Policy makers are concerned about teacher shortages and the high rate of attrition among new teachers. Mentor-based induction has been shown to reduce the numbers of new teachers leaving schools or the profession. However, staying in the profession does not mean that new teachers are effective in helping students learn.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
The purpose of the project was to study how variations in new teacher support programs are related to changes in student achievement.
Research Design
Three districts that had participated in the New Teacher Center training program were asked to be a part of a study about program effectiveness. Using data collected from interviews with district officials, the programs of the districts were categorized based on the mentor/novice ratio. This ratio was selected because it has implications for mentor selection, mentor training, and contact time between mentors and new teachers. Districts also provided achievement data for students taught by new teachers in Grades 2–6.
Population/Participants/Subjects
Three school districts in California agreed to participate in the study. The number of participants in the three districts included, respectively, 17 new teachers and 424 students; 31 new teachers and 709 students; and 51 new teachers and 1,288 students.
Data Collection and Analysis
Two types of data were used for the study. First, a numerical score was created for each program based on the mentor/novice ratio. Second, achievement scores from two consecutive spring testing periods were obtained from districts for students taught by new teachers in the elementary grades. Districts were treated as separate case studies, with student achievement being in terms of student and class variables. For one district, we also compared class level achievement for teachers with different years of experience.
Conclusions/Recommendations
Mentor-based induction may have a positive effect on student achievement if the program allows for weekly contact and mentor selectivity is high.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Federation of Teachers. (2001). Beginning teacher induction: The essential bridge (AFT-13). Washington, DC: Author.
2.
BlackburnJ. (1977, April). The first-year teacher: Perceived needs, intervention strategies and results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. (ERIC Document ED 135 768)
3.
BrittonE., PaineL., PimmD., and RaizenS. (2003). Comprehensive teacher induction: Systems for early career learning. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
4.
BrownJ. G., and WambachC. (1987, February). Using mentors to increase new teacher retention: The mentor teacher induction project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Arlington, VA.
5.
Charles A. Dana Center. (2002). Texas beginning educator support system: Report for Year Three, 2001–02. Austin: University of Texas. Retrieved August 1, 2004 from State Board for Educator Certification Web site: http://www.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECOnline/txbess/evalrpt.asp
6.
ChengM., and BrownR. S. (1992). A two-year evaluation of the peer support pilot project: 1990-1992. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto Board of Education, Research Department. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 356 204).
7.
DoltonP. (1990). The economics of teacher supply: The graduate's decision. Economic Journal, 100 (Suppl.), 91—104.
8.
EberhardJ., Reinhardt-MondragonP., and StottlemyerB. (2000). Strategies for new teacher retention: Creating a climate of authentic professional development for teachers with three or less years of experience. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED450116)
9.
EhrichL. C., HansfordB., and TennentL. (2004). Formal mentoring programs in education and other professions: A review of the literature. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40, 518—540.
10.
EvertsonC. M., and SmitheyM. W. (2000). Mentoring effects on protégés’ classroom practice: An experimental field study. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 294—304.
11.
FidelerE., and HaselkornD. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction programs and practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.
12.
FullerE. (2003). Beginning teacher retention rates for TxBESS and non-TxBESS teachers. Austin, TX: State Board for Educator Certification.
13.
GoldM. (1987). Retired teachers as consultants to new teachers: A new inservice teacher training model (Final Report). Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
14.
HenkeR. R., ChenX., and GeisS. (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline: 1992–3 college graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997. Retrieved July 31, 2004, from U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2000152
15.
HornP. J., SterlingH. A., and SubjanS. (2002, February). Accountability through “best practice” induction models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New York, NY.
16.
HumphreyD. C., AdelmanN., EschC., RiehlL. M., ShieldsP. M., and TiffanyJ. (2000). Preparing and supporting new teachers: A literature review. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International
17.
IngersollR. (2000). The status of teaching as a profession. In BallantineJ., and SpadeJ. (Eds.), Schools and society: A sociological approach to education (pp.115—129). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Press.
18.
IngersollR. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499—534.
19.
IngersollR. M., and AlsalamN. (1997). Teacher professionalization and teacher commitment: A multilevel analysis, SASS. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
20.
IngersollR., and KralikJ. M. (2004). The impact of mentoring on teacher retention: What the research says (ECS Research Review). Retrieved June 30, 2004, from Educational Commission of the States Web site: http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/50/36/5036.htm
21.
IngersollR., and SmithT. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30—33.
22.
KlugB. J., and SalzmanS. A. (1991). Formal induction vs. informal mentoring: Comparative effects and outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 241—251.
23.
LankfordH., LoebS., and WyckoffJ. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37—62.
24.
LongJ. (1997). The dark side of mentoring. Australian Educational Research, 24, 115—123.
25.
ManskiC. F. (1987). Academic ability, earnings and the decision to become a teacher: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972. In and and WiseD. (Ed.), Public sector payrolls (pp. 291—312). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
26.
MurnaneR. J., SingerJ. D., and WillettJ. B. (1989). The influences of salaries and “opportunity costs” on teachers’ career choices: Evidence from North Carolina. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 325—346.
27.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2001), 20 U.S.C. §6319.
28.
OdellS. J., and FerraroD. P. (1992). Teacher mentoring and teacher retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 200—204.
29.
RobinsonG. W. (1998, October). New teacher induction: A study of selection new teacher induction models and common practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Education Research Association, Chicago, IL.
30.
SandersW., and HornB. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) database: Implications for educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247—256.
31.
SchlechtyP., and VanceV. (1981). Do academically able teachers leave education? The North Carolina case. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 105—112.
32.
SinisalcoM. T. (2002). A statistical profile of the teaching profession. Geneva, Switzerland: ILO & Paris: UNESCO.
33.
SmithT., and IngersollR. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on beginning teacher turnover?American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681—714.
34.
SpuhlerL., and ZetlerA. (1995). Montana Beginning Teacher Support Program: Final report. Helena: Montana State Board of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 390 804)
35.
StrongM. (2005a). Induction, mentoring and teacher retention: A summary of the research. The New Educator, 1, 181—198.
36.
StrongM. (2005b). Mentoring new teachers to increase retention: A look at the research (Research Brief No. 05-01). Santa Cruz: New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
37.
StrongM., and St. JohnL. (2001). A study of teacher retention: The effects of mentoring for beginning teachers (Working Paper No. 3). Santa Cruz: New Teacher Center at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
38.
VillarA., and StrongM. (2007). Is mentoring worth the money? A benefit-cost analysis and five-year rate of return of a comprehensive mentoring program for beginning teachers. ERS Spectrum, 25(3), 1—17.
39.
VokeH. (2002). Understanding and responding to the teacher shortage. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
40.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
WeissE. M., and WeissS. G. (1999). Beginning teacher induction (EDO-SP-1999-3). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
42.
WongH. K. (2004). Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and improving. NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 41—58.
