<%BANNER%>

A Content Analysis of Induction Policies in Seven Selected Florida School Districts

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041058/00001

Material Information

Title: A Content Analysis of Induction Policies in Seven Selected Florida School Districts
Physical Description: 1 online resource (131 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Asta, Laura
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: administrator, analysis, attrition, beginning, content, induction, mentee, mentor, mentoring, neophyte, new, novice, policy, support, teacher
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Florida statute 1012.05 (3) (a) states that each school board shall adopt policies relating to mentors and support for beginning teachers based upon guidelines issued by the Florida Department of Education. To date, guidelines have not been established by the Department of Education. Therefore, Induction Program Policy (IPP) has been created without specific guidelines provided by the Florida Department of Education. Induction research literature consistently identifies specific components that are included in effective induction programs. The purpose of the study was to analyze the IPP currently utilized by seven large, urban Florida public school districts and to determine if the policies were comprehensive in complying with induction literature. The variables utilized for this quantitative content analysis were developed from a comprehensive review of new teacher induction literature. These variables were used to formulate 11 research questions. Does the district IPP include: (a) a definition of induction, (b) a definition of mentoring, (c) research-based criteria for mentor selection, (d) research-based criteria for pairing mentor with mentee, (e) research-based criteria regarding mentor training, (f) research-based criteria regarding mentor roles and responsibilities, (g) research-based criteria regarding mentor support, (h) research-based criteria regarding mentor recognition, (i) research-based criteria regarding the administrator role and responsibilities, (j) research-based criteria regarding administrator training, and (k) research-based criteria regarding program evaluation. Counts (words or phrases) were coded and the frequencies and percentages of the coded words were reported as a summary of the seven school districts? IPP. The findings indicated that 2 of the 7 districts provided research-based criteria for all 11 variables studied. Only one variable, Mentor Recognition, had 100% compliance from the IPP of the selected districts. Without guidelines provided by the Florida Department of Education, the results suggest that great variability exists in what districts have chosen to include in their IPP.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Laura Asta.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Doud, James L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041058:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041058/00001

Material Information

Title: A Content Analysis of Induction Policies in Seven Selected Florida School Districts
Physical Description: 1 online resource (131 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Asta, Laura
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: administrator, analysis, attrition, beginning, content, induction, mentee, mentor, mentoring, neophyte, new, novice, policy, support, teacher
Educational Administration and Policy -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Educational Leadership thesis, Ed.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Florida statute 1012.05 (3) (a) states that each school board shall adopt policies relating to mentors and support for beginning teachers based upon guidelines issued by the Florida Department of Education. To date, guidelines have not been established by the Department of Education. Therefore, Induction Program Policy (IPP) has been created without specific guidelines provided by the Florida Department of Education. Induction research literature consistently identifies specific components that are included in effective induction programs. The purpose of the study was to analyze the IPP currently utilized by seven large, urban Florida public school districts and to determine if the policies were comprehensive in complying with induction literature. The variables utilized for this quantitative content analysis were developed from a comprehensive review of new teacher induction literature. These variables were used to formulate 11 research questions. Does the district IPP include: (a) a definition of induction, (b) a definition of mentoring, (c) research-based criteria for mentor selection, (d) research-based criteria for pairing mentor with mentee, (e) research-based criteria regarding mentor training, (f) research-based criteria regarding mentor roles and responsibilities, (g) research-based criteria regarding mentor support, (h) research-based criteria regarding mentor recognition, (i) research-based criteria regarding the administrator role and responsibilities, (j) research-based criteria regarding administrator training, and (k) research-based criteria regarding program evaluation. Counts (words or phrases) were coded and the frequencies and percentages of the coded words were reported as a summary of the seven school districts? IPP. The findings indicated that 2 of the 7 districts provided research-based criteria for all 11 variables studied. Only one variable, Mentor Recognition, had 100% compliance from the IPP of the selected districts. Without guidelines provided by the Florida Department of Education, the results suggest that great variability exists in what districts have chosen to include in their IPP.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Laura Asta.
Thesis: Thesis (Ed.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Doud, James L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0041058:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF INDUCTION POLICIES IN SEVEN SELECTED FLOR IDA SCHOOL DISTRICTS By LAURA ANN ASTA A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Laura Ann Asta

PAGE 3

3 To Rick, Jennifer, and Ricky with love

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and forem ost, I would like to thank my Heavenly Father. Through Him, all things are truly possible. It is my hope th at this study can be used to help provide the highe st quality of support for beginning teachers. I am so grateful for the blessing of my w onderful family. I truly appreciate the love and support from my husband Rick and our two children, Jennifer and Ricky. You all have been such great cheerleaders and I thank you for toughing it out when Mom retreated to her cave to work on this dissertation. I th ank my parents who have always been supportive of my educational goals. The frequent words of encouragement from my dear sister DeAnna have meant so much to me. When I decided to return to graduate school, I met my very special mentor, Dr. Doud. He has taught me so much about lead ership and about perseverance. Thank you for not giving up on me through bicycle accidents, broken bones, and numerous other bumps along this journey. I am forever a ppreciative of the countless hours that you have spent as my committee chair helping me to comp lete this study. I also wish to thank Mrs. Doud for graciously gifting me with the time that Dr. Doud dona ted for the completion of my lifelong goal. I would like to thank my committee members Dr. Crockett, Dr. Honeyman, and Dr. Quinn. I sincerely appreciate your valuable input for this study and your enthusiasm for a subject so dear to my heart.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............10 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 12Teacher Attrition ............................................................................................................. ........12Teacher Induction ............................................................................................................. ......13Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... ..14Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... .....16Research Questions ............................................................................................................ .....17Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................18Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........192 REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH ..................................................................................20Floridas Projected Teacher Shortage .....................................................................................20Induction Programs .................................................................................................................21Mentoring One Component of the Induction Process .........................................................26Mentor Selection .............................................................................................................27Pairing the Mentor and Mentee ....................................................................................... 30Mentor Training ...............................................................................................................32Self-efficacy ................................................................................................................. ...33Cognitive Coaching ......................................................................................................... 34Developmental Stages ..................................................................................................... 35Mentees .................................................................................................................... 35Mentors ..................................................................................................................... 37Adult Learning .................................................................................................................37Mentoring Relationship ................................................................................................... 39Issues of Beginning Teachers ..........................................................................................40Mentor Roles and Responsibilities .........................................................................................42Mentoring Strategies .......................................................................................................45Professional Development Plan .......................................................................................47Assistance and Assessment .............................................................................................47Mentor Support .......................................................................................................................48Mentor Recognition ............................................................................................................ ....49Administrator Roles and Responsibilities ..............................................................................49Administrator Training ...........................................................................................................52Program Evaluation ............................................................................................................ ....52New Trends .............................................................................................................................53

PAGE 6

6 Policy Matters .........................................................................................................................54Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........553 DESIGN OF THE STUDY .................................................................................................... 68Overview of the Method .........................................................................................................68Overview of the Study ............................................................................................................68Overview of Policy Analysis ..................................................................................................69Operational Framework of the Study ..................................................................................... 69Data Sources ...........................................................................................................................70Procedure ..................................................................................................................... ...........71Theory and Rationale ......................................................................................................71Conceptualizations .......................................................................................................... 72Operationalizations .......................................................................................................... 72Coding Schemes ..............................................................................................................72Sampling ...................................................................................................................... ....73Coding .............................................................................................................................73Tabulation and Reporting ................................................................................................74Summary ....................................................................................................................... ..........744 RESEARCH FINDINGS ........................................................................................................75Profile of Data Sources ....................................................................................................... ....76Methods and Rates of Retrieval ......................................................................................76Inclusion of a Definition of Induction ............................................................................. 77Inclusion of a Definition of Mentoring ........................................................................... 77Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Selection ...................................................................... 77Inclusion of Criteria for Me ntor and Mentee Pairing ...................................................... 78Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Training ....................................................................... 78Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Roles and Responsibilities ...........................................79Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Support ......................................................................... 79Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Recognition .................................................................. 80Inclusion of Criteria for Administ rator Roles and Responsibilities ................................ 80Inclusion of Criteria for Administrator Training ............................................................. 81Inclusion of Criteria for Induction Program Evaluation .................................................. 81Summary of Analysis .............................................................................................................815 CONCLUSIONS AND IM PLICATIONS ............................................................................. 92Discussion of the Findings .................................................................................................... ..92Inclusion of a Definition of Induction ............................................................................. 93Inclusion of a Definition of Mentoring ........................................................................... 93Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Selection ...................................................................... 93Inclusion of Criteria for Me ntor and Mentee Pairing ...................................................... 94Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Training ....................................................................... 95Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Roles and Responsibilities ...........................................96Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Support ......................................................................... 96

PAGE 7

7 Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Recognition .................................................................. 96Inclusion of Criteria for Administ rator Roles and Responsibilities ................................ 97Inclusion of Criteria for Administrator Training ............................................................. 97Inclusion of Criteria for Induction Program Evaluation .................................................. 98Conclusions .............................................................................................................................98Conclusion 1: All IPP Should Include a Definition of Induction and Mentoring ........... 99Conclusion 2: All IPP Should Include Rigorous Mentor Se lection Criteria ...................99Conclusion 3: All IPP Should Include Specifi c Pairing Criteria for the Mentor and Mentee........................................................................................................................100Conclusion 4: All IPP Should Include Mentor Training ............................................... 100Conclusion 5: All IPP Should Carefully Defi ne Mentor Roles and Responsibilities ... 101Conclusion 6: All IPP Should Includ e Support for Mentors Throughout the Induction Program .....................................................................................................102Conclusion 7: Districts Are Recognizing Mentors Work ............................................ 102Conclusion 8: All IPP Should Carefully Define Administrator Roles and Responsibilities ..........................................................................................................103Conclusion 9: All IPP Should Incl ude Administrator Training .................................... 103Conclusion 10: All IPP Should Include I nduction Program Evaluation Criteria ..........104Summary of Conclusions ......................................................................................................104Implications for Policymakers .............................................................................................. 105Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................110Summary ....................................................................................................................... ........113 APPENDIX A ANALYSIS OF INDUCTION POLICIES IN SEVEN FLORIDA SCHOOL DISTRICTS CODEBOOK ...................................................................................................115B ANALYSIS OF INDUCTION POLICIES IN SEVEN FLORIDA SCHOOL DISTRICTS CODING FORM .............................................................................................116C UF IRB ..................................................................................................................................118D INITIAL REQUEST FOR PUBLIC DOCUMENTS ........................................................... 119LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................121BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................131

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Research-based Criteria for Including a Definitio n of Induction and Mentoring .............. 572-2 Research-based Criteria for Mentor Selection ................................................................... 572-3 Research-based Criteria for Pairing of Mentor and Mentee ..............................................582-4 Research-based Criteria for Mentor Training .................................................................... 582-5 Research-based Criteria for Me ntor Roles and Responsibilities .......................................602-6 Research-based Criter ia for Mentor Support ..................................................................... 622-7 Research-based Criteria for Mentor Recognition .............................................................. 622-8 Research-based Criteria for Admi nistrator Roles and Responsibilities ............................. 622-9 Research-based Criteria for Administrator Training ......................................................... 642-10 Research-based Criteria fo r Induction Program Evaluation .............................................. 642-11 Research-based Induction Best Practices ...........................................................................654-1 Policy Retrieval Method for Seven Selected Florida School Districts .............................. 834-2 Inclusion of a Definition of Induction ............................................................................... 834-3 Inclusion of a Defi nition of Mentoring .............................................................................. 834-4 Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Selection ......................................................................... 844-5 Inclusion of Criteria for Pa iring of Mentor and Mentee ....................................................854-6 Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Training .......................................................................... 854-8 Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Support ........................................................................... 884-9 Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Recognition .................................................................... 884-10 Inclusion of Criteria for Admini strator Roles and Responsibilities ...................................894-11 Inclusion of Criteria fo r Administrator Training ............................................................... 904-12 Inclusion of Criteria for Induction Program Evaluation .................................................... 915-1 Summary of Research Data ............................................................................................. 114

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND TERMS Administrator The principal or assistant principal who functions as executor of the schools beginning teacher induction program. Attrition A reduction of the teaching workfo rce for reasons other than termination. Beginning teacher Any teacher during hi s or her initial year of teaching. Induction A comprehensive, structured, a nd sustained group pro cess that fosters a true learning community by continuing to provide support and training to new teachers into their tenure (Wong & Wong, 2003, p. 2). IPP Induction Program Policy Mentee A beginning teacher who is participating in a mentoring program. Other terms used as synonyms for mentee throughout the study are novice, beginning teacher, or new teacher. Mentor An experienced master teacher assigned to a beginning teacher, usually for one, two, or three years. Mentors provide support and assist beginning teachers in becoming acclimated to the school, district, and community as well as assist in the implementation of the state curriculum. Neophyte teacher A teacher with thr ee or fewer years of experience. Novice teacher Used in the study as synony mous with the term beginning teacher. Research-Based Support programs for teachers th at utilize practices c onsistently identified Induction Programs and supported by research literature rela ting to induction. Unit In a research study refers to what or whom is being studied. Variable A definable and measurable c onstruct that varies, that is, it holds different values for different individual cases or units (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 48).

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF INDUCTION POLICIES IN SEVEN SELECTED FLOR IDA SCHOOL DISTRICTS By Laura Ann Asta December 2009 Chair: James L. Doud Major: Educational Leadership Florida statute 1012.05 (3) (a) stat es that each school board sh all adopt policies relating to mentors and support for beginning teachers ba sed upon guidelines issued by the Florida Department of Education. To date, guidelines ha ve not been establishe d by the Department of Education. Therefore, Induction Program Policy (IPP) has been created without specific guidelines provided by the Florid a Department of Education. I nduction research literature consistently identifies specific components that are included in effective induction programs. The purpose of the study was to analyze the I PP currently utilized by seven large, urban Florida public school districts and to determine if the policies we re comprehensive in complying with induction literature. The va riables utilized for this quan titative content analysis were developed from a comprehensive review of new teacher induction litera ture. These variables were used to formulate 11 research questions. Do es the district IPP incl ude: (a) a definition of induction, (b) a definition of mentoring, (c) research-based criteria for mentor selection, (d) research-based criteria for pair ing mentor with mentee, (e) res earch-based criteria regarding mentor training, (f) research-bas ed criteria regarding mentor ro les and responsibilities, (g) research-based criteria regardi ng mentor support, (h) research-b ased criteria regarding mentor recognition, (i) research-based cr iteria regarding the administrato r role and responsibilities,

PAGE 11

11 (j) research-based crite ria regarding administrator training, and (k) research-based criteria regarding program evaluation. Counts (words or phrases) were coded and the frequencies and per centages of the coded words were reported as a summary of the seven sc hool districts IPP. The findings indicated that 2 of the 7 districts provided re search-based criteria for all 11 variables studied. Only one variable, Mentor Recognition, had 100% compliance from the IPP of the selected districts. Without guidelines provided by the Florida Depart ment of Education, the results suggest that great variability exists in what districts have chosen to include in their IPP.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Research sh ows that a highly qualified teacher is the single greatest factor for assuring that all students achieve at their highest level (Berry, 2004; Natio nal Commission on Teaching and Americas Future, 1996). Research by Hanushek (as cited by the New Teacher Center [NTC], 2006) quantified student gains with an estimate that teachers near the top of the quality distribution can get an entire ye ars worth of additional learning out of their students compared to those near the bottom of the distribution (p. 2). In 2002, Pr esident George Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act which reauthorized the Elemen tary and Secondary Education Act, a law first passed in 1965. This new law reflect ed a commitment to ensure that all students, regardless of their background, re ceive a quality education. A major focus of No Child Left Behind is the requirement that all teachers hired to teach core academic subjects be highly qualified. In general, a highly qua lified teacher is one with full certification, a bachelors degree, and dem onstrated competence in subject knowledge and teaching. The term core academic subjects refe rs to English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civi cs and government, economics, arts, history, and geography (U.S. Department of Education, 2005). Teacher Attrition Currently, there are not enough high quality teachers for hire in the U.S. (Frase, 1992; Kardos, Johnson, Peske, Kauffman, & Liu, 2001). Ma ny teachers will be needed over the next 10 years to fill vacancies as enrollments are expected to increase and large numbers of teachers are expected to retire. Ingersoll ( 2001) found a large number of teachers are re tiring early and 30% of the nations teaching force is over age 50 (Young, 2003). Overwhelmed fi rst-year teachers are exiting the profession in signi ficant numbers (Coppenhaver & Scha per, 1999). Researchers at the

PAGE 13

13 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) projected the number of newly hired public school teachers needed by 2008-2009 would range from 1.7 million to 2.7 million (1999a). Of these teachers, NCES (1993-1994) reported that one-half to two-thirds would be neophyte teachers (i.e., those with three or fewer years of experience). There are many efforts to overcome the existi ng teacher shortage. Al ternative certification or fast-track programs are an increasingly common way for individuals with bachelors degrees to enter the teaching professi on without specific training in education (Berry, HopkinsThompson, & Hoke, 2002; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Johnson, Birkeland, & Peske, 2005). Troops to Teachers is a national program that as sists eligible military personnel in beginning a new career as teachers in public schools. The Teach for America program attracts recent college graduates of all majors to commit to two years of teaching in public schools. Some cities such as Chicago have recruited teachers overseas (Archer, 1999; Goodnough, 2001). Teacher Induction The focus in the com ing years will not only be to increase the quantity of classroom teachers, but also to improve the quality. Indu ction programs surfaced as part of educational reform in the mid-1980s and in anticipation of impending teacher shortages. Wong & Wong (2003) defined induction as a comprehensive, structured, and sustai ned group process that fosters a true learning community by continuing to provide support and training to new teachers into their tenure (p. 2). Early research (Huli ng-Austin, 1989; Odell, 1989) suggested that good induction programs improved teacher retention and influenced teaching practices, increased teacher satisfaction, and promoted strong professional development and collegial relationships. More recent research has supported these fi ndings. Hensley (2002) found that successful induction programs have the potential to reduce ri sing attrition rates and increase the quality of instruction with the development of a better-trained teaching sta ff. Researchers at the National

