are supported
with mentors from two sources, the school district and the TTT project.
Usually, the TTT project planned for this, instituting a complementary
induction program to that existing in the district. However, sometimes,
the TTT project added seminars and other supports when participants were
not satisfied or assisted in existing mentor programs. Although the
source of support could have been confusing for them, most participants
reported they knew the source.

5.  Percentage of TTT Teachers\
    Reporting Entities Providing Mentoring

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image3.png){width="4.240277777777778in"
  height="2.5930555555555554in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Five percent of TTT teachers reported they did not know
> who provided a mentor for them.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

Participants who received mentoring support had varying degrees of
interaction with their mentors (see Exhibit 54). These reports were
consistent with what grantees reported (see Exhibit 49).

6.  Percentage of TTT Teachers Reporting\
    Frequency of Mentor Meetings

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image4.png){width="3.8152777777777778in" height="2.3375in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Thirty‑two percent of TTT teachers reported their
> mentors met with them once or twice a week.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching TTT teacher survey, 2005--06.

### Implementing Mentoring Approaches and Challenges {#implementing-mentoring-approaches-and-challenges .unnumbered}

As with other components of alternative certification programs, a
valuable literature base exists that describes the elements of
mentoring, but little scientific research indicates its effectiveness.
Per Mayer et al. (2003) and confirmed through the TTT evaluation site
visits, mentoring is the alternative certification component implemented
with the least consistency. One reason is that it can be managed in
multiple ways: participants may avail themselves of a mentoring
initiative in their home school or through the TTT sponsor, or
university partners may provide mentors. The frequency of mentoring
activity may also be "beyond the control" of an alternative
certification program. Mentors may be full‑ or part‑time; paid or
volunteer; classroom teachers, retired school personnel, or education
faculty; or may even be the project director.

In a review of program literature, features of induction programs were
identified that were commonly referenced by experts in the field,
including the use of veteran teachers and training that includes how to
work with adults, how to conduct classroom observations, how to give
feedback, and how to help teachers create professional development plans
(U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Experts agreed, according to the
review, that mentors should be compensated, and they also recommended
frequent interactions with mentees but didn't provide any benchmarks in
terms of frequency. Other kinds of support were also recommended for new
teachers. For example, assistance with assessment was considered to be a
central role for a mentor. Finally, the experts in this analysis agreed
that mentoring benefits are most likely to reach students when the
mentoring process focuses on instructional practice.

There are a number of examples illustrating the variation in mentoring
arrangements and services for participants in TTT projects that emerged
from site visits and TTT project interim reports, where project
directors listed their objectives and progress made, as well as
challenges.

The District of Columbia Public Schools project stated an objective to
"develop a mentoring capacity within DCPS" as an outgrowth of the TTT
project. DCPS and American University jointly developed a mentoring
manual that is used throughout the two‑year mentor course that prepares
mentor teachers. Still, training of mentors has proved a challenge: the
late assignment of candidates to schools (in fall rather than summer)
has delayed recruitment of school‑based mentors and resulted in their
not receiving full training until well into the school year. DCPS and
American University worked with principals in the placement schools to
ensure that mentor recruitment coincides with participant recruitment.

The University of Kansas Center for Research planned to offer "a
two‑year induction and mentoring program that supplements the curriculum
modules and strengthens the growth of these teachers." To accomplish
this objective, the project developed a triad structure for mentoring
that included an in‑house assigned mentor, a KU faculty member, and a
TTT staff member. However, consistency proved difficult: according to
the interim report, some participants reported feeling "over mentored"
while others reported that they did not receive needed support.
According to the report, plans to restructure the mentoring component
were underway.

When GRREC‑WKU participants are teachers of record, they become eligible
for a statewide mentoring program that includes a one‑hour professional
development course that is held four times during the semester and a
three‑hour content course. Participants must complete the mentoring
program to earn their permanent certificates. The GRREC project
underwrites and augments the mentoring time supported by the state
funding, and a TTT mentor continues to work with program participants
for an additional 12 semester hours after they receive their master of
arts degrees.

Because many state departments of education mandate that induction
programs be provided for first‑year teachers, some TTT grantees "hand
off" participants to local schools and districts where these programs
are to be realized. Unfortunately, both content and quality of induction
programs in schools vary dramatically. Some participants reported that
their district's programs felt more like a "checklist," whereas others
described their induction programs as simply an assigned time to learn
district policies and procedures. Because districts have some
flexibility in planning programs, some are designed to meet once a week
and others may be designed to meet once a month. Consequently, for TTT
participants enrolled in state or regional programs or in programs that
serve multiple districts, it is much more difficult to ensure that they
receive adequate amounts of support at the district and school levels.

Site visitors to the eight TTT projects found a surprising lack of
understanding in some districts about the content of preparation that is
delivered to TTT participants, such that some participants reported that
they are required to sit through the same classes, seminars, or
presentations during induction that have already been offered through
their TTT training. At several of the sites, participants also reported
that information or practices taught in their induction sessions
contradicted what was taught in their TTT training. As a result, these
participants described being torn between the philosophy of their TTT
training and that offered by the mentoring program.

