Source: https://texas-cc.org/reports/report-to-the-texas-legislature
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:28:48+00:00

Document:
Teachers encounter distinct challenges in their initial years in the classroom, often struggling in isolation to develop into effective teachers who remain in the teaching profession. It is important for the success of schools, the teaching profession, and the achievement of students that beginning teachers receive support through a high- quality mentoring program.
Effective mentoring programs that are comprehensive and systemic utilize carefully selected and trained mentors as well as provide structured time for interactions focused on improving the new teacher’s content knowledge, instructional skills, and classroom management (DeAngelis, Wall, & Che 2013). Research suggests that comprehensive, multi-year mentoring programs accelerate the professional growth of first-year teachers making them more effective in a shorter amount of time, improve student learning, reduce the attrition rate of first-year teachers, and provide a positive return on investment (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).
From 2002 through 2012 the number of teachers in Texas increased by 12.9% to 329,352 (Texas Education Agency, 2014a).
Additionally, high-quality mentoring programs may indirectly reduce the cost to districts to replace teachers (Strong & Villar, 2007). In Texas, a 2000 report to the State Board for Educator Certification (Fuller, 2000) estimated the cost of replacing a teacher to be between $3,000 and $4,000. More recent estimates are as high as $8,000 (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, n.d.). By implementing high-quality mentoring programs, which reduce first-year teacher attrition rates, the cost to districts to replace teachers is inadvertently reduced as well.
In the past 25 years, the increase in the number of teachers has outpaced the increase in student population. The report cites that from 1987 to 2012 student enrollment increased by 19.4% and during the same period the teaching force increased by 46.4%. A partial explanation points to a reduction in teachers’ workloads in regard to class size, number of classes, and hours worked that have required more teachers to be hired despite student enrollment not keeping pace with the increase.
The teaching force has fewer experienced teachers. Related to the trend of a larger teaching force, the need for more teachers means that there are many more teachers in their first five years of teaching. The report cites that in 1987–88 there were approximately 84,000 beginning teachers. The number of beginning teachers increased to 239,000 by 2007–08 and even though layoffs and reductions in force occurred during the economic recession, the number of beginning teachers was still 147,000 by 2011–12.
The teaching force is less stable than in the past. While every occupation has some level of attrition, the percentage of teachers leaving the profession within the first five years of teaching has been increasing in recent decades. The report cites first-year teacher attrition in 1988–89 at 9.8% and steadily moving up to 13.1% by 2008–09: (see TX data on pg. 6).
The Texas Education Code (TEC) §21.458 allows for all beginning teachers (with two years or less experience) to be assigned a trained mentor teacher. Beginning teachers must participate in teacher orientation, which may [italics added] include specialized activities designed specifically for new teachers. Several mentoring program approaches have been implemented in Texas including the Beginning Teacher Induction and Mentoring (BTIM) grant program and the Texas Beginning Educators Support System (TxBESS).
In 2012,Texas experienced the largest number ever of teachers (35,800) leaving the Texas teaching force (TEA, 2014c) with smaller districts bearing the largest percentage of beginning teachers leaving the profession (TEA, 2014b).
The Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §153.1011 details the Beginning Teacher Induction and Mentoring (BTIM) grant program which was established to increase retention of beginning teachers. The program allowed for grant funds to be used for mentor stipends, training, and/ or release time to meet and observe beginning teachers. Through the 2010–11 school year, Texas’ public schools gained more teachers than they lost in previous years.
State funding for BTIM decreased significantly over time, ending in 2012, but in 2011–12, the loss exceeded the gain (TEA, 2014a). Beginning with the 2012–2013 school year, state resources for mentor programs as a stand-alone rider were not available or offered to school districts.
Another model, the Texas Beginning Educators Support System (TxBESS), has not been funded by the State since 2002; however, districts can obtain TxBESS at a cost through certain regional service providers. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) also recognizes the online program Performance-Based Academic Coaching Team (PACT), which provides resources, tools, chat rooms, and electronic mentors, as a support system for beginning teachers.
In an effort to understand the extent, nature, and variety of mentoring programs in Texas, the Texas 83rd Legislature (2013) enacted House Bill (HB) 2012 that required a mentoring advisory committee to be appointed by the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Speaker of the House of Representatives. With the support of TEA, the committee was charged with developing and submitting a report of recommendations for improving Texas school-district mentoring programs to the Governor and Texas Legislature by January 2015.
The eight-person Texas Teacher Mentoring Advisory Committee (MAC) first met on April 10, 2014. The Committee reviewed the expectations of HB 2012 and the current law and administrative code addressing mentoring in Texas. TEA staff and experts from the New Teacher Center presented data and research on effective mentoring practices and components that support quality, comprehensive beginning teacher programs, polices, and initiatives. The Committee also developed a scope of work for the initiative, which included an outline of the major project actions and a timeline for completion.
In the following three months, the Committee participated in a series of webinars and utilized working templates to identify mentor-related research-based practices that would serve as the foundation of recommendations in this report. The TEA and the Texas Comprehensive Center (TXCC) at SEDL staffs provided members with mentoring- related research and materials and administrative support and capacity to carry out the Committee’s responsibilities.