PAGE 14

14 Center for Educational Statistics (2000) reporte d that the attrition rate of new teachers who participated in an induction progr am was 15% within the first three years of teaching compared to 26% for teachers who did not pa rticipate in an induction program. Research demonstrates that a well-designed induction program can decrease the overall cost of r ecruiting, preparing, and developing new teachers as well as improve t eaching quality and incr ease retention rates (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Litt rel & Billingsley, 1994; Humphr ey, Adelman, Esch, Riehl, Shields, & Tiffany, 2000). Villar (as cited in The Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004) identified and quantified three major benefits of induction: reduced te acher attrition, improved teacher quality, and improved stude nt achievement. Mentoring is one very important component of the induction process. Studies have indicated that induction programs and mentors both increase the re tention of beginning teachers and relieve first-year difficul ties (Bey, 1992; Smith, 1993). Brock and Grady (2001) report that a mentor can make the difference between a begi nning teacher who leaves the profession after one year and a beginning teacher whose first year is the first stage of a satisfying career (p. 70). Darling-Hammond (1994) a sserts that beginning teachers who are mentored are more effective early in their careers, as they have learned from guided practice ra ther than trial-and-error. Such mentored teachers are able to focus on student learning sooner and leave the profession at a lower rate (National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future, 1996). The National Center for Education Statistics (1999b) reported that only 19% of teachers in a national survey were formally mentored by another teacher. Of t hose teachers who were mentored at least once per week, 70% reported that it help ed their teaching significantly. Statement of the Problem Using data from the Bureau of National A ffairs and The National Center for Education Statistics, Ingersoll (2002) concluded that teach er turnover rate appears to be higher than in

PAGE 15

15 many other occupations. Dove (as cited in He witt, 2009) found the annual attrition rate for beginning teachers exceeded 10 percent and was almost 50 percent over a five-year period. Nationwide, 30% of beginning teachers leave the pr ofession within two year s; another 10% leave after three years; and more than half leave within 5 to 7 years (Pearson & Honig, 1992). A report released by the Allia nce for Excellent Education (2004) re vealed that one out of every two new teachers will quit within five years. Nine percent (9%) of teachers leave the classroom before even finishing their first ye ar (Black, 2001). Attrition occurs even faster in urban districts, with half of the beginning teachers gone with in three years (Zimpher & Grossman, 1992). Florida school districts continue to be ch allenged when seeking qualified teachers to fill vacancies created by an aging workforce and an increasing number of teachers who are resigning short of retirement. Approximately 17,000-23,500 teachers will be needed per year between 2007 and 2017. Additional teachers needed to redu ce class sizes, combined with current enrollment projections, equate to a 19% (32,187) increase in th e number of teachers needed for 2006-2016 (Florida Department of Education, 20 07a). The current teacher shortage is exacerbated by the state class-size amendment, approved by Florida voters in 2002, that established strict individual classroom enrollment levels that must be met by 2010 (Florida Department of Education, 2007b). More young teachers leave Florida classrooms th an any other age group except for retirees. Twelve percent (12%) of the te achers under age 30 in 1992 left within one year, 24% within three years, 34% within five years, and 48% w ithin 10 years (Florida Department of Education, 2003a). The study also found that the attriti on rate among young teachers appears to be accelerating. This finding matches another Flor ida Department of Education (2003b) study that tracked teacher education graduates to the cla ssroom and found that 11 % who taught in Florida

PAGE 16

16 public schools left the classroom after one year. Thes e statistics indicate that more initiatives are required to support teachers in the early years of teaching in order to decr ease attrition rates. In Florida, 12% of new hires in math, more th an 12% of new hires in science, and 17% of reading teachers are out of field. But the greatest number (19.8%) of teachers without certification in field is found in Exceptional Student Education (Florida Department of Education, 2007c). Florida must not only recruit teachers to meet current demands. It is also critical to improve state teacher retention rates. Many teac hers recruited by Florida will be new to the profession. High levels of support for these novice teachers will be needed. One Florida Department of Education repor t (2007d) found that less than half (49 %) of Floridas 1998-99 first-year teachers remained in the profession afte r eight years. One of the most frequently cited reasons why young teachers leave teaching is lac k of support. Induction, with mentoring, goes a long way toward filling the support gap and reta ining teachers in the profession (American Federation of Teachers, 2001, pp. 1-2). Purpose of the Study To increase teacher retention rates, improve the instructional skills of beginning teach ers, and enhance student learning it is imperative for school districts to have induction programs that are comprehensive, coherent, and sustained (Wong, 2005). Currently there is wide disparity of quality and scope for what is included in teacher induction programs (Whisnat, Elliott, & Pynchon, 2005). However, certain elements are critic al to a programs success: careful selection of the mentor teacher, careful pairing of the mentor and mentee, training for the mentor with subsequent support and recognition, training for the school administ rator, and induction program evaluation. The purpose of this study was to ex amine school district teacher induction policy currently utilized by seven large, urban Florida public school dist ricts and to determine if the

PAGE 17

17 policies were comprehensive in complying with induction literature. The scope of the study was focused on the mentoring component of these dist rict teacher induction pr ograms. Policies can improve schools only if the people in them are armed with the knowledge skills, and supports they need (National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future, 1996, p. 5). A quantitative content analysis was conducted from data co llected. Eleven research questions examined compliance of the district policies. Research Questions The following research questions were utilized to determ ine whether Florida school districts are comprehensive in complying with research-based induction literature. 1. Do school district Induction Program Policies (IPPs) includ e a definition of induction? 2. Do school district IPPs include a definition of mentoring? 3. To what extent do school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding mentor selection? 4. To what extent do school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding the pairing of the mentor and mentee? 5. To what extent do school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding training of the mentors? 6. To what extent do school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding the roles and responsibilities assi gned to the mentors? 7. To what extent do school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding available support for mentors? 8. To what extent do school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding recognition of the mentors? 9. To what extent do school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding administrator roles and responsibilities? 10. To what extent do school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding administrator training? 11. To what extent do school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding program evaluation?

PAGE 18

18 Limitations The results of the study are based on re search conducted by analyzing the Induction Program Policy from seven Florida public school districts. There are li mitations to this study. The research-based criteria utilized for this st udy were identified from currently available research literature. As the selected districts for this study are ca tegorized as large, urban school districts with student populations greater than 100,000 the results of this study cannot be ge neralized to other Florida public school districts. A dditionally, as each state is uni que in the laws guiding induction and mentoring, results of this study cannot be ge neralized to other states. Finally, there was no attempt to study actual imple mentation of the policy Significance of the Study The support of administrators and mentors often determines whether the novice teacher stays in the profession (Farkas, Johnson, & Folano, 2000; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Castorina (2003) found that the lack of high quality induc tion services resulted in one Florida school district losing nearly 100% of its novice teachers. Johnson, Berg, and Donaldson (2005) identified three costs associated with tur nover of new teachers, costs that compound in conjunction with one another: inst ructional, organizationa l, and financial. In structional costs are related to the general level of instruction that students experi ence with new teachers who need time to become competent in their practice. Th ese inexperienced teachers tend to leave their schools more often than experienced teachers and are replaced by other novice teachers. A study conducted by Neild, Useem, Travers, and Lesnick (as cited in Johnson, Berg, & Donaldson, 2005) describes organizational cost s as the loss of a coherent education program, institutional memory, and staff cohesion (p. 15).

PAGE 19

19 There are many different methods and models for calculating the financial costs of new teacher attrition. One conservative method estimat es that the cost of recruiting, hiring, and training a new teacher is approximately 30% of the leaving teachers salary resulting in a cost of more than $2.6 billion annually for American schools (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004). Berry and Hirsch (2003) and the Hunt Institute for Educational Leader ship and Policy (2004) estimated that between $8,000 and $11,500 per beginni ng teacher is lost when a teacher leaves the profession. In contrast, providing comprehensive, intensive teacher support programs has shown a return on investment for school districts at a rate of $1.88 per dollar (NTC, 2007a). Carefully designed induction and mentoring programs are an effective allocation of public education dollars. Such programs can re duce the rate of new teacher attrition, accelerate the professional growth of beginning teachers, and provide a positive return on investment through reduced personnel costs and enhan ced student learning (NTC, 2007a, p. 4). This study provided school districts and polic ymakers with an analysis of the policy currently utilized for supporting teachers ente ring the profession. Additionally, recommendations for induction components to be included in policy development were provide d to school districts and policymakers. It is intended that any reco mmended policy revisions will increase the amount of high quality support for beginning teachers. Recommendations that improve induction and mentoring programs will benefit Florida school di stricts with increased teacher retention and improvement of both teacher quality and student achievement. Summary This chapter provided a discussion of the inst ructional and financial costs associated with beginning teacher attrition. Inducti on and mentoring are also intr oduced as a way to reduce new teacher attrition rates and improve teaching qualit y. Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature dealing with the induction and me ntoring of beginning teachers.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH The review of research litera ture begins with a discussion of Floridas current projected teacher shortage. It continues with a review of in duction programs, and concludes with an examination of the mentoring component of indu ction programs, a discussion of the principals role in the induction process, a discussion of new trends, and research-based recommendations for quality induction programs. Floridas Projected Teacher Shortage In January of 2006, Florida Governor Jeb Bu sh announced a com prehensive initiative to recruit and retain high-quality teachers. Th e plan required $239 million in the 2006-2007 budget to fund incentives to attract and retain 31,800 new teachers (Flori da Department of Education Press Office, 2006). In Florida, 17,000 to 23,500 classroom teachers will be needed per year between 2007 and 2017 (Florida Department of Education, 2007a). The current teacher shortage was exacerbated by a 2002 Florida State Constitutional Amendment, Article IX, Section I, that established strict individual classroom enrollment levels that must be met by 2010 (Florida Department of Education, 2007b). A general trend toward greater teacher turnover con tinues in Florida. Greater numbers and percentages of teachers exit the workforce each year and greater numbers and percentages of teachers enter the workforce each year as new hires. Florida teacher retirements are also expected to increase significantly in coming year s (Florida Department of Education, 2007c). Two trends, an aging workforce and the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP), will continue to affect Florida teacher reti rements. The DROP retirement program was implemented in Florida in 1998. Teachers eligible for retirement can continue to teach for a maximum of five years. A large percentage of teachers born during the post World War II baby

PAGE 21

21 boom (1946-1954) have already retired or are eligible for retirement. Retirements peaked in 2002-2003 simultaneously with the end of the first five years of DROP. A steady increase in teacher retirements is likely to continue (Florida Department of Education, 2007a). Induction Programs W ithout an effective teacher, students cannot receive a quality education. DarlingHammond and Youngs (2002) confirmed that a students assigned teacher influences achievement gains more than factors such as class size or class com position. DarlingHammond (2003) further reported that the strongest and most consistent predictor of a states average student-achievement level is the proportion of we ll-qualified teachers within the state. This finding held constant regardless of percentages of low socioeconomic status or limited-Englishproficiency students. Recruiting, preparing, and retaining good teachers is the central strategy for improving our schools (National Commission on Teach ing and Americas Future, 1996). Kardos, Johnson, Peske, Kauffman, and Liu (2001) found th at there are simply not enough high quality teachers. Induction programs can fill the void create d by lack of or inadequate training (DarlingHammond, 2000; Kardos et al., 2001). Induction programs provide a means for prepar ing, supporting, and retaining new teachers (Breaux & Wong, 2003). Research completed by Huling-Austin (1988) identified commonly accepted goals of teacher induction programs th at include improving teaching performance, increasing retention rates of pr omising teachers, promoting the personal and professional wellbeing of beginning teachers, transmitting the culture of the system to beginning teachers, and satisfying mandated requirements related to induc tion and certifications. Sprinthall, Reiman, and Theis-Sprinthall (1992) describe an induction program as an inte ractive model of professional development. Schools that retain the majority of their newly hired teach ers have professionally

PAGE 22

22 integrated school communities that provide onsite and on-time support for teachers (Johnson & Kardos, 2002). Haugaard (2005) found the most valued elem ents of an induction program for the new teacher were: (a) a teacher coac h, (b) release time for professi onal development activities, (c) observation feedback from mentors or admini strators, and (d) a mentor. Data from this research also indicated that the most valued i nduction support topics we re: (a) student discipline plans and classroom management, (b) accessing resources, and (c) curriculum assistance. Although student discipline plans and classroom management were rated among the most valued topics, more than a quarter of respondents had not received assistance in this area. Like Florida, most states mandate induction programs for beginning teachers. These services do not necessarily include feedback on t eaching, a formal evaluation process, or targeted training (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999). The Alliance for Excellent Education (2004) asserts that fewer than 1% of teachers receive a comprehens ive induction package that includes a reduced number of course preparations, a helpful mentor in the same field, strong communication with administrators, and time for planning and collaboration with other teachers. Generally, new teachers need three or four years to achieve competence and several more to reach proficiency. The first two years represent a critical period for a be ginning teacher. It is during this early period that the teacher builds a foundation for a satisfying and productive career (Jonson, 2002). A high-quality induction program ensures that beginning t eachers learn desirable lessons from their early teaching experiences. Induction programs are created to meet the uniq ue needs of a school or district. Breaux and Wong (2003) identified critical elements common to all successful induction programs:

PAGE 23

23 Start with an initial four or five da ys of induction befo re school begins. Offer a continuum of professional development through systematic training over a period of two to three years. Provide study groups where new teachers can network and build support, commitment, and leadership in a learning community. Incorporate a strong sense of administrative support. Integrate a mentoring component into the induction process. Present a structure for modeling effective teaching during in-services and mentoring. Provide opportunities for inductees to vi sit demonstration classrooms. (p. 33) Wong (2005) identified three basic characterist ics of effective induction programs. First, programs are comprehensive. There is an organi zation to the program that includes many people and many activities. There is a designated gr oup that oversees and mon itors the program to ensure student learning is the fo cus. A second characteristic is that effective induction programs are coherent; there is a logical connection between th e various activities and people. A final characteristic is that these programs are sustai ned; that is, the comprehensive and coherent program continues for many years. The New Teacher Center (NTC) located in Sa nta Cruz, California, works nationally to research, design, and advocate high-quality induction programs for new teachers. They identify the following core elements of a quality induc tion program: (a) full-time program administrators; (b) quality mentoring; (c) spec ific selection criteria for ment ors; (d) mentor development; (e) formative assessment for beginning teachers; (f ) training in data collection and analysis; (g) training for site administrators; (h) teaching st andards; (i) high expecta tions for new teachers, mentors, and students; (j) training for work with diverse students and English language learners; (k) networking and training opportunities for begi nning teachers; and (l) co ntractually bargained new teacher placement (Moir, 2005).

PAGE 24

24 Researchers Curran and Goldrick (2002) summarize the characteristics of effective teacher induction programs: promote universal participation for new teach ers from both traditional and alternative preparation programs; use experienced teachers as mentors; include mentor preparation; facilitate release time or reduced teaching loads for beginning teachers and mentors; have earmarked funding; are based on clear standards; are structured and defined by input from beginning and veteran teachers; assess beginning teachers performance; have a subject-specific focus; extend throughout the school year and be yond the first year of teaching; and provide teachers with working conditionsincluding placements in subject that they are qualified to teach, placement with students who are not the most challenging, opportunities to participate in targeted professional development, a nd opportunities to observe and be observed by veteran teachersthat enable them to focus on strengthening their teaching skills. (pp. 3-4) Researchers who attempt to measure th e impact of induction programs are often frustrated because of the wide variability of factors in the pr ograms (e.g., elective vs. mandatory participation, and single vs. multiple component programs). Researchers Ingersoll and Kralik; Lopez, Lash, Schaffner, Shields, and Wagner; Wong, Britton, and Ganser (as cited in Whisnat, Elliott, & Pynchon, 2005) reported that few programs include a rigorous outcomes-based orientation such as gains in student achievement. Despite these challenges for researchers, data exists that can provide insi ghts into promising strategi es and potential pitfalls.

PAGE 25

25 Two different sources, Recr uiting New Teachers (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999) and the Alliance for Excellent Education (2004), describe nearly identical criteria for creating comprehensive new teacher induction programs. Th e six components included: (a) an orientation program, (b) quality/structured mentoring, (c ) common planning time, (d) intensive/ongoing professional development, (e) external network of teachers, and (f) standards-based evaluation. Whisnat et al., (2005) assert that certain enabling conditi ons crucial to an induction programs success are starting to emerge fr om many major studies and reports. Enabling conditions include: A view of induction that is multi-year and developmental Strong principal leaders who understa nd the needs of beginning teachers High-quality providers of the induction program with dedicated staff resources Additional support for new teacher s with little preparation Incentives for novice and veteran teachers to participate in induction activities Alignment between induction, classroom needs, and professional standards Tight coordination of efforts and cooperation with unions Adequate and stable source of funding A commitment to an outcomes-rich evaluation model (p. 9) These researchers further report that there is evid ence in the literature that a small number of districts are partnering with unive rsities, research centers, and sim ilar organizations to meet the above criteria. Many school systems are extendi ng induction periods for longer than one year as they realize that new teachers need more than just a year to acquire the knowledge that they need. North Carolina requires teachers with less than three years of public school teaching experience to participate in an induction program lasti ng three years (North Carolina State Board of Education, 2006). The National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future (1996) recommends that the first 2 years of teaching be structured like a residency in medicine. Teachers should regularly consult with an experi enced mentor teacher about the decisions they

PAGE 26

26 made while they are receiving ongoing advice and feedback. Literature on teacher development indicates that 5 to 8 years are required to mast er the craft of teaching (Scherer, 2001a). FeimanNemser (2003) agreed that new teachers need th ree or four years to achieve competence and several more to reach proficiency. The American Federation of Teachers (2001) reported that 33 states had some form of induction program require d in their schools; 11 of these 33 states did not specify the length of their induction program. Mentoring One Component of the Induction Process Breaux and Wong (2003) suggest the term mentoring implies a trusting, supportive relationship between a more-exp erienced member and a less-experienced member of an organization (p. 59). Mentoring is only one co mponent of a comprehensive induction program. Odell and Ferraro (1992) contend th at the goals of mentoring are to provide support, to promote professional development, and to increase retention. Mentoring is designed to help the beginning teacher with the daily challenges of teaching. Bartell (1995) found that teachers who are well supported and mentored are more effective early in their careers and move more quickly from survival to success. Ingersoll and Smith (2004) id entified types of support in the first year that were associated with a reduced level of teacher turnov er. The strongest factors were having a mentor from the same field, having common planning time with other teachers in the same subject, having regularly scheduled collaboration with ot her teachers, and being part of an external network of teachers (p. 35). Baker (2002) found that new teachers perceived an increase in their preparedness to teach over the course of the year with mentoring support provided. Mentori ng alone cannot enhance the success and retention of new teachers. However, the assignment of a support teacher may be the most powerful and cost-effective component of the induction program Strong, Fletcher, and

PAGE 27

27 Villars study (as cited in NTC, 2007a) found subs tantial gains in student achievement for new teachers who had been mentored as compared to veteran teachers who had not participated in a comprehensive induction program. The new teachers were, on average, as effective as fourthyear teachers. Jonson (2002) found seven elements common to all successful mentoring programs: 1. Mentors are selected based on specific qualific ations, including but not limited to teaching ability. Listening skills and the ability to em pathize with new teachers are only two of the many other necessary qualifications. 2. Mentors are provided with speci fic training for their role. 3. Mentors continue to receive support throughout the process, just as they give support to their mentees. 4. Mentors are paired with mentees based on criteria established within the program. 5. Mentors establish relationships with th eir mentees based on trust and respect. 6. Mentors receive some form of recognition for their work. 7. The mentoring program is evaluated a nd refined on an ongoing basis. (p. 16) Mentor Selection Mentors are the recipients of num erous documented benefits. Auton, Berry, Mullen, and Cochran (2002) report that mentors who participated in one highly effective program described the following positive effects: 1. An increased appreciation for reflective practice. 2. A sense of more effective teaching in their own classrooms. 3. A new perspective on professionalism. 4. A renewal of their own comm itment to teaching. (p. 3) Mentoring falls short of its promise due to pr oblems related to the selection of effective mentors (Bendixon-Noe & Giebelhaus, 1997). Being a highly qualified teacher is a good starting point for becoming an effective mentor, but it is not enough. Jonson (2002) suggests that a good mentor:

