What are best practices for induction policy that states should implement?

Induction Policy
by Liam Goldrick on Fri, 02/05/2010 - 10:00am

The state of California is often cited as a national leader in teacher induction, with required support for all first- and second-year teachers, robust funding, strong induction program standards and a well-defined state program infrastructure.

  • What is a strength and weakness in your state’s induction policy?
  • Is there a specific element that should be held up as an exemplar or as best practice for other states?

Share your ideas for policy makers to consider to create more robust state induction program support.

 

Comments

5 comments posted
Dave Orphal's picture
Submitted by Dave Orphal on Thu, 07/15/2010 - 9:38am

A combination of budget cuts and a sometimes haphazard and other times dogmatic implementation has left many newly hired California teachers seeing BTSA as bureaucratic hoops through which to be jumped rather than as a robust and informative partnership between a mentor and a beginning teacher.

In Oakland, CA, the school district has some well-trained BTSA coaches.  These are full-time coaches who are no longer in classrooms mentoring new teachers in a number of schools.  The result is a new teacher meeting with her coach sporadically and their time together being spent filling out paperwork and preparing BTSA evidence rather than having dialogs about curriculum, classroom management, and learning theory.

I think Oakland, and other districts, would do better spending their BTSA money on part-time releases for coaches at each site.  Coaches would then remain in the classroom, encountering many of the same struggles and success as their BTSA mentees.  Coaches and mentees could meet more regularly, especially if a school can organize some of the coaches release time to coincide with the new teacher's prep.  Coaches and new teachers could also eat lunch together often, forming peer-mentoring relationships and even lasting friendships.

 

Dave Orphal's picture
Submitted by Dave Orphal on Fri, 07/16/2010 - 9:53am
Interesting.....  Now that I've read the research by Fletcher and Strong in the latest edition of Reflections, my thoughts about full-time release and site-based mentors are troubled.
 
I am still convinced that site-based mentors have geographic advantages in forming lasting relationships and more frequent contact with mentees.  I wonder if my proposal for part-time released mentors may have the trouble of forcing mentor teacher to think in two separate roles: classroom teacher and mentor.  Perhaps one of these roles suffers as the mentor focuses on the other.
 
While I assumed that it was the larger case-load and travel that led OUSD BTSA mentor to form seemingly shallow relationship characterized by paperwork and bureaucracy, it may be a function of a poor mentor / BTSA teacher relationship.
 
In a perfect world, where public education is well funded, full-time mentors would work on each site working with new hires and veteran teachers whose assignments have shifted.
Liam Goldrick's picture
Submitted by Liam Goldrick on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 6:31am

I appreciate both your comments, Dave. We need stronger research into the interplay between site-based and non-site based mentors, new teachers and school context. Is there a preferable strategy in this regard? I think the jury is still out in many ways. Arguably, one can select a stronger set of mentors looking district-wide than within a given school, but is there something about proximity to school culture that makes site-based mentors more effective?

NTC will soon release a paper that looks at the interplay between induction policy and program implementation. California is one of the three states we look at closely. An obvious conclusion from the paper is that the mere existence of statewide induction policy does not guarantee the provision of high-quality induction support to all new teachers.

Hannah Hirschberg's picture
Submitted by Hannah Hirschberg on Fri, 07/02/2010 - 8:42am

Here's my question: in looking at the scale of this undertaking, how do we ensure that all new teachers are receiving the high quality support they deserve?

I am particularly skeptical as when I was a new teacher I was supposed to have a mentor who would observe my lessons and then help me think about them and also answer my practice.  However, in reality all she did was fill out forms and have me sign them, saying that she had observed me when in fact she had not. 

So, how do we hold people more accountable?

Liam Goldrick's picture
Submitted by Liam Goldrick on Fri, 09/03/2010 - 6:34am

Hannah,

 

As I mentioned in a reply to one of Dave's posts in this forum, the NTC will soon release a paper that looks at the interplay between induction policy and program implementation. California is one of the three states we look at closely. An obvious conclusion from the paper is that the mere existence of statewide induction policy does not guarantee the provision of high-quality induction support to all new teachers.

But strong state policy raises the likelihood of high-quality new teacher induction. At the policy level, we've got to do more to ensure that mentors are selected through a rigorous process, adequately trained, supported in their roles, and given adequate time and tools to make the relationship with new teachers meaningful and focused on classroom instruction. States can accomplish this, in part, through strong induction program standards, program accountability and capacity building, and adequate funding.