The Impact of Induction Support on Teacher Development, Teacher Retention, and the Teacher Quality Issue

In the last decade, the teacher quality issue has come to the fore as a key means of bridging the widening achievement gap, while keeping the U.S. globally competitive. Reports from organizations such as the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) place teacher quality concerns high on their agendas (NCATE, 2010; NCTQ, 2010), while state and federal mandates increasingly hold teacher education accountable for teacher quality (e.g., Bales, 2006; Higher Education Act, Title II; No Child Left Behind, 2002). In Texas, for example, in response to SB 174 (Texas Education Code 21.045), the State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) now requires four standards for educator preparation program accountability, reflecting similar discussions on the national level: * the results of certification examinations (existing), * beginning teacher performance based on an appraisal system of principal evaluations (new), * achievement, including improvement in achievement, of students taught by teachers in their first three years (new), and * compliance with SBEC rules regarding the frequency, duration, and quality of field supervision of preservice teachers (new). Few would disagree with the goal of improving the quality of teaching in the nation's schools. The conundrum lies in identifying where current problems exist within the continuum of teacher learning that can then drive teacher education policy and practice (Sykes, Bird, & Kennedy, 2010). Liston, Borko, and Whitcomb (2008) trace the problem of teacher quality to three broad positions: supply/demand, preparation, and retention. Supply/demand involves the selection of the right individuals based on intelligence and content needs; preparation concerns acquiring the knowledge and practice necessary to be effective in the classroom; and retention relates to identifying and keeping teachers with the most potential for shaping student academic achievement. But as the authors point out, the complexity of the teacher quality dilemma requires a systems approach, with policies and initiatives around supply/demand, preparation, and retention working in concert. Omitting any of the three allows deficits in one area to trump progress in another. Studies of high-performing countries such as Finland, Singapore, and Shanghai advocate a systemic model of teacher quality by attracting top candidates, preparing them through research-based masters degrees and clinical experiences, then providing significant professional development throughout their careers (Darling-Hammond, 2010; McKinsey, 2007; Tucker, 2011). Historically, teacher education has focused on two of the three--supply/demand and preparation--by establishing admissions criteria and designing programs of study and field experiences for teacher candidates. Licensure ends the traditional role of teacher education and transfers the responsibility for teachers' ongoing professional development to the employing district and school. In doing so, beginning teachers enter the field vulnerable to the culture and working conditions present in the new context. In their discussion of problems in teacher education, Sykes et al (2010) point out that "the conditions of work interact with and coproduce competence along with the knowledge and skills practitioners bring to the work setting" (p. 468). Moreover, Chapman (1984) found that the quality of graduates' first teaching position had more influence on issues of retention and attrition than did graduates' academic competence or their preparation program. The reason, Feiman-Nemser (2001) suggests, is that while teacher education programs may aspire to fully prepare candidates during the preservice phase, it is not until induction that beginning teachers have both the opportunity and ability to take on the key tasks of learning to teach. The artificial division of preservice and inservice education short-circuits the system, so that even the best preparation programs may exit graduates too soon and do too little to ensure teachers remain in the profession long enough to develop the knowledge, skills, and practices necessary to affect student learning. …