PAGE 28

28 Is a skilled teacher Is able to transmit eff ective teaching strategies Has a thorough command of the curriculum being taught Can communicate openly with the beginning teacher Is a good listener Is sensitive to the needs of the beginning teacher Understands that teachers may be effective using a variety of styles Is not overly judgmental (p. 9) Jonson further offers that a good mentor ha s a clear understanding of standards. Scherer (2001b) explains that mentors as sist mentees in unders tanding that high and rigorous academic standards are: a way to establish what all students need to know and be able to do; a result of public and political outcry for increased accountability in schools; not yet well implemented in most school s, although not for want of trying; fraught with challenges and diffi culties, but still an opportunity to raise the achievement of all students, including minorities; and a bipartisan reform that offers a comm on ground on which advocates of good education can unite. (p. 5) From their work with successful mentor ed ucators, Boreen, Johns on, and Niday (2003) discovered qualities of strong mentor teach ers. They assert that such teachers have mastered the basic skills of teaching, understand the need for flexibility, in attitude and in practice, accept the possibility that pedagogical styles other than the ones they use may be successful, realize that possessiveness of students and clas sroom policies is detrimental to a mentoring relationship, can confront troublesome situations as necessary, and have a professional vision beyond their own classr oom. (pp. 9-10)

PAGE 29

29 Wisdom, caring, humor, and nurturing are desirable mentor persona lity traits. Nearly half of the respondents to a survey by Jonson (2002) mentioned skills other than what would be classified as professional skills as the most important mentor qua lities. Listening and attributes such as being supportive, nonjudgmental, positiv e, and having a good sense of humor were important for the mentees. Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, and Niles (1992) found the following mentor characteristics, as described by 150 mentor-ment ee pairings, to be helpful: 1. willing to be a mentor 2. sensitive; that is, they know when to back off 3. helpful, but not authoritarian 4. emotionally committed to their beginners 5. astutethat is, they know the right thing to say at the right time 6. diplomaticfor example, they know how to counteract bad advice given to their beginner by others 7. able to anticipate problems 8. nurturant and encouraging 9. timely in keeping the beginners apprised of their successes 10. careful to keep the beginners problems confidential 11. enthusiastic about teaching 12. good role model at all times (p. 211) Rowley (1999) summarized six qualities of a good mentor: 1. The good mentor is committed to the role of mentoring. 2. The good mentor is accepting of the beginning teacher. 3. The good mentor is skilled at pr oviding instruct ional support. 4. The good mentor is effective in di fferent interpersonal contexts. 5. The good mentor is a model of a continuous learner. 6. The good mentor communicates hope and optimism. (pp. 20-22)

PAGE 30

30 He adds that, Good mentor-teachers capitali ze on opportunities to affirm the human potential of their mentees. They do so in private conversations and in public settings. Good mentors share their own struggles and frustrations and how they overcame them. And always, they do so in a genuine and caring way th at engenders trust. (p. 22) Pairing the Mentor and Mentee Saphier, Freedm an, and Aschheim (2001) asse rt, for too many teachers, the mentoring pairing process results in a blind date. The te achers do not know each other and neither partner has input into the pairing (p. 36). Many schools have policies that assign mentor responsibilities to teachers based upon years of experience, rotation, or simple convenience. This approach can lead to poor experiences for the mentor and th e mentee. When forming mentoring partnerships, Boreen, Johnson, Niday, and Potts (2000) suggest that the mentor should: Have a minimum of 3 to 5 years of teaching experience. Be teaching in the same content ar ea or at the same grade level. Have a classroom close to th at of the beginning teacher. Be significantly older. Be aware of gender differences, although th e importance of this factor may depend upon circumstances. (p. 11) Boreen et al. posit that an age difference of 8 to 15 years is recommended so that the mentor is viewed as experienced. In addition, while age is significant, the maturity level of the participants is even more important (p. 12). Jonson (2002) mentions the criteria of si milar personality or educational philosophy when pairing the mentor and mentee. However, experts disagree on this matter. Some believe that the relationship will be more comfortable with shared beliefs. Others believe more learning will occur if different styles are paired together (ASCD, 1999).

PAGE 31

31 Two other variables, sex and race, must be considered when forming the mentor partnership. Cross-sex mentorships have the ca pability to produce powerful synergy as the mentor and mentee bring different, yet comp limentary strengths to the relationship. However, cross-sex mentorships present serious complexities and risks. Some of the complexities include the parties assumption of st ereotypical roles in relating to each other and compromised role-modeling efficacy as gender cannot be integrated in the mentors example. Mutual liking and admiration can lead to incr eased intimacy and sexual tension. Destructive, sexualized rumors within the organization can le ave the mentee isolated, scorned, and resented by peers. Open communication is the key to success, including the discu ssion of anticipated concerns and how they will be handled (Johnson & Ridley, 2004). Communication patterns may also present challenges for the male and female pairing. Tannen (1990) found, For most women, the language of conversation is primarily a language of rapport: a way of establishing connections and negot iating relationships. For most men, talk is primarily a means to preserve independence and negotiate a nd maintain status in a hierarchical social order. This is done by exhibiting knowledge a nd skill, and by holding center stage (p. 77). She refers to these respective patterns as rappo rt-talk and report-talk (p. 77). Tannen further states that communication between men and women can be like cr oss-cultural communication. Race is also an important matching variable. Mentees from minority groups tend to prefer mentors of their own race. Interpersonal comfort and increased levels of emotional benefits are increased with same-race mentorships. It is very important for the mentor and mentee to prefer the same strategy for handling race issues. Tw o primary strategiesdirect engagement, and denial and suppressionare the opposite of each other. In direct engagement, both parties openly process racial issues; in denial and suppression, both parties avoid such processing. It is not the strategy itself that is important, but rather the agreem ent on the strategy to be used.

PAGE 32

32 Johnson and Ridley (2004) assert that the best interests of both parties will be served when direct engagement is utilized. Self-awareness and interpersonal skills are usef ul in overcoming problems associated with differences in sex, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, or educatio nal background (Kram, 1985). Koki (1997) asserted that common gender, ethnicity, cultural or class background, and similarity in work assignments are the most im portant variables to match. Williams (2001) stated that the mentor should be older and of the same sex. Wildman et al. (199 2) identified proximity, match in grade/content area, and time to meet as the three most important considerations when pairing mentor-mentee dyads. Youngs (2003) posits th at a match of grade level and content area allows the mentor to more effectively assi st the mentee in acquiri ng curricular knowledge, planning instruction, and reflecti ng on their practice. Occasionally, the mentor-mentee match does not meet the needs of the beginning teacher as expected. It is key that both members remind themselves that the relationship is a professional one. The talk must be centered ar ound classroom practice a nd professional insights (Boreen, Johnson, & Niday, 2003). In some cases, it is necessary for the administrator or program supervisor to intervene and create a new pairing without pl acing any blame. Mentor Training A m ajor concern identified by Bendixon-Noe a nd Giebelhaus (1997) was the absence of training or the amount of traini ng for the new mentor. In many school districts, the mentor is simply a veteran teacher who has been assigned by the principal. Brock and Grady (1998) found that 71% of principals that we re surveyed had no formal progr am and no training for mentors. Researchers for the American Federation of Teache rs (2001) reported that only 4 of 29 states that provided experienced teacher mentor s required mentor training. The results of a large-scale study revealed that mentor participants rated mentor training programs as extremely important in the

PAGE 33

33 preparation for their new roles (D ebolt, 1992). Principals must en sure that key people in the induction program are prepared fo r their roles (Tickle, 2000). Mentoring is a professional practice that can be learned. Strong induction programs provide ongoing opportunities for study and proble m solving not just a few days of initial training. Opportunities must be provided for the mentor teacher to clarify their vision of good teaching and to become familiar with effective models of mentoring. Skills in observing and talking about teaching in analyt ic, nonjudgmental ways need to be developed. Mentors must learn to assess the novice teachers progress as well as their own effectiveness (Feiman-Nemser, 2003). Self-efficacy Riggs (2000) studied over 200 m entors in California. Mentors who had completed a yearlong intensive mentor training program were signif icantly more likely to have high self-efficacy with regard to their own ability to mentor than were those ment ors who had not participated in the training. Riggs work suggested that those mentors with th e highest mentor self-efficacy would be most likely to spend time and effort on mentoring responsibilities, with more successful results (p. 9). Effective induction programs conceive the role of the mentor as teacher of teachers (Moir, 2005, p. 62). These programs provide traini ng and support for the mentor in the same manner that the mentor will provide to the new t eacher. An excellent teacher of children does not necessarily translate into an effective teacher of adults. New mentors will have to learn how to teach adults. In addition, the new mentor will lear n how to collaborate and to articulate the set of teaching skills that they use dail y. Moir suggested that during th e first year subjects to be covered for the mentor include: professional teachi ng standards, lesson planning in content areas, analyzing student work, differe ntiating instruction, collecting and analyzing classroom data,

PAGE 34

34 literacy instruction, effective stra tegies for working with students with language barriers, among others. In the second year, Moir provided additio nal topics that are to be introduced to help mentors expand their role. Sweeney (2005) identified four essential components for increasing mentor effectiveness and mentor feelings that the invested time is productive: Train mentors in how to most effectivel y use the mentoring time they can give Provide sufficient time for guided, coached pr actice of essential me ntoring strategies Be provided at a time when mentors are ready to learn what the training offers Include sufficient time for follow-up support and problem-solving activities, in both individual and group co ntexts (p. 131) Cognitive Coaching The thrust of the work of Donald Schn (1987) has been influential as the rhetoric of reflective practice has become widespread among teacher educators and some educational researchers. By reflecting on prior events (refle ction-upon-action), beginn ing teachers can plan for the future (reflection-for-action). Reflection is required in order to maximize the meaning from experiences (Costa & Kall ick, 2000). Teachers need to pract ice the skill of reflection on a regular basis in order to receive maximum benefits. A most productive way to reflect is to talk out loud with a mentor. Cognitive coaching, or peer coaching, is a powerful way for teachers to heighten each others effectiveness (Villani 2002). Through pre-observation conferencing, nonjudgmental classroom observation, and post-observa tion conferencing, mentors are able to be very helpful to novice teachers. Key strategi es of successful cognitive coaching include prompting self-reflection through the collection and sharing of classroom observation data and thoughtful questioning that promotes reflection. Cognitive coaching, an in-depth process to

PAGE 35

35 examine teacher practices, will se rve the teacher long after the induction program is completed. Rowley (2006) encourages mentors who want to im prove their mentoring skills to be trained in cognitive coaching. The cognitive coach uses a host of communication tool s and strategies to promote self-reflection and self-d irected growth; but the two mo st important ones, trust and rapport, should be in every mentor teachers toolbox as well (p. 110). Rowley provides an exploration of the five states of mind that are the focus of co gnitive coaching. Each state of the mentees mind (efficacy, consciousness, craftsmanship, flexibility, and interdependence) is described in terms of a continuum. Developmental Stages Mentees In addition to honoring the specific learning st yles of the m entee, mentors need to be familiar with the developmental stages of be ginning teachers and thei r corresponding mentoring needs. Beginning teachers may vary greatly in the length of time spent in each of the four developmental stages of survival, consolidation, renewal, and ma turity (Jonson, 2002). During the first stage, the beginning teacher is concerned with whether or not survival is possible. The mentor must give support, encouragement, comfort, and guidance. The teacher will need instruction in specific skills and an understanding of the complex causes of behavior. Mentors need to be particularly flexible in responding to the mentees crises. The teacher has usually reached stage two by the end of the first year. At this stage, the focus shifts to individual problem students and problem situations. Jonson recommends a mutual exploration of problems with the mentor. In the quest for knowledge abou t specific students, th e beginning teacher will come to realize that a wider range of resource s is needed. The school psychologist and social worker can help to strengthen the teachers sk ill and knowledge. Often duri ng the third or fourth year of teaching, the teacher ente rs the renewal phase. The teacher starts to inquire about new

PAGE 36

36 developments in the field. Teachers can bene fit from meeting colleagues from different programs, attending regional and national confer ences, and participating in professional associations. Teachers often widen the scope of th eir reading and are intere sted in visiting other classes. The fourth stage, maturity, is reached by some teachers within three years, while others may require five or more years. Jonson asserts that the teacher has enough perspective to begin asking deeper, more abstract questions such as, What is the nature of gr owth and learning? (p. 156). Teachers need to participate in conferences and semi nars and some may choose to work toward a degree. These mature teachers enj oy interacting with other educators on various problem areas. Moir (1999) provides a look at the first-year teachers deve lopment from a psychological standpoint. Although not every teacher goes through the exact sequence, an understanding of the developmental phases is helpful to ed ucators who support new teachers. The anticipation phase begins when the student teacher is completing preservice preparation. The student teacher is often excited and anxious about their first teach ing position. Often they tend to romanticize the role of the teacher. Quickly overwhelmed during the first month of school, they move to the survival stage as they struggle to keep up with the day-to-day aspects of teaching. New teachers, fearful of appearing incompetent or unable to cope, often will not express their concerns. Disillusionment often follows and new teachers start to question both their commitment and competence. There is variation in intensity and duration with this phase. After winter break, the rested teacher returns and enters a period of gradual rejuvenation Toward the end of the year, during a period of reflection the novice begins to look back on the year. The beginning teacher is able to celebrate successes and decide what to do differently the ne xt year. Having knowledge of these predictable stages can help mentors dr aw out concerns from the mentees and provide

PAGE 37

37 them with reassurance. Moirs work can also be used as a framew ork for induction program designers so that appropriate suppor t can be provided when needed. Mentors Just as the m entor must be familiar with the mentees developmental stages, a similar awareness of the stages of mentor growth is essential. Casey and Claunc h (2005) describe five stages of mentor growth: predisposition, disequi librium, transition, confidence, and efficacy. In the first stage, predisposition, the successful cl assroom teacher with the predisposition to share professional knowledge and expertise, seeks profe ssional growth and the desire to assist and nurture others. Disequilibrium represents a period of doubt, fear, and lowered self-confidence as the mentor has moved from a context in which success was the norm and now the situation is unfamiliar. Next, the transition stage is also descri bed as the quiet stage. Mentors accept that they are novice adult educators and focu s their energy on acquiring the la nguage and skills required of mentoring. When mentors begin to apply this newly acquired knowledge with success for the mentee, they experience the confid ence stage. Mentors in the effi cacy stage know that they make a difference and enjoy a strong se nse of pride in their accomplishments. Mentors in this final growth stage will make the emotional shif t to detachment and minimal response. Adult Learning New m entors must receive tr aining regarding adult lear ning, or andragogy. Malcom Knowles (as cited in Jonson, 2002) deta ils the principles of andragogy in The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy Knowles asserts that adults bring their own history of experience to a learni ng relationship. Learning is enhanc ed when the adult learner is engaged as an active partner, not just a passive receiver. Knowle s further maintains that the good mentor seldom acts as an authority figure, but rath er serves as a facilita tor. As adults, mentees

PAGE 38

38 need self-direction. These beginning teachers need to be involved in the diagnosing, planning, implementing, and evaluating of their own learning. Knowles, Holton, and Swanson (as cited in Bartell, 1995) id entify the following principles of adult learning: 1. Adults need to know why they need to learn something before undertaking it. 2. Adults are self-directed learners. 3. Experience is the richest re source for adult learning. 4. Adults become ready to learn when they ar e convinced they need to know something in order to cope with their life situation. 5. Adults are life-centered in their orientat ion to learning. They learn new knowledge, understanding, skills, values, and attitudes most effectively when presented in the context of application to real-life situations. 6. While adults are subject to some external motivators, the most potent motivators are internal pressures. (p. 62) Time for trial and error, refl ection, and self-correction must be provided to adult learners. Effective mentors are aware of personalized lear ning curves. Mentors must always be aware of their timing, realizing that a new teacher, one w ho is often overwhelmed, must be ready to grow before any new suggestion is absorbed (Jonson, 2002). Mentors must be trained to recognize early signs of beginning teacher fatigue during the first crucial years. Mentors must be willing to venture beyond the school agenda and look at the mentees total development. Many beginning teache rs become consumed by the job and neglect to nourish their own personal, private needs. Often, an assertive comment balanced with empathetic concern can help the beginner to create a more balanced perspective. Many beginners do not realize that th ey are giving only of themselves and not to themselves (Boreen, et al., 2003, p. 141).

PAGE 39

39 Mentoring Relationship An additional training topic that should be included for the new mentor is how the mentoring relationship develops over time. Rowley (2006) introduces his own model to describe this relationship development. The model is base d on his claim that the quality of a mentoring relationship can vary from low to high, and that the level any such relationship attains is primarily related to the nature and focus of the conversations that characterize the relationship (p. 23). Rowleys four phases of a mentori ng relationship include: initiation, e xploration, collaboration, and consolidation. Each phase has two corresponding proc esses. The initiation phases consist of the two processes of introduc tion and orientation. In this first phase, relationship-building begins and the pair focuse s on the immediate needs of the mentee. This level of relationship should be achieved before th e school year begins or very early in the school year. The exploration phase represents the firs t step of building a trustworthy relationship. Accepting and self-disclosing are the associated pr ocesses. Early impressions are reinforced or revised as the members move either toward or aw ay from each other. This movement toward or away from the relationship does not occur simultaneously. Sharing a nd trusting are the two process descriptors for the next phase of the mentoring relatio nship, collaboration. During the collaboration phase, both parties act in a trustworthy manner and openly share their personal and professional thoughts and beliefs. On e violation of trust can permanently end development of the relationship. Some relationships will mature to a final phase, consolidation. At this phase, respecting and appreciating are the associated processes. Feelings of positive regard develop as the two have successfully navigated through the pr eceding levels. Mutual re spect that transcends appreciation, is evident. Jonson ( 2002) wrote that the primary task of the mentor is to establish a relationship with the beginning teacher based on mu tual trust, respect, and collegiality (p. 7).