MAC members used online templates developed by project staff to identify research-based practices and findings as viable practices for Texas’ diverse landscape. Members also identified the policy spaces (i.e., statute, rule, or guideline) for the findings they determined important to improving mentoring practices and policies in Texas. These activities helped establish a foundation for the Committee’s second face-to-face meeting on August 7–8, 2014.
Is the recommendation feasible for Texas schools and districts?
Is the recommendation fiscally viable for Texas schools and districts?
Is the recommendation likely to improve the quality of mentoring programs in Texas schools and districts?
The stakeholders also had an opportunity to add their own comments about quality mentoring programs that were not addressed in the 12 recommendations.
A third in-person meeting was held on October 24, 2014. MAC members reviewed the results of the survey and revised the recommendations based on stakeholder feedback. One change was a reduction of the number of recommendations from 12 to 10 to consolidate redundant ideas. MAC members also discussed how to best present the report findings to the Legislature.
At the final meeting on November 18, 2014, MAC members reviewed and approved the final draft of the report. The 10 recommendations, along with supporting research, comprise the body of this report.
the Committee’s suggestion for incorporation into State statute, the Texas Education Code (TEC), Commissioner’s Rule (TAC), and/or TEA guidelines.
The beginning teacher mentee assignment should be a maximum two-year term and should begin for the mentee upon their first day of employment.
The number of beginning teachers assigned to mentors should be practical and easily handled.
Mentors and beginning teacher mentees should meet a minimum of once a week for at least 45 minutes or 12 hours a semester.
Mentors and beginning teacher mentees should have a regular release time or reduced class load to conduct classroom observations and/or participate in a supportive coaching model.
Mentors and beginning mentees should have common time to meet during the school day.
The State should develop a formula-based allotment to school districts to fund mentor programs supporting beginning teachers in their first two years in the field.
A rigorous selection process for mentors will ensure that those teachers who take on mentoring responsibilities have the background and qualities needed to support beginning teachers (Goldrick, Osta, Barlin, & Burn, 2012). Having state criteria as a suggestion for mentor selection will allow for a more uniform selection throughout the State (Potemski, 2014). A mentor in Houston, therefore, will meet similar criteria as a mentor from Lyford.
In Texas, after five years in the profession, 28.8% of beginning teachers leave the teaching force (TEA, 2014b). Feedback from the MAC stakeholders suggested that the number one reason beginning teachers leave the profession is due to “a lack of support.” Uniform criteria will also ensure that all beginning teachers have an effective and trained mentor (Goldrick et al., 2012). Mentors with the skill sets identified in this recommendation, and who have the ability to help develop those skills in mentees will help reduce the number of beginning teachers leaving the profession.
completed a mentor-training program provided by the district.
Additionally, TAC §153.1011(b)(1) states that a process for recruitment of mentor teachers be included in any mentoring program approved by the Commissioner. Thus, the recruitment process varies by the mentoring program a district chooses. Other than years of teaching experience, a record of positive student achievement, and training, neither statute nor rule specifies specific qualifications for a mentor.
The Committee recommends amending TAC §153.1011(b)(1) to include specific criteria for the recruitment and selection of mentors.
Mentor programs that offer more than one year of support provide the new teacher a positive experience early in his or her career (Potemski, 2014). Ultimately, this level of mentoring support could lead to better teacher retention rates, increased teaching effectiveness, and student achievement (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).
Evidence suggests that comprehensive, multi-year programs accelerate the professional growth of beginning teachers, reduce the rate of beginning teacher attrition, provide a positive return on investment, and improve student learning (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).
have completed a Commissioner-approved and district-approved mentor- training program.
Districts may elect to use funds to employ retired teachers or other instructional personnel who met the definition and qualifications of a mentor teacher as described in section TAC §153.1011(d).
Currently, there is nothing in statue or rule that sets a boundary on how many mentees a mentor can serve or the length of term for the mentorship relationship.
The Committee recommends amending TAC §153.1011(d) to include guidance on the term of the mentor-mentee relationship. The Committee also recommends that TEA develop guidelines with regard to the number of teachers assigned to each mentor.
In order for mentors to adequately support beginning teachers, training is critical for a successful and collaborative mentor/mentee relationship (Matlach & Potemski, 2014). Additionally, research demonstrates that training needs to be continuous, job embedded, and targeted to needs of individual teachers (Matlach & Potemski, 2014).
TEC §21.458 and TAC §153.1011 state that to become a mentor, one must complete a research-based training program approved by the Commissioner of Education and a district must provide mentor training.
training for administrators on implementing and supporting an induction and mentoring program.
Currently, TAC §153.1011(b) only requires school districts receiving funds from the Beginning Teacher Induction and Mentoring Program to provide mentor training, a program that is no longer funded. The Committee recommends that language be amended to address mentor training for all mentors.