## Retention Outcomes

TTT projects focus their recruitment efforts toward the hiring
exigencies of high‑need schools in high‑need districts and attempt to
retain participants in the teaching profession for three years in those
schools, attracting them with tuition reimbursements and other support
incentives. Participants receiving financial support or incentives were
asked to remain in high‑need schools in high‑need LEAs for this period;
otherwise, they were subject to forfeiting their scholarship funds.
While success relative to this objective cannot be fully determined at
this early stage, and we could not follow individual teachers tracking
their retention rates, grantees did report on their retention rates over
three project years of the grant (see Exhibit 55). One-year retention
rates were strong. Two-year rates were not affected by either size of
grantee or features such as the amount and duration of mentoring
activities offered (see Exhibit 56).

7.  Percentage of Participants Who Became Teachers\
    of Record in 2002 and 2003 and Their Retention Status,\
    by Year Entering the TTT Project (2002 and 2003)

![](media/image5.pct)

> Note: TTT projects may enroll more than one cohort of participants in
> a given project year.
>
> Exhibit reads: Ninety‑four percent of participants who entered the TTT
> project in 2002 and became teachers of record in 2002 were reported to
> still be teaching in 2003.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

8.  Percentage of Teachers Who Became Teachers of\
    Record in 2002 and Were Still Teaching in 2004 by the\
    Duration of Site‑Based Mentoring Offered by FY 2002\
    TTT Grantees

![](media/image6.pct)

> Exhibit reads: The percentage of teachers who were hired in 2002 and
> still teaching in 2004 and who received mentoring support for three
> years from the TTT project was 87 percent.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

On the APR, almost three‑quarters of grantees (72 percent) indicated
that the support they provided to participants, such as mentoring or
induction programs, enhanced participant retention. Incentives, in the
form of scholarships, stipends, or bonuses, were also important for
retention, as reported by 57 percent of grantees. Methods of
preparation, including online course work or evening classes, were
indicated as important to participant retention by 41 percent of
grantees. Few grantees indicated that features related to location---of
the school placement, including its high‑need status, or of the TTT
project itself---were among the top three methods used for retention of
participants by the project (see Exhibit 57). This was consistent with
grantees reports, noted earlier, about attractive features of their
projects, when they highlighted both incentives and support.

9.  Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees\
    Ranking Retention Methods Among Top Three Used

![](media/image7.pct)

> Exhibit reads: Seventy‑two percent of grantees ranked the teaching
> support provided through their project as one of the top three
> retention methods used.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

As has been reported, some grantees indicated there were participants
who found the high‑need school environment too demanding and, for their
part, some participants indicated they were unhappy in their schools due
to poor administration and lack of support. Still, when asked to assess
whether they agreed that the TTT projects fulfilled their expectations,
TTT teachers, regardless of target group, tended to agree and even
strongly agree, that they received the incentives expected; that the
project enabled them to obtain immediate employment; that they obtained
placement at a level and subject area they were prepared to teach; and
that they were receiving adequate support from the TTT project.

Grantees reported that participants leave the project for various
reasons ranging from school site‑specific factors (e.g., issues with
administration, students, working conditions) to conditions that may
affect the teacher workforce more broadly (e.g., concerns about salary
or advancement opportunities). Grantees also indicated that a
predominant reason given by participants was something other than
project experience or working conditions and had more to do with
personal issues. TTT teachers indicated some administrative
misassignments and lack of mentoring consistency were important reasons
for becoming disenchanted with their schools and the TTT project.
Exhibit 58 summarizes the number of times grantees cited these reasons
for participants' decisions to leave TTT and teaching.

10. Frequency with which Grantees Reported\
    Participants' Top Reasons for Not Completing Their\
    Teaching Assignments and Leaving the Project

![](media/image8.pct)

> Exhibit reads: "Administrative issues" was cited 28 times by grantees
> as a reason given by TTT participants who left the project.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.

With the incentives offered by the TTT grantees, and the relatively good
fit for level and subject assignment they are able to afford, there were
reportedly few project dropouts in a typical year. For example, for
participants who enrolled in the TTT projects in 2003 and became
teachers of record in 2003, grantees reported a total of 536
participants left between the second and third years of the project out
of a total estimated 6,700 participants. This represents 8 percent of
the total number of participants in the third project year, as reported
by the grantees. IHE grantees and local grantees reported the largest
number of "leavers" which seems proportionate to the larger number of
grantees represented in both of these categories (see Exhibit 59).

11. Percentage of FY 2002 TTT Grantees\
    Reporting Range of Participants Who Left the\
    Project After 1 Year (2003--04)

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image9.png){width="3.779861111111111in"
  height="2.5833333333333335in"}

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------

> Exhibit reads: Sixty‑six percent of FY2002 grantees reported having up
> to three participants leave who enrolled in the TTT project in 2003
> and became teachers of record in 2003 and then dropped out in 2004.
>
> Source: Transition to Teaching Annual Performance Report, 2004--05.