PAGE 40

40 The ASCD (1999) offers the following suggestio ns to assist mentor s at the beginning of the mentoring relationship: 1. Prepare your classroom early to leave time available when the beginning teacher needs help. 2. While working with the beginning teacher to set up his room, use the time to talk and identify his biggest short-term concerns. Set up times to work together to accomplish these tasks. The effort will demonstrate to the beginn ing teacher that you will be there at crunch time. 3. While cutting out letters for bulletin boards or arranging desk s, talk about each others family, background, and teaching dreams. This will reduce the beginning teachers stress, help begin to build a relationship, and allow you to address some crit ical needs. (p. 92) New mentors must also receive training regard ing the potential pitfalls of commitment to the mentor-mentee relationship. Jonson (2002) divided pitfalls, some of wh ich can be prevented, into four general categories: 1. Overextending 2. Proceeding without clarification of the ment ors role and without training and support a. From the administration b. From the mentee 3. Assuming too much respons ibility for the mentee 4. Underutilizing professional growth (p. 118) Issues of Beginning Teachers Mentors need to be trained to deal with cruc ial issues for beginning teachers that include: Classroom management and discipline Time management An overwhelming workload Classroom instruction Technology in the classroom High-stakes accountability Sociocultural awaren ess and sensitivity Student motivation A solitary work environment Relationships with parents and colleagues (Jonson, 2002, p. 39).

PAGE 41

41 Chisena (2002) surveyed 285 first-year teach ers in Orange County, Florida. The five most important induction topics identified by th ese new teachers were: (a) motivating students; (b) handling student discipline; (c) establishing pr ofessional relationships w ith other teachers; (d) establishing effective communication with parent s; and (e) communicating student progress with parents. Veenman (1984) provided the most comprehe nsive review of 83 studies published in North America, Europe, and Austria on the perceived problems of beginning teachers. The top 24 areas of concern, in rank order, were: 1 Classroom discipline 2 Motivating students 3 Dealing with indi vidual differences 4.5 Assessing students work 4.5 Relations with parents 6.5 Organization of class work 6.5 Insufficient materials and supplies 8 Dealing with problems of individual students 9 Heavy teaching load resulting in insufficient prep. time 10 Relations with colleagues 11 Planning of lessons and schooldays 12 Effective use of different teaching methods 13 Awareness of school policies and rules 14 Determining learning level of students 16 Knowledge of subject matter 16 Burden of clerical work 16 Relations with principals/administrators 18 Inadequate school equipment 19 Dealing with slow learners 20 Dealing with students of different cultures and deprived backgrounds 21 Effective use of textbooks and curriculum guides 22 Lack of spare time 23 Inadequate guidance & support 24 Large class size (pp. 154-155) Lloyd, Wood, and Moreno (2000) identified the following topics to be discussed with beginning teachers:

PAGE 42

42 Completing paperwork related to dist rict/school policies and procedures. Organizing the classroom. Locating materials. Planning lessons (materials, what to teach, how to teach it). Establishing realistic expectations for student work and behavior. Managing time (professional and personal). Becoming more familiar with subject matter. Dealing with students individual differences. Motivating students. Managing student behavior. Grading and evaluating student progress. Conducting parent conferences. (p. 39) Mentor Roles and Responsibilities When new mentors have a clear definition of their roles and respons ibilities, increased commitment to the program is much more likel y. Effective mentoring programs provide such information at the outset. Relevant reading materials may also be provided (Jonson, 2002). Portner (2003) states that the primary role of the mentor is to purposefully bring the mentee to a level of professionalism that allows the new teacher to develop the capacity and confidence to make his or her own decisions, en rich his or her own knowledge, and sharpen his or her own abilities regarding teaching and lear ning (p. 7). Four ment or functions (relating, assessing, coaching, and guiding) ar e used to accomplish this goal. Each function utilizes a variety of mentor skills and behavior. Relating behaviors, such as establishing trust and paying attention to thoughts and feelings, create an environment that allo ws the mentee to honestly share and reflect upon experiences. Assessing is a way for mentors to gather and diagnose data to ensure that the mentees professional needs ar e being addressed. Port ner describes mentor coaching behaviors that encourage the mentee to improve their own teaching through reflection and practice. The guiding skill of the mentor is to ask the right questions the right way, and at the right timequestions that encourage the mentee to reflect on his or her decisions (p. 8).

PAGE 43

43 Guiding behaviors promote the process of the me ntee being weaned from the mentor and moving toward developing the ability to make their own decisions and take appropriate actions. As Moir (2005) points out, th e real-life classroom is much different from anything student teaching or preservice training can represent, and mentors help provide answers to the many questions that will invariably arise. They give practical, concrete advice, pose important questions to prompt reflection, model teaching te chniques in the classroom, observe and offer feedback, and offer another point of view at a time when its easy to lose all perspective (p. 60). Lipton and Wellman (2005) posit th at with learning-focused ment oring the ultimate goal is the creation of colleague s who can fully participate in the schools professional life. They provide a continuum of interaction for whic h accomplished mentors will shift between the stances of consultant, collabo rator, and coach. The consultin g mentor shares technical information such as policies, procedures, and standards. Why certain actions and options are chosen is also shared. In fact, a useful template to guide mentoring practi ce is sharing the what, why, and how of an idea or suggestion. The collabor ating mentor partners with the mentee to develop possible approaches or solutions to pr oblems. With the assistance of the coaching mentor, the mentees expertise in planning, refl ecting on practice, and instructional decision making is increased. An important and often neglected mentoring role is what Boreen et al. (2003) call nudging and perhaps pushing the mentee into moving from a passive stance, responding to events, to becoming an active participant who makes events happen. Focusing on the necessary first year survival skills with special attention to the me ntees individual classroom can result in a narrow view of teaching. Mentors can help beginning teachers envision a panoramic picture of teaching and learning (p. 136).

PAGE 44

44 Bercik (1994) states that mentors must concen trate their efforts in three critical areas to support new teacher needs: classroom guidance, emotional support, and practical application. The following mentor activ ities are suggested: Classroom Guidance: Provide knowledge of school policies and curriculum. Provide knowledge about student needs. Provide information about the comm unitys educational expectations. Model techniques that are helpfu l with special-needs students. Encourage joint participation in grade-level planning activities. Invite participation in cross-grade and school planning activities. Impart your wisdom and expertise. Emotional Support: Give regular and constructive feedback. Exhibit confidence and suppor t for proteges decisions. Make time to listen. Help find joint solutions to problems. Treat proteges as a dults and partners. Support them in taking risks. Encourage them to be involved in activities outside of school. Remind them that all work and no play leads to stress. Practical Applications Encourage joint research projects. Encourage them to join local teachers organizations to broaden their growth and development. Encourage interactions with district and staff members. Tell them about the student body, faculty and community. Inform them about district rules and regulations. (p. 4)

PAGE 45

45 Jonson (2002) asserts that the mentor should be able to help the beginning teacher develop and enhance the following attributes: Competence: mastery of the knowledge, skills, and applications that effective teaching requires Self-confidence: belief in ones ability to make good decisions, to be responsible, and to be in control Self-direction: the assurance and the ability to take charge of ones personal, professional, and career development Professionalism: an understanding and assumption of the responsibilitie s and ethics of the profession (p. 8) Mentors can support new teachers by providi ng emotional support and encouragement, providing information about the da ily workings of the school a nd the cultural norms of the school community, promoting cultural proficienc y regarding students and their families, and cognitive coaching (Villani, 2002). A previous survey (Ode ll & Ferraro, 1992) identified emotional support as the most important ne w teacher need. Bakers 2002 study found that emotional support was perceived as the most beneficial mentoring activity. Mentoring Strategies Jonson (2002) explains that mentoring strategies that are most helpful for the mentee can be grouped into six categories: (a) direct assistance, (b) demonstration teaching, (c) observation and feedback, (d) informal contact, (e) assistance with an action plan for professional growth, and (f) role modeling. A 1999 survey (as cited in Jonson, 2002), reported that direct assistance was ranked very useful more so than any other function. Examples of how the mentor can provide direct assistance include: helping th e mentee develop and maintain a record-keeping system, helping the mentee understand the writte n and unwritten rules and norms in the school and community, helping the mentee develop a classroom management and discipline plan,

PAGE 46

46 assisting the mentee in socializing within the school environment, a nd modeling or suggesting techniques to use in parent conferences. Another important function of the mentor is to prepare and teach demonstration lessons (Jonson, 2002). The mentee is able to observe spec ific techniques and materials being used. A predemonstration conference determines the goal of the observation for the mentee. The mentor, or another qualified teacher if appropriate, then demonstrates the preestablished lesson at a predetermined time. At the postdemonstration co nference, the mentor and mentee review and analyze the demonstration. Plans are then made for the mentee to practice the observed skill and for follow-up observations. It is important to note that, while videotap es can be used to demonstrate effective teaching, they cannot repli cate the effect of the live demonstration and subsequent conferences. In requesting observation and feedback, beginning teachers often would like to gain information regarding either their own behavior or that of their students. The formal mentor observation-conference should follow the following sequence: preobservation conference, observation, and postobservation conference. Acheson and Gall (as cited in Jonson, 2002) suggest that during the pr eobservation conference the mentor and mentee translate the teachers concerns into observable behavior s, set self-improvement goals, arrange a specific time for the observation, and select the observation instrument and behaviors to be documented. During the observation, the mentor records data to be di scussed in the postconference. Jonson (2002) provides a full description of various observation t ools such as seating ch arts, cause-and-effect records, verbatim techniques, and videotapes.

PAGE 47

47 Informal contact is the easiest form of assi stance to provide for the beginning teacher. Any concern the mentee may have is a valid subject for these frequent, informal meetings. Close physical proximity facilitates this type of assistance. Professional Development Plan Jonson (2002) posits that an im portant res ponsibility for the ment or teacher is to assist the mentee in the development of an acti on plan for professional growth. The plan should follow the mentees own agenda and should include short-term goals that can be achieved within a few months. Plans are revisited and revised if needed two to th ree times per year. This allows mentees to feel a sense of accomplis hment and recognize their own growth. The Missouri State Teachers Association (2006) has publis hed a mentoring framework designed to help school district s create successful mentoring programs. One component of the framework is the professional development pla n. The teachers associati on asserts that while plans are generic and serve as a general guide, it is the mentors responsibility to help tailor a specific professional development plan that addr esses the new teachers first two years in the classroom. The plans purpose is to assistnot evaluatethe begi nning teacher. It must respond to individual needs and take into account the fourth -year college assessment, if provided (p. 10). The professional developmen t plan should reflect education research on effective teaching as it responds to the new teac hers needs. The mentor should meet with the new teacher to revise the professi onal development plan as needed. Assistance and Assessment Portner (2003) argued that one ro le the m entor must not assume is that of an evaluator. A critical difference between the role of supervisor (e.g., department head, curriculum coordinator, or principal) and the role of mentor is that a mentor cannot be an evaluator (p. 6).

PAGE 48

48 The degree of a mentees openness may be compromi sed if it is the mento rs responsibility to evaluate the mentee. Other distin ctions between the role of ment or and evaluator are provided: Mentoring is collegial; evaluating is hierarchical. Mentoring is ongoing; evaluating visits are set by policy. Mentoring develops self-reliance; evaluating judges performance. Mentoring keeps data conf idential; evaluating files it and makes it available. Mentoring uses data to reflec t; evaluating uses it to judge. In mentoring, value judgments are made by the t eacher; in evaluation, they are made by the supervisor. (p. 6) Huling-Austin (1990) report that many leaders in the induction move ment believe that assistance and assessment are incompatible functions that should not be carried out in the same program. Villani (2002) asserts that mentoring is most often thought of as a separate function from supervision and evaluation. It is presumed that the mentee feels mo re comfortable confiding in a mentor about struggles and challenges when the mentor acts in a non-eval uative role. Lloyd et al.s (2000) literature review reve als that the mentor should serve the role of consultant, role model, sponsor, and facilitator but not the role of an evaluator. Advocates for evaluation believe that expe rienced teachers are the most qualified to provide support and gatekeep for the profession (Villani, p. 24). Recent research (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Yusko & Feiman-Nemser, 2008) suggests that assessment and assistance can coexist. Carver and Feiman-Nemser found that professional accountability was strongest in sites where mentors provide both assist ance and assessment for the new teacher. Mentor Support Ganser (1995) noted that m a ny staff development programs ar e front-end loaded (p. 9) with application, practice, a nd follow-up lacking. Support for mentors should be ongoing and

PAGE 49

49 readily available. A program c oordinator or an administrator should be available to provide opportunities for discussion and to provide needed resources. Jonson (2002) offered the idea of the beginning mentor being observed by an experi enced mentor just as the new mentor observes the mentee. Smith (1993) reported that some districts publish a me ntor newsletter dealing with relationship issues, commending the work of the mentors, and providing a source of ideas. One study (Orland, 2001) suggested that frustration, feelings of inadequacy, and uncertainties can be avoided by taking advantage of in-service opport unities as well as formal and informal conversations with fellow mentors mediated by mo re experienced mentors. Ganser (1995) also advocates for scheduled monthly meetings for me ntors to discuss experi ences, gain advice, and share successes. Mentor Recognition Mentors often report that they grow both pers onally and professionally by serving in the role. More tangible rew ards are al so needed. Mentors need to be recognized and feel valued for their time and efforts (Villani, 2002). Possible rewa rds for mentors could include an end-of-year recognition banquet, release from other duties, graduate school tuition, paid attendance at conferences or workshops, a stipend, reduced cl assroom preparations or class sizes (Jonson, 2002; Halford, 1998; Odell & Ferraro, 1992; Rauch & ORourke, 2001; Youngs, 2003). Administrator Roles and Responsibilities Mentoring program benefits are maximized wh en the principal is involved. Principals demonstrate their support of the mentoring progra m by discussing it during the interview process and when welcoming the new teacher (Villani, 2002). Principals must be vigilant about the types of assignments new teachers are given. Too of ten new teachers are assigned to the most challenging situations and given the largest num ber of class preparations, with inadequate

PAGE 50

50 classroom space or materials. Villani further recommends that new teachers should be discouraged from their involvement in extracur ricular activities during the first two years. Principals must encourage mentors to focus on improvement of the new teachers instruction rather than on simply providing moral support (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Youngs, 2003). The principal can assure a quality mentoring experience by creating release time for new teachers and mentors to m eet and to observe in each others classrooms (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992; Villani, 2002 ; Youngs, 2003). A substitute teacher could release the mentor from the classroom to work with the beginning teacher. Release time from non-teaching responsibilities such as hall duty could be given to mentors. Funding could be provided for workshops and trai ning that the mentor and ment ee could attend together. Through classroom observations, post-observa tion conferences, and other direct consultation, principals are able to help ne w teachers acquire content-specific pedagogical knowledge (Stein & DAmico, 2002). Principals mu st establish consistent meeting times for teachers to engage in school wi de learning opportunities. Collabor ative work in departments or grade-level teams and school wide professional development is an important part of the induction process (Kardos, et al., 2001; Smylie & Hart, 1999). Ganser ( 2001) stated that the principal must continually orient the entire st aff on the mentoring program and encourage the entire faculty to support the beginning teacher. A study of beginning teachers in Texas identified administrators and other teachers as being extr emely important in their support for the novice (Sanchez, 2003). Castorina (2003) found that ad ministrators recognized components of a quality teacher induction program, but for unspecifi ed reasons, were unable to provide them (p. 95).

PAGE 51

51 Among the expectations of beginning teacher s reported by Brock and Grady (1998) were a desire for the principals role to be explained; clear communication of the prevailing criteria for good teaching and lesson plans; and classroom visits, feedback, and affirmation. Classroom management and discipline were identified as the new teachers most common problem. Other problems, in ranked order, included how to support mainstreamed special education students, determining expectations for students, dealing with stress, handling an gry parents, keeping up with paperwork, grading student work, handling student conflict, pacing lessons, and varying teaching methods. Principals and mentors need to be aware of these concerns so that appropriate induction activities may be planned. The principal plays a crucial role in the firs t three to five years of a beginning teachers career. Mentors have the responsib ility to facilitate a relationship between the principal and the new teacher. This is especially important for induction programs that do not include formalized contact between the principal and the new t eacher. Boreen, Johnson, and Niday (2003) specify key administrative behaviors for securing positive mentoring relationships. Administrators need to: spend considerable time watching their teachers teach, observe the mentoring relati onship from its inception, analyze teaching situations that may be unsuitable for a mentoring placement, and change mentoring relationshi ps if necessary. (p. 15) Education leaders can make wi se decisions to help ensu re the beginning teachers success regarding the numb er of class preparations, enrolled students, classroom location, plan periods, and materials. New teachers need to be provided with opportunities to discuss the schools vision and not be overwhelmed with pr ocedures. New teachers are often expected by administrators, parents, and colle agues to perform like experienced teachers. The novice must be able to progress through developmental phases, moving them from a survival focus to a focus on

PAGE 52

52 student learning (Halford, 1998). Ti ckle (2000) asserts that the principal is responsible for ensuring that the new teacher has the means of ra ising concerns about the induction program, and ensuring that such concerns are addressed satisfactorily. The most underused resource in the mentoring paradigm may be the university supervisor. Such supervisors are good resources for districts that have hired recent university graduates and intend to place them in a mentoring relati onship. These supervisors know the professional capabilities of their students very well. They have also interacted w ith many veteran teachers across a number of schools. With this combinati on of knowledge, they are often able to provide valuable recommendations to admini strators (Boreen, et al., 2003). Administrator Training Princip als need to receive training in orde r to understand induction, in order to focus induction on improving teacher quality, and to ensure that structures are in place for mentors and mentees to work together (Youngs, 2003). Additiona lly, principals must have knowledge of how to properly select mentors, train mentors, and match mentors with beginning teachers (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Moir, 2005). Program Evaluation To determ ine the effectiveness of mentoring programs, evaluation needs to be built in throughout the process (Guskey, 2000). Jonson (2002) also agrees that the induction program should be evaluated and refined on an ongoing basis. Information ca n be gathered by structured interviews, observations, surveys, teachers journal entries, formal or informal discussions, and questionnaires. Brock and Grady (2001) assert th at all constituencies should participate in the program evaluation. Additionally, Brock and Grady report that a summative evaluation is needed at the end of the school year. Th is information can be used to modify the program if needed.