Mentees need frequent feedback in the areas of lesson planning, lesson delivery, and classroom management (Matlach & Potemski, 2014). The contact time between mentors and mentees should be frequent, focused, and structured. The need for weekly meetings ensures a focus on helping beginning teachers enhance instructional delivery and increase student achievement (Stanulis & Floden, 2009).
complete all requirements of the school district’s beginning teacher and induction and mentoring program.
The Committee recommends that language addressing minimum contact time for mentors and mentees be included in TEA guidelines supporting the implementation of TEC §21.458 and TAC §153.1011.
Development of these competencies will accelerate growth of the beginning teacher, increase instructional effectiveness, and lead to increased student achievement (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).
Additionally, both mentors and mentees should have regular release time to be able to adequately address the needs of the mentee including classroom observations and formative feedback sessions (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).
Mentors and beginning teacher mentees should have common time to meet during the school day.
More specific language addressing the scope of mentor/mentee interactions should be included in TAC §153.1011(e)(5).
The State should include language in TEC §21.458 that provides for release time for mentors and mentees.
More specific language addressing the scope of mentor/mentee interactions should be included in TAC §153.1011(b).
TEA develops a set of guidelines to support the implementation of TEC §21.458 and TAC §153.1011.
Research on effective mentoring programs indicates that when funds are specifically allocated for mentor training and mentor stipends, mentoring programs are more likely to have the intended impact on new teacher retention, improved instructional practices for beginning teachers, and improved student achievement (Matlach & Potemski, 2014).
The feedback MAC members received from stakeholders shows that they believe that the recommendations presented in this report would in fact improve the quality of mentoring but could not be implemented effectively without additional resources from the State. Feasibility and financial viability would remain a concern for the school if mentoring programs were left as a campus-based initiative only. Funding mentoring initiatives across the State demonstrates Texas’ buy-in and level of support and commitment to beginning teacher development and retention.
Many districts and schools across the State provide some form of mentoring for beginning teachers. However, Texas current statute, TEC §21.458(a), does not require school districts to provide mentors to beginning teachers. Funding for mentor programs varies widely among districts with some districts funding research-based practices, stipends, release time, and training expenses while other districts do not.
There are sections in TEC §21.458 and TAC §153.1011 that outline how districts can use BTIM funds allocated for mentoring, but do not specify that funds will be provided.
The Committee recommends that the State include language in TEC §21.458 that provides for funding for mentoring programs in Texas.
The New Teacher Center developed 10 policy criteria based on sound research andbest practices to guide states in thinking about and developing teacher induction andmentoring programs (Goldrick et al., 2012). Criterion 10 says, “The State should assessor monitor program quality through accreditation, program evaluation, surveys, sitevisits, self-reports, and other relevant tools and strategies” (Goldrick et al., 2012, p.29). Requiring districts to include an evaluation of their mentoring program wouldallow the Commissioner more in-depth information to inform future reports to theLegislature. Evaluation data provides valuable information to guide future policymakingand program improvements.
TEC §21.458(e) directs the Commissioner of Education to report to the Legislature regarding the effectiveness of school district mentoring program each year.
any other pertinent information deemed appropriate by the Commissioner.
This requirement only applies to districts that have been awarded funds through the Beginning Teacher Induction and Mentoring Program.
The Committee recommends that the State amend language in TAC 61.1023 directing districts to include an indicator to the community and engagement component evaluation tool that will address beginning teacher mentoring program design and implementation.
The Mentoring Advisory Committee is committed to having Texas lead the way in policies that support beginning teachers. The Committee recognizes that there is a great cost to districts and schools when beginning teachers do not have the support they need as they enter the profession. The financial cost of replacing teachers who leave is outweighed by the impact that teacher turnover has on student learning.
Keeping highly qualified teachers from leaving the profession should be a high priority for the State and acting on the recommendations contained in this report would be a great step forward for the teachers and students of Texas.
DeAngelis, K. J., Wall, A. F., & Che, J. (2013). The impact of preservice preparation and early career support on novice teachers’ career intentions and decisions. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 338–355.
Fuller, E. (2000). The cost of teacher turnover. Report prepared for the Texas State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC). Austin, TX: Texas Center for Educational Research.
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven trends: the transformation of the teaching force. CPRE Report (#RR-80). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
Ingersoll, R. & Strong, M. (June 2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201–233.
Potemski, A. (2014). Research and best practices on induction and mentoring programs (Technical Assistance Response). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, Center on Great Teachers and Leaders.
Stanulis, R. N., & Floden, R. E. (2009). Intensive mentoring as a way to help beginning teachers develop balanced instruction. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(2), 112–122.
Strong, M. and Villar, A.. (2007). The costs and benefits of a comprehensive induction program. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center. Retrieved from http://www.newteachercenter.org/sites/default/files/ntc/main/resources/BRF_TheCostsandBenefitsofaComprehensiveInductionProgram.pdf.

References: §21
 §153
 §153
 §153
 §153
 §153
 §21
 §153
 §153
 §21
 §153
 §153
 §21
 §153
 §21
 §153
 §21
 §21
 §153
 §21
 §21