PAGE 53

53 Another important reason for gathering this type of information is for accountability purposes and the decision on whether to continue with the program (Portner, 2001). New Trends Teachers h ired in the 1980s have reached retirement age, creating not only a need for new teachers, but also a shortage of experienced teacher s to serve as mentors. One solution is for staff developers to organize mentor ing programs around mentoring team s rather than depending on a one-on-one, face-to-face relationship between on e new teacher and one mentor. One teacher is designated as the primary mentor while other teac hers serve as secondary mentors. Teachers may also be called upon to serve two or more teach ers as a group (Ganser, 2002). Udelhofen and Larson (2003) present a program structure which combines both one-on-one and group experiences. This structure allows the beginning teacher to interact with a variety of teachers and complications from matching participants are reduced. Retired teachers are also increasingly being invited to serve as mentors. Yalen (2004) provides a list of advantages for utilizing retired master teachers which includes their accumulated expertise and wisdom as well their increased time and flexibility to mentor. Feiman-Nemser ( 1996) also writes of cul tivating mentors from a variety of sources, including part-time and retired teachers. The Internet and e-mail can be used to cr eate asynchronous time for mentoring. Utilizing technology can preclude the need for a shared ti me or specific place to accomplish mentoring work. An e-mail-based newsletter can be sent out monthly to present ideas, lists of links and other resources, program reminders, and other valuable information. The use of technology for mentor and novice teacher support is underutili zed (Sweeney, 2005). Boreen, et al. (2003) describe critical incident repor ts as a one-page, single-spaced account of a classroom occurrence that was handled in a questionable manner. Listservs can be used for posting critical incident reports that new teachers could respond to and discuss alternative ways to handle occurrences. A

PAGE 54

54 list of web addresses providing listservs and chat rooms for a variety of di sciplines is provided in Appendix A of Boreen, et al.s work. The Florida Department of Educations web site currently offers tele-mentoring that connects volunteers consisting of National Board Certified Teachers, District Teachers of the Year, and Florida League of Teachers with Florida teachers in need of a mentors guidance. Policy Matters U. S. Departm ent of Educati on (2000) research revealed seve ral issues that policymakers need to consider when designing induction effort s. The first issue is a recurring theme in the literature review: time. For i nduction programs to have maximized benefits, mentors and mentees need enough time for their important wo rk together. Opportunities must be provided during the school day to reflect cr itically on the mentees practice. What commonly occurs is that a new teacher is added to the veteran teachers full workload affecting both the quantity and quality of the time the mentor and beginning teac her spend together. One solution is to utilize mentors who are released full-time to work with beginning teachers. One drawback is that the full-time mentor is often not at the school site enough to pr ovide the important informal interactions that are help ful for beginning teachers. Capacity is another major issue. Systems are often lacking in terms of both the number of mentors and the support structure for those mentor s that are needed to provide proper support for the new teacher. Veteran teachers often assist fellow teachers in prof essional development activities related to other reform initiatives a nd this will also create a shortage of qualified mentors. One solution to the capacity issue is to build stronger partnerships with institutions of higher education. With this partnering, subjec t matter expertise is readily available and collaborative efforts are formed.

PAGE 55

55 A third issue for policymakers to consider is the degree to which to mandate practices and procedures of an induction program. New teach ers have varying needs that are specific to their own school and classroom. Co nstructive, critical relations hips between the mentor and mentee cannot be mandated. Prescribing every aspect does not automatically guarantee consistent implementation. Howeve r, careful selection and subsequent training for mentors is critical. Sufficient time to work with the new teacher must also be provided. Policies must clearly define induction and me ntoring to facilitate an understanding of the program goals and ensure that valuable time and funds will be focused on improving teacher quality and student achievement. Youngs 2003 study provided evidence that the nature and quality of induction support for firstand sec ond-year teachers was a result of the interaction between district policy and the understanding of induction carried by mentors, principals, and other educators. These findings contribute to a growing amount of literature that features a cognitive perspective on policy implementation. Adequate state funding must be provided so that the important work between the mentor and mentee can be carried out. In addition to state monies budgeted for induction programs, monetary support can also come from several other sources. Suggestions provided by Villani (2002) included: (a) state grants (b) grants from local educa tion funds and/or parent-teacher organizations, (c) funding from the local teachers association, (d) use of other professional development monies in the school systems budge ts, and (e) personnel shar ing or reassignment. We have a fiscal responsibility, as well as e ducational and organizational ones, to keep the teachers in the profession. Funding a program is a necessity, not a luxury (p. 19). Summary The review of the literature began w ith a di scussion of Floridas teacher shortage. It continued with a discussion of induction programs with a detailed examination of mentoring, one

PAGE 56

56 component of induction. The chapte r concluded with a review of th e administrators role in the mentoring program, new trends in mentoring, and issues for policymakers. Tables 2-1 to 2-10 at the conclusion of this chapter present a summary of the research literature. Table 2-11 provides a synthesis of data from previous tables. The proposition can be made that research-based best practices, as presented in Tabl e 2-11, should be addressed in school district induction policy. Chapter 3 describes the design and me thodology used in conducting this study.

PAGE 57

57 Table 2-1. Research-based Criteria for Includ ing a Definition of Induction and Mentoring Author Criteria Youngs (2003) nature and quality of s upport that mentees received was influenced by the understanding that mentors and principals have of induction Table 2-2. Research-based Criteria for Mentor Selection Author Criteria Boreen, Johnson, & mastered basic skills of teaching; understand need Niday (2003) for flexibility in attitude and practice; understand that pedagogical styles other than the ones they use may be successful; re alize that possessiveness of students and classroom policies is detrimental to mentoring relationship; are able to confront troublesome situations as necessary; have professional vision beyond their own classroom Boreen, Johnson, Niday, minimum of 3 to 5 years of teaching experience; be & Potts (2000) awar e of gender differences Ingersoll & Smith (2004) me ntor from the same field Jonson (2002) teaching ability; listening skills; ability to empathize; sk illed teacher; able to transmit effective teaching strategies; thorough command of curriculum; can communicate openly; good listener; sensitive to beginning teachers needs; understands that using a variety of styles may be effective; not overly judgmental Rowley (1999) committed to the mentoring role; accepting of mentee; skilled at providing instructional support; effective in different interpersonal contexts; model of a continuous learner; communicates hope and optimism Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, willingness to mentor; sensitive; helpful; & Niles (1992) emotionally committed; astute; diplomatic; able to anticipate problems; nurturing; encouraging; timely at keeping mentees appraised of their successes; confidential; enthusiastic; good role model

PAGE 58

58 Table 2-3. Research-based Criteria fo r Pairing of Mentor and Mentee Author Criteria ASCD (1999) different styles paired together Boreen, Johnson, Niday, teach in the same content area or same grade level; & Potts (2000) cl assroom close to ment ee; significantly older Ingersoll & Smith (2004) ment or from the same field; common planning time with other teachers in the same subject Johnson & Ridley (2004) mentees prefer mentors of their own race/ethnicity Jonson (2002) similar persona lity or educational philosophy Koki (1997) common gender, ethnicity, cultural or class background, and similarity in work assignments Tannen (1990) same gender leads to better communication Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & proximity ; match in grade/content area, and Niles (1992) time to meet Williams (2001) mentor should be older and of the same sex Youngs (2003) match in grade/content area Table 2-4. Research-based Cr iteria for Mentor Training Author Criteria Bartell (1995) principles of adult learning Boreen (2003) recogni ze signs of mentee fatigue Casey & Claunch (2005) five stages of mentor growth: predisposition, disequilibrium, transitio n, confidence, and efficacy Chisena (2002) motivating students; handling student discipline, establishing professional relationships with other teachers; effective communication with parents; communicating student progress with parents Costa & Kallick (2000) reflection to maximize the meanings from experiences

PAGE 59

59 Table 2-4. Continued Author Criteria Feiman-Nemser (2003) must learn to assess mentees progress as well as their own effectiveness Jonson (2002) mentors are provi ded with specific training for their role; four mentee developmental stages: survival, consolidation, renewal, and matu rity; potential pitfalls of commitment to the mentor-mentee relationship; crucial issues for mentees: classroom management and discipline, time management, overwhelming workload, classroom instruction, technology in the classroom, high-stakes accountability, sociocultural awareness and sensitivity, student motivation, solitary work environment, and relationships with parents and colleagues Lloyd, Wood, & completing paperwork related to district/school Moreno (2000) policies and pro cedures; organizing the classroom; locating materials; planning lessons; establishing realistic expectations for student work and behavior; managing time; becoming more familiar with subject matter; dealing with individual student differences; motivating students; managing student behavior; grading a nd evaluating student progress; conducting parent conferences Moir (1999) mentees psychol ogical developmen t: anticipation, survival, disillusionment, rejuvenation, and reflection Moir (2005) knowledge of professi onal teaching standards, lesson planning in content areas, analyzing student work, differentiating instruction, collecting and analyzing classroom data, literacy instru ction, strategies for students with language barriers Rowley (2006) cognitive coaching; four phases of mentoring relationship: initiation, exploration, collabo ration, and consolidation

PAGE 60

60 Table 2-4. Continued Author Criteria Sweeney (2005) how to most effectively use mentoring time; provide sufficient time for guided, coached practice of essential mentoring strategies; training provided when mentors are ready to learn; sufficient time for follow-up support and problem-solving activities in individual and group contexts Veenman (1984) classroom discip line; motivating students; dealing with individual di fferences; assessing students work; parent relationships; class work organization; insufficient and/or inadequate teaching materials and supplies; indivi dual student problems; heavy teaching loads; colleague relationships; planning lessons and school days; effectively using different teaching methods; awareness of school policies and rules; determining student learning levels; knowledge of subject ma tter; burden of clerical work; relations with administrators; inadequate school equipment; dealing with slow learners; dealing with students of different cultures and deprived backgrounds; effective use of textbooks and curriculum guide s; lack of spare time; inadequate guidance a nd support; large class size Villani (2002) cognitive/peer coaching Table 2-5. Research-based Criteria fo r Mentor Roles and Responsibilities Author Criteria Baker (2002) emotional support Bercik (1994) support in three critical areas: classroom guidance, emotional support, and practical application Boreen, Johnson, & nudging from passive stance to an active participant Niday (2003) Carver & Feiman-Nemser (2009) assi stance and assessment can coexist Huling-Austin (1990) assistance and assessment are incompatible

PAGE 61

61 Table 2-5. Continued Author Criteria Jonson (2002) deve lop and enhance the attributes of competence, self-confidence, self -direction, and professionalism; direct assistance, demonstration teaching, observation and feedback, informal contact, assistance with action plan for professional growth, and role modeling Lipton & Wellman (2005) consult, collaborate, and coach Lloyd, Wood, & mentor role comp romised if mentor performs a Moreno (2000) summative evaluation Missouri State Teachers professional development plan Association (2006) Moir (2005) give practical, concrete advice; pose questions to prompt reflection; model teaching techniques; observe and offer feedback; offer other viewpoints Odell & Ferraro (1992) emotional support Portner (2003) primary role is to help mentees make their own decisions, enrich own knowledge, and sharpen own teaching and learning abilities; four mentor functions: relating, assessing, coaching, guiding; mentor cannot be an evaluator Villani (2002) emotional support and encouragement, provide information about the daily workings of the school and school cultural norms, cultural proficiency regarding students and their families, and cognitive coaching; mentoring is a separate function from supervision and evaluation Yusko & Feiman-Nemser (2008) assistance and assessment can coexist

PAGE 62

62 Table 2-6. Research-based Criteria for Mentor Support Author Criteria Ganser (1995) support should be ongoing and readily available; program coordinator or administrator should be available for discussion and re sources; scheduled monthly meetings for mentor discussions Jonson (2002) mentors conti nue to receive support throughout the process; mentor observed by an experienced mentor Orland (2001) in-service o pportunities as well as formal and informal conversations mediated by more experienced mentors Smith (1993) mentor newsletter dealing with relationship issues, commending mentors work, and providing a source of ideas Villani (2002) district director of program is optimal Table 2-7. Research-based Crite ria for Mentor Recognition Author Criteria Halford (1998); Jonson (2002); mentors receiv e some form of recognition for their Odell & Ferraro (1992); work; end-of-year recognition banquet, release from Rauch & ORourke (2001); other dutie s, graduate school tuition paid, Villani (2002); Youngs (2003) attendance at conferences or workshops, a stipend, reduced classroom preparations or class sizes Table 2-8. Research-based Criteria for Administrator Roles and Responsibilities Author Criteria Alliance for Excellent encourage mentors to focus on improvement Education (2004) of mentees in struction rather than simply providing moral support Boreen, Johnson, & spend considerable time watching teachers teach; Niday (2003) observe mentoring relationship from inception; analyze teaching situations that may be unsuitable for mentoring placement; change mentoring relationships if necessary; utilize recommendations of mentees university supervisor

PAGE 63

63 Table 2-8. Continued Author Criteria Brock & Grady (1998) principals role explained; clear communication of criteria for good teaching and lesson plans; classroom visits, feedback, and affirmation Feiman-Nemser & create time for mentee and mentors to meet Parker (1992); Villani (2002); and to observe in each others classroom Youngs (2003) Ganser (2002) continually orie nt entire staff on the mentoring program and encourage entire faculty to support mentee Ingersoll & Smith (2004) ment or from the same field; common planning time with teachers in the same subject; regularly scheduled collaboration with other teachers; part of an external network of teachers Kardos, Johnson, Peske, collaborative work in departments or grade-level Kaufmann & Liu (2001); teams and sc hool wide professional development Smylie and Hart (1999) Stein and DAmico (2002) help mentees acquire content-specific pedagogical knowledge through classroom observations, post-observation conferences, and other direct consultation Tickle (2000) ensures mentee has the means of raising concerns about the induction program and ensures that such concerns are addressed satisfactorily Villani (2002) discuss program during interview and when welcoming new teacher Whisnat, Elliott, & strong lead ers who understand the needs of Pynchon (2005) beginning teachers

PAGE 64

64 Table 2-9. Research-based Criteri a for Administrator Training Author Criteria Alliance for Excellent Education principals need training in how to support new (2004) teachers and identify quality mentors; need to know how me ntors are properly selected, trained, and matched with beginning teachers Moir (2005) site administrators need training Youngs (2003) principals must understand the purpose of induction Table 2-10. Research-based Criteria for Induction Program Evaluation Author Criteria Brock & Grady (2001) all constitu encies participate; summative evaluation at the end of the year Guskey (2000) evaluation needs to be built in throughout the process Jonson (2002) program is evaluated and refined on an ongoing basis

PAGE 65

65 Table 2-11. Research-based Induction Best Practices Defining induction and mentoring Influences nature and quality of support received by mentee (Youngs, 2003) Mentor Selection Experienced teacher (Boreen, Johnson, Niday, & Potts, 2000) Same field as mentee (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004) Effective teacher (Boreen, J ohnson, & Niday, 2003; Jonson, 2002) Effective communicator (Jonson, 2002;) Flexible (Boreen, Johnson, & Niday, 2003; Jonson, 2002) Able to communicate hope, optimism, and enthusiasm (Rowley, 1999; Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992) Committed and willing to mentor (Row ley, 1999; Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992) Emotionally committed, sensitive, help ful, nurturing, encouraging, confidential good role model, not overly judgmental (Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992; Jonson, 2002) Pairing of Mentor and Mentee Match in grade/content area (Boreen, Johnson, Niday, & Potts, 2000; Ingersoll & Smith, 2004; Koki, 1997; Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992; Youngs, 2003) Same gender (Koki, 1997; Tannen, 1990; Williams, 2001) Common ethnicity (Johnson & Ridley, 2004; Koki, 1997) Common cultural or clas s background (Koki, 1997) Match in race (Johnson & Ridley, 2004) Classrooms in close proximity (B oreen, Johnson, Niday, & Potts, 2000) Common planning time (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004) Mentor Training Adult-learning principles (Bartell, 1995) Phases of mentoring relationship (Rowley, 2006) Stages of mentor growth (Casey & Claunch, 2005) Mentees development (Boreen, 2003; Jonson, 2002; Moir, 1999) Cognitive coaching (Rowley, 2006; Villani, 2002) Reflective practice (Costa & Ka llick, 2000; Feiman-Nemser, 2003) District/school policies (Lloyd, Wo od, & Moreno, 2000; Veenman, 1984) Effective relationships with colleagues and parents (Chisena, 2002; Jonson, 2002; Lloyd, Wood, & Moreno, 2000; Veenman, 1984) Instructional issues (Chisena, 2002; Jonson, 2002; Lloyd, Wood, & Moreno, 2000; Moir, 2005; Sweeney, 2005; Veenman, 1984)

PAGE 66

66 Table 2-11. Continued Mentor Roles and Responsibilities Emotional support (Baker, 2002; Berci k,1994; Boreen, Johnson, & Niday, 2003; Jonson, 2002; Odell & Ferraro, 199 2; Portner, 2003; Villani, 2002) Demonstration teaching (Jonson, 2002; Moir, 2005) Observation and feedback for mentee (Jonson, 2002; Moir, 2005) Provide instructional guidance and support (Bercik, 1994; Jonson, 2002; Lipton & Wellman, 2005; Moir, 2005; Portner, 2003) Assist mentee with professional development pl an (Jonson, 2002; Missouri State Teachers Association, 2006) Assist not assess (Huling-Austi n, 1990; Lloyd, Wood, & Moreno, 2000; Portner, 2003; Villani, 2002) Assist and assess (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Yu sko & Feiman-Nemser, 2008) Mentor Support District director of program is optimal (Villani, 2002) Ongoing and readily available (Gan ser, 1995; Jonson, 2002; Orland, 2001; Smith, 1993) Observation by an experienced mentor (Jonson, 2002) Interactions with experi enced mentors (Orland, 2001) Mentor Recognition Mentors are recognized in some fo rm for their work (Halford, 1998; Jonson, 2002; Odell & Ferrar o, 1992; Rauch & ORourke, 2001; Villani, 2002; Youngs, 2003) Administrators Role Mentoring relationship (Boreen, Johnson, & Niday, 2003; Ingersoll & Smith, 2004) Improvement of mentees instruction (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Boreen, Johnson, & Niday, 2003; Brock & Grady, 1998; Stein & DAmico, 2002; Whisnat, Elliott, & Pynchon, 2005) Create time for mentor and mentee to work together (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992; Ingersoll & Smith, 2004; Villani, 2002; Youngs, 2003) Encourage collaboration with other f aculty/staff (Ganser, 2002; Ingersoll & Smith, 2004; Kardos, Johnson, Peske, Kaufmann & Liu, 2001; Smylie & Hart, 1999) Ensures mentee has means of raising concerns and concerns are addressed satisfactorily (Tickle, 2000) Informs mentee of program during inte rview and when welcoming new teacher (Villani, 2002) Understands the needs of mentees (Whisnat, Elliott, & Pynchon, 2005)

PAGE 67

67 Table 2-11. Continued Administrator Training Selection/training of mentors, Pairin g of mentor with mentee (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Moir, 2005) Understanding the purpose of induction (Youngs, 2003) Induction Program Evaluation All constituencies participate; Summa tive evaluation at th e end of the year (Brock & Grady, 2001) Evaluation is built in throughout the process (Guskey, 2000) Program is evaluated/refined on an ongoing basis (Jonson, 2002)

PAGE 68

68 CHAPTER 3 DESIGN OF THE STUDY Overview of the Method The purpose of this study was to examin e school district teacher induction policy currently utilized by seven large, urban Florida public school dist ricts and to determine if the policies were comprehensive in complying w ith induction literature. Additionally, policy recommendations were provided to school districts and policymaker s. This chapter contains an overview of how the policy analysis wa s conducted and the methodology supporting the analysis. Overview of the Study The data collected were used to conduct a policy analysis foll owing the guidelines established by McMillian and Schumacher (2006) and Neuendorf (2002). According to McMillian and Schumacher, Policy analysis ev aluates government policies to provide policymakers with pragmatic, action-oriented recommendations (p. 448). In order to conduct the policy analysis, numeric values we re assigned to variables in the policies. The variables that are utilized for this analysis were developed from a comprehensive review of new teacher induction literature. These variables defined the scope of the educational problem, fo rmulated the research questions, and were used to develop policy recommendations. The comprehensive literature review and the results of this research were us ed to develop policy reco mmendations that could result in decreased teacher attrition rates and in creased teacher effectiveness. This study will enlighten decision makers about issues, problem definitions, or new ideas for alternative actions (McMillian & Schumacher, p. 450). As suggested by Neuendorf (2002), a quantit ative policy analysis must rely on the process of producing counts of key categories, and measurements of the amounts of other

PAGE 69

69 variables (p. 14). Counts (wor ds or phrases) were transformed into numbers for coding purposes. Counts were coded in this study and th e frequencies and perc entages of the coded words were reported as a summary of the se ven school districts induction policies. Overview of Policy Analysis Ann Majchrzak (1984), a field expert in m et hods for policy research, asserts that it is important to choose variables that can be chan ged to improve the social problem (p. 50). In doing so, policymakers can be provided with recommendations that ar e useful. This study incorporated 11 different research questions. Each question represen ted a specific critical element of an effective induction program as ev idenced by a comprehensive literature review. Operational Framework of the Study The epistemology, or philosophical theory of knowledge (Dictionary.com, 2009), relied on a framework of objectivism supported by a positivistic method of inquiry. In an objective study of the school districts induction programs, personal m eaning to the policies was not imposed. Positivism is based on the assumption that phenomena should be studied objectively with the goal of obtaining a single true rea lity (McMillan, 2008, p. 4). Positivism supports the idea that factual experience, not opinion, was us ed to develop policy recommendations for the school districts. The policy analysis was designed to answer the following questions: 1. Do school district Induction Program Policies (IPPs) includ e a definition of induction? 2. Do school district IPPs include a definition of mentoring? 3. To what extent do Florida school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding mentor selection? 4. To what extent do Florida school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding the pairing of the mentor and mentee?

PAGE 70

70 5. To what extent do Florida school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding mentor training? 6. To what extent do Florida school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding mentor roles and responsibilities? 7. To what extent do Florida school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding mentor support? 8. To what extent do Florida school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding mentor recognition? 9. To what extent do Florida school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding the administrator role and responsibilities? 10. To what extent do Florida school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding administrator training? 11. To what extent do Florida school district IPPs comply with research-based criteria regarding program evaluation? Data Sources Each county in the state of Florida has a single school district and school board that represents the people of that county. The largest district ha s a student population of over 348,000, while the smallest district has approximately 1,100 students. Florida school districts have a diverse student body demographic. The total student membership for fall 2007 prekindergarten through twelfth grade wa s 45.81% white, non-Hispanic; 23.15% black, nonHispanic; 24.78% Hispanic; 2.38% Asian/Pacifi c Islander; 3.58% Multiracial; and 0.29% American Indian/Alaskan Native. Total minor ities represented 54.19% of the total student membership (Florida Department of Education, 2008). Florida school di stricts are generally unique by nature in that both ru ral and urban cultures are combin ed with those of ethnically diverse cultures in school district s that cover an entire county. For this research, the Induc tion Program Policies of seven Florida public school districts were analyzed. The seven district s chosen are categorized as larg e, urban school districts with student populations greater than 100,000. The decisi on to select these seve n large districts was

PAGE 71

71 based on several factors. This researcher is employed in one of the large districts studied. Additionally, larger districts, more so than smaller districts, are likely to have funding and personnel for the implementation of induction policy. Finally, larg e districts have the greatest need for effective induction policy as beginning teacher attrition is highest in urban districts. Procedure This policy analysis utilized procedures as adapted from Neuendorf (2002). Her guide to analyzing policy content included the follo wing steps: (a) theory and rationale, (b) conceptualizations, (c) operationalizations, (d) codi ng schemes, (e) sampling, (f) coding, and (g) tabulati on and reporting. Each step will be defined as it applies to the analysis of Teacher Induction Program Policy. Theory and Rationale In order to explain the theory and rationale behind a policy a nalysis, it is necessary to define what is to be examined and why it is chosen (Neuendorf, 2002). The Florida statute that relates specifically to mentoring is F.S. 1012.05 (3) (a). It states that Each school board shall adopt policies relating to mentors and support for first-time teachers based upon guidelines issued by the Department of Education (2008). Wh en this researcher attempted to locate such guidelines via email and telephone contact with Florida Department of Education personnel, she was informed that such guidelines do not exist. Therefore, each school district has created Induction Program Policy without specific guideli nes provided by the Florida Department of Education. As a result, variation exists in the Induction Program Policies among the Florida school districts selected for this study. The lit erature review consistently provided specific components that should be includ ed in effective induction programs. This policy analysis looked at each selected district Induction Program Policy and determined which, if any, research-based components were present or absent in the policy.

PAGE 72

72 Conceptualizations The predominant con cept in this research was to analyze the manner by which the seven Florida public school districts chose to impl ement the mandate required by Florida Statute 1012.05 (3) (a). The variables studied emerged from the literature review and were based on the fact that induction program policies vary among each Florida school district Inclusion of any of the selected variables in the pol icies examined was solely the de cision of the school district as Florida Department of Education guidelines or requirements were not available to school districts prior to the time of this study. Operationalizations The unit in a research study refers to what or whom is being studied. Neuendorf (2003) states, The unit of data collecti on is the elem ent on which each variable is measured. The unit of analysis is the element on which data are analyz ed and for which findings are reported (p. 13). These two things are often the same as is the case with this study. The entire policy for each of the selected seven Florida school districts served as both the unit of data collection and the unit of analysis. Each unit (school district I nduction Policy), represented the districts conceptualization of how to im plement the induction mandate of Florida Statute 1012.05 (3) (a). Coding Schemes Once the variables for th e policy analysis we re determined, a coding scheme was created with both a codebook (Appendix A) and codi ng form (Appendix B). The codebook was developed to coincide with the codes used on th e coding form. Each school district was assigned a letter in order to ensure that the districts names remained confidential. A corresponding value was recorded for each variable identified in the Induction Program Policies of each selected district. A separate, private code book was used to record the names of the school districts. This codebook was destroyed at the termination of this study.

PAGE 73

73 Sampling A nonrandom sa mpling process was utilized in this research. Policy to be examined was obtained from seven Florida public school dist ricts. Permission was requested from the University of Florida Institutional Review Boar d (UFIRB) to contact the school districts to obtain and use Induction Program Policy documen ts. Once permission was granted, applications to conduct research in each school district were completed and approved. Documents were requested from each of the school districts de signated Induction Program Director. After documents were received and reviewed, a ny required clarification was accomplished by telephone or email communicati on with the districts I nduction Program Director. Coding After all seven districts induction policies were obtaine d, coding comm enced. The coding proceeded as follows: 1. Each districts Induction Program Policy (IPP) was assigned a letter th at coincided with the confidential letter assigned to each of the seven districts. 2. Each policy was read by the researcher. 3. Variables relating to the 11 research questi ons were coded onto the corresponding area on the coding form. Subvariables listed under each variable were coded (See Appendix B). A total number of 12 variables were required on the coding form: the assigned letter of the school district plus one code for each of th e 11 research questions. Does the district IPP include: (a) a definition of inducti on, (b) a definition of mentoring, (c) research-based criteria for mentor selection, (d) research-bas ed criteria for pairing mentor with mentee, (e) research-based criteria regarding mentor trai ning, (f) research-based criteria regard ing mentor roles and responsibilities, (g) research-bas ed criteria regarding mentor suppor t, (h) research-based criteria regarding mentor recogn ition, (i) research-based criteria regarding the administrator role and

PAGE 74

74 responsibilities, (j) research-bas ed criteria regarding administrator trainin g, and (k) researchbased criteria regardi ng program evaluation. Tabulation and Reporting In order to tabulate and report resu lts, variab les and subvariables present in each district IPP were counted. Once the coding was complete, data were entered into a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet and analyzed. Nonparametric, descriptive statistics were reported. Summary This chapter provided an overview of the me thod used in this study. An overview of the study itself, theory, rationale, and purpose of policy analysis was provided. The operational framework, a description of the procedures, data sources, and c oding process were also included. Finally, the tabulation and repor ting process was described. Chapter 4 provides the results from the cont ent analysis of induc tion policies in seven selected Florida school districts.

PAGE 75

75 CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH FINDINGS The purpose of the study was to exam ine school district teacher induction policy currently utilized by seven large, urban Flor ida public school distri cts and to determine if the policies were comprehensive in complying with induction literature. Florida statute 1012.05 (3 ) (a) states that Each school board shall adopt policies relating to mentors and support fo r first-time teachers based upon guidelines issued by the Department of Education (2008). This researcher was informed by Florida Department of Educati on personnel that such guidelines do not exist. Therefore, Induction Program Policy (IPP) has b een created by each school district without specific guidelines provided by the Florid a Department of Education. However, the comprehensive literature review consistently identifies specific components that are included in effective induction programs. This policy analys is identified research-based components that were present or absent in each of the seven large districts IPP. Eleven research questions were used to determine policy compliance with research literature. Does the IPP include: (a) a definition of the term induc tion, (b) a definition of the term mentoring, (c) research-based crite ria for mentor selection, (d) rese arch-based criteria for pairing of the mentor with mentee, (e) research-based criteria regardi ng mentor traini ng, (f) researchbased criteria regarding mentor ro les and responsibilities, (g) rese arch-based criteria regarding mentor support, (h) research-bas ed criteria regarding mentor recognition, (i) research-based criteria regarding administrator role and responsibilities, (j) research-based criteria regarding administrator training, and (k) re search-based criteria regardi ng program evaluation. The data collected were from seven public school distri cts in Florida. The seven large, urban school districts selected for the study have student populations greater than 100,000.

PAGE 76

76 This chapter provides a profile of the individua l data sources used in this study, including the method of retrieval, as well as the policy an alysis results. Additi onally, a summary of the data collected and analyzed is included. Profile of Data Sources Data were gathered from seven large public school dist ricts in Florid a. The first step in the analysis of these policies was to determine if each of the selected school districts had an IPP. In some cases it was found that the district had a si te-based plan in place rather than a school district plan. The process of obt aining the IPP and the analysis of such policy was outlined in Chapter 3. Methods and Rates of Retrieval The researcher found that three of the seven selected school districts had IPP m anuals available online. The researcher also sought to obtain a hardcopy of these IPP manuals to verify that the same information was found in both ve rsions. The actual manual allowed for pertinent data to be physically coded. Of the requests to three district s for the hardcopy, two districts responded and provided such a copy. One dist rict IPP manual was retrieved online. The remaining four districts provided information re garding IPP through email and telephone contact. Eventually, all seven of the se lected school district IPPs we re collected (Table 4-1). The researcher then examined the written IPP using the 11 research questions derived from induction and mentoring research literature. This examinat ion included a complete reading and analysis of each districts IPP. Tables 4-1 to 4-12 at the conc lusion of this chapter include every response that was coded from the seven districts. The following discussion will focus on those criteria that were identified in the policy of more than one district.

PAGE 77

77 Inclusion of a Definition of Induction The term induction was defined in the IPP of four (57.14%) school dist ricts. The rem aining three (42.86%) districts did not include such a defin ition in their policy. Of the three districts that did not define induction in their policy, the term was used without bei ng defined (Table 4-2). Inclusion of a Definition of Mentoring The term m entoring was defined in the IPP of four (57.14%) school districts. The other three districts (42.86%) included the term in their policy wi thout defining its meaning (Table 4-3). The same four districts (A, B, C, and F) included a definition of mentoring and induction in the IPP. Each of these districts had an i nduction program manual ava ilable for coding. (One district provided a draft manual of induction policy currently used.) Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Selection Six (85.71%) districts in cluded mentor select ion criteria in their policy, but each was different. One (14.29%) of the seven school districts had a policy in place that specifies that the administrator at each school si te will select mentors based on administrator preference with no additional district guidelines. One (14.29%) districts policy based mentor selection on administrator preference with the district reco mmendation of three years of successful teaching experience. One (14.29%) district specified administrator preferen ce for selecting the mentor at the school site and added the additional criterion of completion of Clini cal Education training. One (14.29%) districts policy did not specify ment or selection criteria. Three (42.86%) districts included six or more criteria to guide selection of mentors. A total of 22 different mentor selection crit eria were identified in the 7 district policies (see Table 4-4). Seven mentor sele ction criteria were identified as a requirement in more than one district. These seven crit eria were: (a) administrator preference, (b) commitment to

PAGE 78

78 professional development/continuou s learner, (c) minimum of 3 years of successful teaching experience, (d) teaching the same grade level or subject area as the mentee, (e) evidence of outstanding teaching practice, (f) experience wo rking with adult learners, and (g) strong interpersonal skills. Four of these coded criteria (b, e, f, and g) are part of mentor selection criteria specified by the New Teacher Center (NTC) at Santa Cruz, California (2007a). The remaining 15 mentor selection criteria were code d once and were identified in the IPP from 4 (A, C, F, and G) of the 6 districts that specified me ntor selection criteria; 2 (A and F) of these 4 districts provided the majority of the remaining single coded criteria. Str ong intrapersonal skills and respect of peers, both single co ded criteria, are also part of se lection criteria from the NTC. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor a nd Mentee Pairing Table 4-5 provides a listing of all the pairing criteria identified. Two (2) of the 3 criteria were identified in more than one district. These criteria included administrator preference and the mentor and mentee teaching the same grade level or subject area. Administrator preference was listed as either a sole criterion or one of two criteria in district s D, E, F, and G. Teaching the same grade level or subject area was a pairing crit erion required in districts A, B, C, and D. The single coded criterion of pairi ng a mentor and mentee with classrooms in close proximity was found in the IPP of district C. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Training Mentor training was provided in all seven (100%) district s. Training was a mandatory requirement for new teacher mentors in six (85.71%) of the seven districts. The IPP for District B indicated that mentors would complete trai ning; however, topics were not specified. A total of 13 different mentor training topics were coded (Table 4-6). Eleven (11) mentor training topics were coded as criteria for more than one school district. These topics included: (a) creating a vision of quality teaching, (b) defining mentoring roles, (c) identifying new teachers

PAGE 79

79 needs, (d) understanding attitudinal phases of ne w teacher development, (e) building an effective mentoring relationship, (f) selecting support stra tegies, (g) establishing an environment for professional growth, (h) highlig hting the role of professiona l standards in mentoring, (i) developing the language and behavior of support, (j) assessing the be ginning teachers level of practice, and (k) clin ical education. With the exception of clinical ed ucation, the remaining 10 topics are part of the Foundations in Mentoring training curriculum fr om the NTC. Clinical Education and FPMS training are used for coachi ng and reflection tools. District G utilized different parts of Rutherfords (2005) The 21st Century Mentors Handbook based on the mentor trainers preference. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Roles and Responsibilities Criteria for mentor roles and responsibilities were included in the IPP of all seven (100%) districts. Forty-six (46) criteria were coded (Table 4-7). Fifteen (15) of th e criteria were utilized in two or more districts. These criteria include d: (a) observation and f eedback, (b) assistance with professional development plan /action plan, (c) assistance with curriculum/other resources, (d) coaching of the mentee, (e) demonstration teaching for the mentee, (f) meeting regularly per district mandated schedule, (g) a ssisting with lesson planning, (h) maintaining a record of mentor and mentee meetings, (i) assisting with classroom management, (j) assist ing with instructional strategies, (k) assisting with an alyzing student data to improve instruction, (l) assisting with parent conferences, (m) serving as an advocat e for the mentee, (n) establishing a trusting relationship with the mentee, and (o) establishing a confidential relationship with the mentee. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Support Six (6) of the 7 (85.71%) selected Florida school districts had so me form of mandated mentor support in the IPP. Table 4-8 lists the four different criteria coded. Three of the criteria were used by more than one district. These cr iteria included: (a) a de signated district level

PAGE 80

80 support specialist, (b) no structured support, but a district resour ce teacher available as needed, and (c) lead mentors at the school site. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Recognition All seven (100%) selected sc hool districts provided some form of mentor recognition criteria in their IPP (Table 49). Five school districts offered a monetary stipend for mentoring ranging from $220.00 to $1161.00 for mentoring one teacher. Amounts varied (decreased or remained the same) for mentoring a second teacher. One district allowed a mentor to work with up to five beginning teachers with a $400 stipen d for each teacher mentored. Other forms of mentor recognition included a $50.00 honorarium for mentors who attended a variety of training sessions after school; in-service points for comp leting professional development training; and formal and informal recognition at the school site including, among others, school newsletters and end-of-the-year celebrations. Inclusion of Criteria for Administ rator Roles and Respons ibilities Six (6) of the 7 (85.71%) se lected school districts incl uded criteria regarding the administrators role and responsib ility in the induction process. Twenty-seven (27) different administrator roles and responsibilities were co ded from the analysis of district IPPs (Table 4-10); six criteria were identified as bei ng part of induction policy in two or more of the six districts that included such cr iteria. These six criteria included: (a) assisting the mentee with development of a professional development plan /action plan, (b) signi ng off on the mentees professional development/action plan, (c) select ing mentors, (d) summative observation of the mentee, (e) verifying that the induction program has been completed, an d (f) conducting a school level orientation. District E had no uniformity for administrator roles and responsibilities.

PAGE 81

81 Inclusion of Criteria for Administrator Training Four (4) of the 7 (57.14%) selected school di stricts included criter ia for adm inistrator training in the IPP. Table 4-11 re ports the 10 different topics that were coded. Each criterion was only coded once. District B did not specify administrator training in the IPP. District E had no uniformity regarding administrator training while District F did not prov ide induction training for administrators. Inclusion of Criteria for I nduction Program Evaluation Criteria for the evaluation of the districts induction progr am were found in six (85.71%) of the policies that were analyzed. Eight diffe rent methods of evalua ting district induction programs were coded (table 4-12 ). All criteria were coded only once with the exception of program evaluation based on teacher retention data (reported twice). Summary of Analysis Although all seven districts have created IPP, the policies vary in the degree to which they m andate the most basic, essential components of effective induction programs as represented by the 11 research vari ables. District A and District C were the only two districts to provide research-based criteria for all of the 11 variables analyzed. It should be noted however, that District C indicated th at only one component of the induction program, mentoring, was evaluated by the district. Dist ricts B and D included researched-based criteria for 7 of 11 variables. Districts E and G pr ovided research-based criteria for 6 of 11 variables for the analysis. District F had research-based criteria co ded for 9 of 11 variables studied. Districts A, C, and F provided the most research-based criteria in their IPP. These districts had well-organized policy manuals (or a draft manual as in the case of one district) and indicated that components of their induction programs were base d on research from the NTC.

PAGE 82

82 Participation in the induction program was not a mandatory requirement for beginning teachers in District E. Teachers may receive support at their school site from an instructional coach, a term used synonymously with mentor. This district recently employed approximately 2,000 new teachers for the previous school year. Chapter 5 will correlate coded criteria to the comprehensive literature review found in Chapter 2. Chapter 5 will also provide conclusi ons from the data analyzed, implications for policymakers, and recommendations for future research.

PAGE 83

83 Table 4-1. Policy Retrieval Method for Se ven Selected Florida School Districts Method of Retrieval N=(7) % Retrieved by hardcopy 2 28.57% Retrieved via the internet 1 14.29% Retrieved via email 3 42.86% Retrieved via email and telephone interview 1 14.29% Total number of Induction Program Policy Plans received 7 100.00% Table 4-2. Inclusion of a Definition of Induction Category Number of Dist ricts That Included % of Districts That Included A Definition of Induction A Definition of Induction Selected Florida Public School Districts 4 57.14% (N=7) Table 4-3. Inclusion of a Definition of Mentoring Category Number of Dist ricts That Included % of Districts That Included A Definition of Mentoring A Definition of Mentoring Selected Florida Public School Districts 4 57.14% (N=7)

PAGE 84

84 Table 4-4. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Selection Category Number of Districts That Included % of Districts That Included Mentor Selection Criteria Mentor Selection Criteria Selected Florida Public School Districts 6 85.71% (N=7) Mentor Selection Criteria Mentor Selection Criteria *Administrator Preference 3 42.86% Commitment to Professional 3 42.86% Development/Continuous Learner Minimum of 3 years of 3 42.86% Successful Teaching Experience Same Grade Level or Subject Area 2 28.57% Evidence of Outstanding 2 28.57% Instructional Practice Experience Working With Adult 2 28.57% Learners Strong Interpersonal Skills 2 28.57% Strong Intrapersonal Skills 1 14.29% Valid Regular Teaching Certificate 1 14.29% Clinical Education Training and 1 14.29% FPMS Training Clinical Education Training 1 14.29% Skilled teacher 1 14.29% Mastery of Pedagogical and 1 14.29% Subject Matter Skill Outstanding Knowledge of Content, 1 14.29% Materials and Other Methods that Support High Standards in the Curriculum Areas Able to Make Connections 1 14.29% Between Ideas and Concepts Able to Summarize, Paraphrase, 1 14.29% and Make Suggestions Excellent Communicator 1 14.29% Reflective Practitioner 1 14.29% Credibility with Colleagues 1 14.29% Respect of peers 1 14.29% Classrooms of Mentor and 1 14.29% Mentee in Close Proximity Positive, Supportive,Trustworthy, 1 14.29% Open-minded, Empathetic, Nonjudgmental in Acts and Language, and Able To Build Relationships No Mentor Selection Criteria Specified 1 14.29% Note. Asterisk before criterion indicates that this criterion was not identified in the literature review.

PAGE 85

85 Table 4-5. Inclusion of Criteria fo r Pairing of Mentor and Mentee Category Number of Dist ricts That Included % of Districts That Included Pairing Criteria Pairing Criteria Selected Florida Public School Districts 7 100.00% (N=7) ______________________________________________________________________________ Mentor and Mentee Pairing Criteria *Administrator Preference 4 57.14% Same Grade Level/Subject Area 4 57.14% Classroom in Close Proximity 1 14.29% When Possible Note. Asterisk before criterion indicates that this criterion was not identified in the literature review. Table 4-6. Inclusion of Cr iteria for Mentor Training Category Number of Dist ricts That Included % of Districts That Included Training Criteria Training Criteria Selected Florida Public School Districts 7 100.00% (N=7) Note. Training was provided in all seven districts. Training was a mandatory requirement for new mentors in six (85.71%) of the seven districts. Mentor Training Topics Creating a Vision of Quality Teaching 3 42.86% Defining Mentoring Roles 3 42.86% Identifying New Teachers Needs 3 42.86% Understanding Attitudinal Phases of 3 42.86% New Teacher Development Building an Effective Mentoring 3 42.86% Relationship Selecting Support Strategies 3 42.86% Establishing an Environment for 3 42.86% Professional Growth Highlighting the Role of Professional 3 42.86% Standards in Mentoring Developing the Language and 3 42.86% Behavior of Support Assessing the Beginning Teachers 3 42.86-% Level of Practice Clinical Education 2 28.57% FPMS 1 14.29% Selected Topics from The 21st Century 1 14.29% Mentors Handbook District Training Topics Not Specified 1 14.29%

PAGE 86

86 Table 4-7. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Roles and Responsibilities Category Number of Dist ricts That Included % of Districts That Included Mentor Roles/Responsibilities Mentor Roles/Responsibilities Selected Florida Public School Districts 7 100.00% (N=7) Mentor Roles and Responsibilities Observation and Feedback for Mentee 7 100.00% Assist with Professional Development 5 71.43% Plan/Action Plan Assist with Curriculum/Other Resources 4 57.14% Coach Mentee 3 42.86% Demonstration Teaching for Mentee 3 42.86% Meet Regularly Per District 3 42.86% Schedule Assist with Lesson Planning 3 42.86% Maintain Record of Mentor and 3 42.86% Mentee Meetings Assist with Classroom Management 2 28.57% Assist with Instructional Strategies 2 28.57% Assist with Analyzing Student Data 2 28.57% To Improve Instruction Assist with Parent Conferences 2 28.57% Serve as Advocate for Mentee 2 28.57% Establish Trusting Relationship 2 28.57% With Mentee Establish Confidential Relationship 2 28.57% With Mentee Participate in Staff Development 1 14.29% Activities to Improve Performance Serve as a Critical Friend 1 14.29% Model Respect and Collegiality with 1 14.29% Mentee and Faculty/Staff Exhibit Responsibility/Dependability 1 14.29% Assist Mentee in Developing Short 1 14.29% And Long Range Plans Assist with Strategies to Increase 1 14.29% Students Family Involvement Share Culture/Climate of School 1 14.29% Assist with School Opening/Open House 1 14.29% Work with Mentee Regarding School 1 14.29% Policies and Procedures Assist with Setting Up, Organizing 1 14.29% Classroom Assist with Student Assessment 1 14.29% Monitor Mentees Progress 1 14.29%

PAGE 87

87 Table 4-7. Continued Mentor Roles and Responsibilities Assist with Accomplished Practices 1 14.29% Verification Implement Principals Requests 1 14.29% Conduct 3-5 Minute Classroom Walk1 14.29% Throughs for Data Collection Conduct Informal Get Acquainted 1 14.29% First Meeting with Mentee Assist Mentee with Online Orientation 1 14.29% Participates in Community of Teacher 1 14.29% Learners to Improve Effectiveness Model Ethical and Professional 1 14.29% Behaviors and Language Build Professional Relationships 1 14.29% With Teachers and Students Report Unethical, Unsafe Behaviors 1 14.29% Or Breech of School Board Policy Demonstrate Professional Judgment 1 14.29% Demonstrate Ability to be Reflective 1 14.29% And Analytical Regarding Teaching Focus on Evidence and Goals 1 14.29% *Communicate Primarily Through 1 14.29% Listening Attend Induction/Mentor Meetings 1 14.29% *Mentor Up to Two beginning teachers 1 14.29% Provide Consultation Regarding 1 14.29% Instructional a nd Operational Best Practices, With a Student Learning Focus Provide Responsive Mentori ng Aligned to 1 14.29% The Targeted Goals and Needs of Mentee Participates in Support Team Meetings 1 14.29% *Acts as Ambassador for the Teaching 1 14.29% Profession Note. Asterisk before criterion indicates that this criterion was not identified in the literature review.

PAGE 88

88 Table 4-8. Inclusion of Cr iteria for Mentor Support Category Number of Dist ricts That Included % of Districts That Included Mentor Support Mentor Support Selected Florida Public School Districts 6 85.71% (N=7) Mentor Support Designated District Level 2 28.57% Support Specialist *No Structured Support, District 2 28.57% Resource Teacher Available Lead Mentors at School Site 2 28.57% Not Specified in Induction Policy 1 14.29% Note. Asterisk before criterion indicates that this criterion was not identified in the literature review. Table 4-9. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Recognition Category Number of Dist ricts That Included % of Districts That Included Mentor Recognition Mentor Recognition___ Selected Florida Public School Districts 7 100.00% (N=7) Mentor Recognition Monetary Stipend for Mentoring 5 71.43% Honorarium for Voluntary Attendance 1 14.29% Of After School Training Sessions In-Service Points for Voluntary 1 14.29% Completion of Professional Development Component Formal and Informal Recognition at 1 14.29% School Site

PAGE 89

89 Table 4-10. Inclusion of Criteria for Ad ministrator Roles and Responsibilities Category Number of Districts That Included % of Districts That Included Administrator Role/Responsibility Administrato r Role/Responsibility Selected Florida Public School Districts 6 85.71% (N=7) Administrator Roles and Responsibilities Assist Mentee With Professional 5 71.43% Development Plan/Action Plan Sign off on Mentees Professional 3 42.86% Development Plan/Action Plan Select Mentor 3 42.86% Summative Observation of Mentee 3 42.86% Verify Induction Program Completed 2 28.57% Conduct School Level Orientation 2 28.57% Attend Required Administrator Training 1 14.29% Ensure Mentor Attends Requi red Training 1 14.29% Sets the Tone for Support 1 14.29% Schedule Support Team Meetings/ 1 14.29% Adheres to District Timeline Conduct Formal and Informal 1 14.29% Observations With Feedback, Guidance, Instruction, and Materials for Mentee Observe Mentee 1 14.29% Evaluate Mentee and Target Areas for 1 14.29% Improvement Verify Mentees Teaching Competence 1 14.29% Based on Educator Accomplished Practices Provide Resources to Mentor/Mentee 1 14.29% Review Mentor/Mentee Pairing Every 1 14.29% 9 Weeks for Effectiveness in Promoting Instructional Excellence Select and Activate Resource Team 1 14.29% When Mentor or Mentee Require Additional Support Facilitate Observations/Secure Substitute 1 14.29% Coverage For Both Mentor and Mentee To Receive Two Days for Observation Verify Electronic Log of Activities 1 14.29% Provide Time/Structure for Support 1 14.29% *Meet Daily With Mentee During 1 14.29% First Week *Meet Weekly With Mentee During 1 14.29% First Month

PAGE 90

90 Table 4-10. Continued Administrator Roles and Responsibilities *Meet Monthly With Mentee After 1 14.29% First Month Communicate Orientation Information 1 14.29% To All New Teachers Communicate Assignments of Mentor 1 14.29% And Mentee Convey Expectations for Performance 1 14.29% In Induction Program to Mentor/Mentee Organize End-of-the-Year Celebration 1 14.29% For Mentors/Mentees No Uniformity of Administrator Role 1 14.29% In Induction Program Note. Asterisk before criterion indicates that this criterion was not identified in the literature review. Table 4-11. Inclusion of Criteri a for Administrator Training Category Number of Dist ricts That Included % of Districts That Included Administrator Traini ng Admi nistrator Training Selected Florida Public School Districts 4 57.14% (N=7) Administrator Training Topics Induction Program Overview 1 14.29% And Requirements Participants Roles/Respon sibilities 1 14.29% Web-Based Management Support 1 14.29% System Support Team Training 1 14.29% FPMS Summative 1 14.29% FPMS Summative/Formative 1 14.29% Developing Action Plan 1 14.29% Coaching Role 1 14.29% Mentoring Role 1 14.29% Instructional Dialogue 1 14.29% No Uniformity in District Policy 1 14.29% No District Training Provided 1 14.29% Not Specified in District Policy 1 14.29%

PAGE 91

91 Table 4-12. Inclusion of Criteria for Induction Program Evaluation Category Number of Dist ricts That Included % of Districts That Included Induction Program Evaluation Induction Program Evaluation _____ Selected Florida Public School Districts 6 85.71% (N=7) Induction Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Based on 2 28.57% Teacher Retention Data District Specialist Collec ts Data to 1 14.29% Document Participation of Program Participants and to Determine Effectiveness/Impact of Activities Evaluation is Ongoing for Mentee via 1 14.29% Surveys and New Teacher Helpline Conclusion of School Year via Surveys 1 14.29% And Focus Groups With Administrators, Mentors, and Mentees Conclusion of School Year With 1 14.29% Mentor and Mentee Survey Conclusion of School Year With 1 14.29% Mentee Completing Survey and Self-assessment/Reflection Site-based Induction Rubric for 1 14.29% Individual School to Utilize Induction Program Evaluated 1 14.29% Informally by Outside Evaluator On an Annual Basis *Induction Program Not Evaluated, 1 14.29% Only Mentoring Component Evaluated By Outside Evaluator Note. Asterisk before criterion indicates that this criterion was not identified in the literature review.

PAGE 92

92 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS This study was conducted to examine school di strict teacher induction policy currently utilized by seven large, urban Flor ida public school distri cts and to determine if the policies were comprehensive in complying with induction literature. Without sp ecific guidelines from the Florida Department of Educa tion, as mandated by Florida stat ute 1012.05 (3) (a), Induction Program Policy (IPP) has been created differe ntly in each of the seven districts studied. However, critical elements that are part of effective induction programs are consistently identified in induction research. The findings reported in this chapter can be used to help state and district policymakers identify research-based components that were pr esent or absent in the IPP. Necessary changes can be made to existing policies in an effort to minimize the instructional, organizational, and financial costs associated with new teacher attrition. Discussion of the Findings The findings of this study were based on the analysis of 2008-2009 IPP utilized by seven Florida public school districts. The large, urban districts sele cted for the study have student populations greater than 100,000. Thes e selected districts have th e greatest need for effective induction policy as beginning teacher attrit ion is highest in urban districts. Using the data gathered and analyzed, this research demonstrated that only 2 of the 7 districts had research-based criteria for all of th e 11 variables studied and one of these districts needs further IPP development regarding program evaluation. A summary of findings for each districts IPP can be found in Table 5-1 located at the end of this chapter.

PAGE 93

93 Inclusion of a Definition of Induction Youngs 2003 study provided evidence that the nature and quality of induction support for teachers was a result of th e interaction between district policy and th e understanding of induction carried by mentors, principals, and other educators. When analyzed, the data collected in this study indicate that f our (57.14%) of the large districts (A, B, C, and F) included a definition of induction. The remaining three (42. 86%) districts (D, E, an d G) did not define induction, but included the term in their policy. Inclusion of a Definition of Mentoring Mentoring is an essential com ponent of the induction program and as such needs to be clearly defined in IPP. Data revealed that four (57.14%) districts (A, B, C, and F) included a definition of mentoring in their IPP. Of the thr ee districts (D, E, and G) that did not define mentoring in their policy, the term was used without being defined. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Selection Adm inistrator preference was coded as either a sole criterion or one of two criteria for three districts. This criterion was not identified in the literature review as a best practice when selecting mentors. Districts E and G had one research-based criterion in a ddition to administrator preference. District D included administrator preference as the sole criterion for mentor selection. District B did not specify mentor selecti on criteria in its IPP. A total of 22 different mentor selection crit eria were identified from the remaining six districts; 21 of these criteria correlate with inducti on literature. Three districts provided the majority of the research-based cr iteria: District A provided 10 rese arch-based criteria, District C provided 5 research-based criteria, and District F provided 12 research-b ased criteria. Six criteria originate from research at the New Teacher Center (NTC).

PAGE 94

94 Subvariables (see Table 2-11) th at were identified in the lit erature review but not coded in any IPP included the mentor as being flexib le, committed, and willing to mentor. Only one district (F) IPP included personal qualities of a mentor. Nearly ha lf of the mentees surveyed by Jonson (2002) rated skills other th an what would be classified as professional skills as the most important qualities. Being supportive, nonjudgmen tal, positive, and having a good sense of humor were identified as important for the mentees. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor a nd Mentee Pairing Although all seven (100%) of th e selected school districts included mentor and mentee pairing criteria in the IPPs exam ined, only four districts were in compliance with research-based literature regarding pairing. A ma tch in grade/content area and ha ving the mentors and mentees classroom in close proximity were identified as induction best practices from the literature review (see Table 2-11). District Cs IPP provided two of the research-based criteria, while Districts A, B, and D each had one research-based best practice. Administrator preference was not identified in the research literature as an indu ction best practice with re gard to the pairing of the mentor and mentee; this was found as pairing cr iteria in the IPP create d by Districts D, E, F, and G. Induction literature stre sses the importance of having the mentor and mentee in close proximity, yet only district C specified this as a pairing requirement. Subvariables for pairing of the mentor and me ntee as identified in th e literature review are shown in Table 2-11. Those not coded in this policy analysis were: (a) the mentor and mentee having the same gender, (b) assuring the pairing process included a sensitiv ity to race, ethnicity, cultural and socioeconomic factors, and (c) th e mentor and mentee sharing a common planning time. Time is an issue that always arises when considering ways to support beginning teachers (U.S. Department of Educati on, 2000). When the mentor and mentee share a common planning

PAGE 95

95 time, the important goals of induction are mo re easily accomplished (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004). Time to meet was identified as one of the three most important considerations when pairing mentor-mentee dyads (Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992). For induction programs to have maximized benefits, administrators must create time for the mentor and mentee to work together (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992; Vill ani, 2002; Youngs, 2003). Re search suggests that time with a mentor is a powerful indicator of program effectiveness (NTC, 2006). Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Training Three districts, A, C, and F, utilize the NTC Foundations in Mentoring training curriculum for new teacher mentors. NTC is rec ognized in induction resear ch literature as a national leader in the development and research of induction programs. This researcher contacted staff at the NTC and was informed that the Foundations in Mentoring training program focuses on the following concepts: (a) creating a vision of quality teaching, (b) defining mentoring roles, (c) identifying new teachers need s, (d) building an effective ment oring relationship, (e) selecting support strategies, (f) establishi ng an environment for professiona l growth, (g) highlighting the role of professional stan dards in mentoring, (h) developing th e language and behavior of support, (i) highlighting the role of pr ofessional teaching standards in mentoring, and (j) assessing the beginning teachers level of prac tice. Districts A, C, and F th erefore each provided 10 of the criteria coded for mentor training. District D provided two research -based criteria and District E provided one research-bas ed criterion for mentor training. Di strict G indicated that different mentor trainers use different parts of Rutherfords (2005) The 21st Century Mentors Handbook based on the trainers individual preference. District B specified that mentor training was required, but did not specify tr aining topics in the IPP. Because the Foundations in Mentoring training curriculum is not available unless previously purchased by a school district, it was difficult to ascertain whether the subvariables

PAGE 96

96 (as identified in Table 2-11) of adult learning principles and effective relationships with colleagues and parents were included as part of mentor training. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Roles and Responsibilities Forty-six (46) total criteria were recorded, w ith 39 of the criteria correlating to researchbased induction literature. Three districts (A, C, and F) provided the majority of the researchbased criteria for mentor roles and responsibilities w ith 17, 16, and 23 resear ch-based criteria respectively. Emotional support was identified in the literature revi ew as an important role for the mentor. This subvariable can possibly be correlated with the coded responses of advocate and critical friend. Three items coded were not identified in the lite rature review. These include: (a) communicate primarily through listening; (b) mentor up to two beginning teachers; and (c) act as an ambassador for the teaching profession. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Support Research literature (Ganser, 1995; Jonson, 2002; Orland, 2001; Smith, 1993) indicates that support for the mentor should be ongoing and readily availa ble. The structured support criteria identified in four (A C, E, and F) of the seven district s fit both of these criteria. One criterion identified in the literature review (see Ta ble 2-11) but not found in the coded IPPs was having a mentor be observed by an experienced me ntor just as the new mentor observes the mentee. Baker (2002) also found that mentors may need additional monitoring or training to evaluate the support they are providing. Baker reco mmended that administrative leaders or project coordina tors take a proactive role in evaluating the mentor. Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Recognition Each of the selected school districts provided som e form of mentor recognition. The most frequently identified method for recognizing ment ors was a monetary stipend for each teacher mentored. Other forms of recognition included monetary award for attending training sessions,

PAGE 97

97 in-service points for completing training, school newsletters, and end-of-t he-year celebrations. All seven districts were found to be in comp liance with induction lite rature (Halford, 1998; Jonson, 2002; Odell & Ferraro, 1992; Rauch & O Rourke, 2001; Youngs, 2003) regarding this variable. Inclusion of Criteria for Administ rator Roles and Respons ibilities Twenty-seven (27) research-based criteria were identified from the total 27 coded. District E indicated there was no district uniformity for this variable. Thre e (3) of the 7 districts (A, B, and C) provided the majority of the to tal research-based criteria with 11, 9, and 7 research-based criteria respectively. District s D and F each provided three research-based criteria, while District G provided two research-based criteria. F our of the coded variables were not considered research-based because of the time frames specified. However, Boreen, Johnson, and Niday (2003) specify that the administrator stay apprised of the mentoring relationship from its inception and make changes as necessary. Beginning teachers also welcome the principals classroom visits, feedback, and affirmation (Brock & Grady, 1998). The literature review states that the admi nistrator should encourage collaboration with other faculty/staff (Ganser, 2002; Ingersoll & Smith, 2004; Kardos, Johnson, Peske, Kaufmann & Liu, 2001; Smylie & Hart, 1999) and has a respons ibility to understand the specific needs of new teachers (Whisnat, Elliott, & Pynchon, 2005). These two subvariables may correlate with the coded subvariables relating to professional development and activating the Resource Team when the mentor or mentee requires additional support. Inclusion of Criteria for Administrator Training Ten (10) criteria were coded only once. Two of the four distri cts (A and D) that inclu ded criteria for administrator training provided the majority of the research-based criteria with three and five research-based criteria respectively. One district did not specify administrator training in

PAGE 98

98 the IPP. One district (E) had no uniformity regard ing administrator training and one district (F) did not provide induction training for administrators Just as mentors must be carefully trained for their important role, administrators also requi re training for their critical role (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004; Moir, 2005; Youngs, 2003). Inclusion of Criteria for I nduction Program Evaluation Six of the seven districts indicated in their IPP that the induction program was evaluated. According to induction research, evaluation shou ld be built in throughout the induction process (Guskey, 2000) and should occur both on an ong oing basis (Jonson, 2000) and at the conclusion of the school year (Brock & Grady, 2001). Broc k and Grady also assert that all program participants should be included in the evaluation process. While eight different criteria were identified in the six districts that provided fo r evaluation of their induction program, only one district (A) mandated both ongoing evaluation for the mentee, via surveys and a new teacher helpline, and a summative evaluation. This same district is the only district to mandate evaluation of the program by all induction program participantsthe administrator, mentor, and mentee. All other districts included only a portion of what the research states is necessary for meaningful evaluation. Distri ct E provided a rubric for ongoing evaluation, but no summative evaluation. Districts D and F eval uated the induction program base d on the outcome criterion of teacher retention. Additionally, Districts A, B, F, and G pr ovided program evaluation on an annual basis. Finally, District C did not mandate evaluation of the induction program; only the mentoring component was evaluate d by an outside evaluator. Conclusions The purpose of this study was to examin e school district teacher induction policy currently utilized by seven large, urban Florida public school dist ricts and to determine if the policies were comprehensive in complying with induction literature. After a comprehensive

PAGE 99

99 review of induction literature, 11 research quest ions were formulated to measure 11 variables or components consistently identified as part of quality induction programs. Through the literature review, data collection, and findings reported in the policy analys is, the researcher developed 10 conclusions. Conclusion 1: All IPP Should Include a Definition of Induction and Mentoring A com prehensive definition of the terms induc tion and mentoring should be included in a districts IPP as new teachers experiences are influenced by the understandings that mentors, principals, districts administrators, and they themselves have of induction and new teacher development (Youngs, 2003, p. 28). Four district s included a definition of both induction and mentoring in the IPP. Each of these district s had an induction program manual available for coding. (One district provided a draft manual of induction policy being used.) Conclusion 2: All IPP Should Include Rigorous Mentor Selection Criteria Rigorous mentor selection crit eria should be included in th e IPP and should be based on qualities of an effective mentor. Qualities may include: evidence of outstanding teaching practice, strong intraand inter-p ersonal skills, experien ce with adult learners respect of peers, current knowledge of professional developmen t (New Teacher Center, 2007b, p. 1). Mentors may be selected based on availabili ty or seniority rather than thei r qualifications if strong criteria are not specified. Some school di stricts, none included in this analysis, have implemented a rigorous selection process in which a prospective new teacher mentor must complete an application and, if chosen, will then be interviewed before a selection committee comprised of administrators and other teachers familiar with their teaching. This type of selection process would be useful in identifying such qualities as having a sense of humor and being positive. These traits have been identifie d by mentees as being very importa nt and are difficult to mandate through policy.

PAGE 100

100 Three of the seven districts provided the majo rity of the research-based criteria regarding mentor selection; these same thr ee districts were also three of th e four districts that defined both induction and mentoring in their IPP. Conclusion 3: All IPP Should Include Specifi c Pairing Criteria for the Mentor an d Mentee With regard to pairing of the mentor and me ntee, administrator preference was listed as a sole criterion in three districts IPP and one of two criteria for mentor and mentee pairing in two districts IPP; this re sponse is not a research-based best practice. When forming mentoring partnerships, seve ral factors need to be considered. The interactions and benefits of th e important work between the mentor and mentee are maximized when the two individuals teach the same grade level or subject area (Boreen, Johnson, Niday, & Potts, 2000; Ingersoll & Smith, 2004; Koki, 1997; Wildman, Magliaro, Niles, & Niles, 1992; Youngs, 2003). Whenever possible, the classrooms of the mentor and mentee should be in close proximity (Boreen, Johnson, Niday, & Potts, 2000). There is more time to accomplish the important goals of induction when the ment or and mentee share a common planning time (Ingersoll & Smith, 2004). It is also important to show sensitivity for issues of race (Johnson & Ridley, 2004), ethnicity (Johns on & Ridley, 2004; Koki, 1997), cultural and socioeconomic factors (Koki, 1997), and gender (Koki, 1997; Tannen, 1990; Williams, 2001) when matching the mentor and mentee. None of the district s IPP included all of these considerations. Conclusion 4: All IPP Should Include Mentor Training One district (E) provided m ent or training but it was not mandatory. One research-based criterion was coded from this dist ricts IPP. Another district (G ) had no uniformity in training as topics provided from Rutherfords (2005) The 21st Century Mentors Handbook were selected based on mentor trainers preferen ce. A third district (D) had two research-based criteria coded, while a fourth district (B) did not specify mentor training crit eria in its IPP. Translating

PAGE 101

101 knowledge to adults is not the same as transl ating knowledge to studen ts. High quality and ongoing training, as well as a prof essional learning community, ar e needed to help mentors develop the skills to identify and translate the elements of effective teaching to beginning teachers (NTC, 2007b, p. 1). The mentor training subvariables identified in induction research a nd listed in Table 2-11 include cognitive coaching and reflective practice; these subvariables correlate with Clinical Education and FPMS. Topics from Rutherfords The 21st Century Mentors Handbook also correlate with those identified in induction research. Rutherford provides a useful discussion of new teachers as adult learners; this is a crit ical, yet often overlooked research-based training topic. It is difficult to correlate the remaining research-based subvariables to the remaining coded subvariables as they are part of the purchased curriculum Foundations in Mentoring from the NTC. Staff from NTC provided this researcher with an overview of included topics, but access to what was included as part of each topic was not provided. Conclusion 5: All IPP Should Carefully De fine Mentor Roles and Responsibilities The majority of the coded subvariables for th is policy variable were found in the policy of districts A, C, and F. These are the three districts that utili ze training resources from the NTC. Although mentoring is recognized as a critical component of inducti on, four of the seven districts specified six or less roles/re sponsibilities for the mentor. Observation and feedback for the mentee was the only research-based subvariable in this study to be found in the induction policy of all se ven districts. As indicated in Table 4-7, the majority of the 46 subvariables coded were in compliance with the induc tion literature review. Conducting 3-5 minute classroom walkthroughs for data collection could be incorporated as a beneficial component to strength en instructional practice.

PAGE 102

102 One mentor role, that of an evaluator, is a key consideration in new teacher induction. Traditionally, mentoring has been considered a non-evaluative role. However, recent research (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2009; Yusko & Feiman -Nemser, 2008) suggests that assessment and assistance can coexist. In fact, Carver and Feiman-Nemser (2009) found that professional accountability was strongest in si tes where mentors have some re sponsibility for both assisting and assessing new teachers performance (p. 31 7). The variable with the largest amount of coded responses from district IPP content anal ysis was Mentor Roles and Responsibilities. Mentors must be provided with sustained pr ofessional development oppor tunities in order to adequately perform the roles necessary for high-quality induction (NTC, 2007b). Conclusion 6: All IPP Should Include Support for Mentors Througho ut the Induction Program Having a designated mentor program coordina tor more likely ensures that the program operates smoothly. Unexpected difficulties and dayto-day issues of teaching and mentoring may be addressed more expeditiously when the coordinator assumes the specific responsibility for the program (Villani, 2002). Formal and informal in teractions with expe rienced mentors also provide beneficial mentor support (Orland, 2001). Four of seven districts (A, C, E, and F) mandate this kind of support in thei r IPP. Two districts (D and G) did not provide for structured program support and one district (B) did not specify mentor support in its IPP. Conclusion 7: Districts A re Recogniz ing Mentors Work It is very important to acknowledge and value mentors for their time and efforts (Villani, 2002, p. 19). In comp liance with research (Halfo rd, 1998; Jonson, 2002; Odell & Ferraro, 1992; Rauch & ORourke, 2001; Youngs, 2003) all seven districts provided some form of mentor recognition. This vari able represents the only 1 of 11 variables with 100% compliance with research.

PAGE 103

103 Conclusion 8: All IPP Should Carefully Define Administrator Roles and Respons ibilities Administrator support is crucial to the success of the induction program at the school site (Bartell, 2005). The school admi nistrator is charged with pr otecting the sanctioned time for mentor-mentee interactions (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1992; Ingersoll & Smith, 2004; Villani, 2002; Youngs, 2003). Only two districts IPP (A and G) allocated time for the mentor and mentee to work together. District A affords bot h the mentor and mentee two days of substitute coverage in order for both to observe each othe r teaching. District Gs IPP specified that the administrator is to provide time and struct ure for support. According to the NTC (2007b), mentors and beginning teachers should have 1.2 5-2.5 hours per week to allow for the most rigorous mentoring activities (p. 1). The number of subvariables coded for this variable was disproportionately large when compared to the variable Administrator Training. Conclusion 9: All IPP Should In clude Administrator Training This variable is ranked as second to the va riable of Mentor and Mentee P airing Criteria with regard to low compliance with induction research. The role of the administrator is fundamental to a successful induction program (Bartell, 2005). Admi nistrators need to understand the purpose of induction and mentorin g (Youngs, 2003). Additionally, administrators need training with regard to the selection and training of mentors as we ll as how to create the most effective mentor-mentee dyads (Alliance fo r Excellent Education, 2 004; Moir, 2005). Four (4) of the 7 districts (A, C, D, and G) provided minimal research-b ased training criteria for this role. Additionally, District F did not provide administrators w ith induction training. Finally, criteria were not specified in District B and in Di strict E there was no uniformity regarding training for administrators. District E will be worki ng with assistant principa ls this school year in order to standardize the cont ent for training.

PAGE 104

104 Conclusion 10: All IPP Should Include Induction Program Evaluation Criteria Induction program s should be evaluated so that the program planners and participants know what is most effective; each element of th e program is usually evaluated. If a program has clearly specified goals such as teacher retenti on or improved student and teacher performance, then data can be collected about how well the program is achieving those goals (Bartell, 2005). Evaluation should be built in th roughout the induction process (Guskey, 2000) so that the program can be refined on an ongoing basis (Jonson, 2002). Additionally, all program participants should be include d in the evaluation process a nd a summative evaluation should occur at the end of the school year (Brock & Grady, 2001). Only one district (A) provided evaluation criteria that include d all induction program participants. This same district provided for both formative and summative means of evaluation. Summary of Conclusions Two (2) of the 7 district Induction Policies analyzed (A and C) pr ovided research-based criteria for all of the 11 vari ables studied; distri ct C had a portion of what the research recommends for induction program evaluation. Di strict C provided for evaluation of the mentoring component only, not the entire induction program. Distri ct F provided research-based criteria for 9 of the 11 variables studied. Thes e three districts (A, C, and F) provided the researcher with an induction program manual (or draft manual for one district) for coding. Their induction program policies incorporated elements from the NTC Foundations in Mentoring curriculum. Only one variable, Mentor Recognition, had 100% compliance from analysis of IPP created by the seven districts. In some district s, mentors were recognize d for attending voluntary professional development training and not specifically for thei r mentoring work. This policy

PAGE 105

105 analysis indicates that 6 of the 7 urban districts selected for th is study require assistance with creating and/or revising research-b ased induction program policy. Implications for Policymakers Florida statute 1012.05 (3) (a) stat es, Each school board sha ll adopt policies relating to m entors and support for first-time teachers based upon guidelines issued by the Department of Education (2008). This researcher was informed by Florida Department of Education personnel that such guidelines do not exist. As a result, sc hool districts have crea ted IPP without guidelines provided by the Florida Department of Educatio n. The results, as demonstrated by this policy analysis, suggest that great variability exists in wh at districts have chosen to include in their IPP. Induction research literature, as presente d in Chapter 2, consistently identifies components that should be includ ed in effective induction progra ms. The Florida Department of Education needs to create guidelines for districts to use when de veloping or revising IPP. At a minimum, these guidelines should ensure that the districts IPP includes: (a) a definition of the terms induction and mentoring which includes a cl early stated purpose and intended outcomes; (b) rigorous mentor selection crit eria based on the qualities of an effective mentor; (c) careful pairing of the mentor and mentee that includes te aching the same grade or subject area; (d) clear specifications for both the administrator and me ntor role; (e) compre hensive, ongoing training and support for the mentor role; (f) some fo rm of recognition for the mentors work; (g) comprehensive, ongoing training for the admi nistrators role; and (h) evaluation of the induction program. Written policy should be stated in a clear a nd concise manner. With these guidelines in place, districts can then create an Induction Program manual as a resource for all program participants to utilize throughout the school year.

PAGE 106

106 Induction policy should also mandate particip ation of all beginning teachers. FeimanNemser (2002) posits that new teachers need 3 or 4 years to achieve competence and several more to reach proficiency. Other literature on teac her development indicates that 5 to 8 years are required to master the craft of teaching (Scher er, 2001a). One study analyzed 5 years of student test scores; gains in student achievement fo r new teachers who had been mentored versus experienced teachers who had not previously par ticipated in a comprehensive induction program showed that new teachers were, on average, as effective as fourth-year teachers (NTC, 2007a). When creating state or district policy, it is not necessary to reinve nt the induction wheel. Policymakers can look to other states for guida nce. One of the most widely recognized and comprehensive induction program was developed by the NTC. The NTC induction program, one of approximately 150 such program s, is situated within Califo rnias state-mandated and statefunded Beginning Teacher Support and Assessm ent (BTSA) Program. Beginning teachers receive 2 years of services from a full-time mentor. Mentors are carefully selected and matched with no more than 15 new teachers. Initial training consists of a 5-day mentor academy to learn about coaching, mentoring, and the use of formative assessment tools. During the 3 years that mentors serve they are required to meet weekly for half-day training sessions where they can discuss ongoing issues and solutio ns to problems. Each beginn ing teacher is observed by the mentor for at least one hour a week after which a debriefing is held. Goal s are set early in the year and are aligned with Californi a teaching standards. The cost of this program is a little over $6,000 per teacher, per year. California funds most of the program and the school district funds the balance (Strong, 2009). The NTC works nationally to research, design, and advocate high-quality induction programs for new teachers. In 2009, the NTC partnered with one large Florida school district to

PAGE 107

107 train five new full-time mentors. The district now has four full-time mentors. Each of the five new mentors will be assigned to work with 15 ne w teachers in high-needs schools; these are schools with low test scores. The NTC provided the training for free, but it will cost the district about $679,000 in staff costs over three years. Legislators must ensure that adequate and consistent funding is available for states and districts to create and implement comprehensive, quality induction programs. In 2008, Florida and the nation faced an unprecedente d financial crisis. President Barack Obama signed into law The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in February of 2009. The ARRA was created in an effort to jumpstart the economy, create or save millions of jobs, and includes, among other measures, an expansion of edu cational opportunities. The ARRA provides $4.35 billion for the Race to the Top Fund, a competitive grant program designed to encourage and reward states that are implementing ambitious plans in four core reform areasincluding recruiting, developing, reta ining, and rewarding effective teac hers and principals. States may begin to apply for these funds in late 2009 or in late Spring of 2010 (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Given the focus of teacher quality developmen t in the current educational environment, districts might also explore pr ivate funding opportunities that could enhance their induction program development and implementation. In 200 9, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced plans to spend half a billion dollars in its quest to ensure teacher effectiveness is a key criteria in the development of policies and implementation of practices that support student achievement. A major strand of the five year pr oject will be the recruitment, development, support, and retention of teachers (Gates Foundation, 2009). Six urban school districts have been selected to participate in the project. In Florida, one larg e, urban school district won a $2.2

PAGE 108

108 million grant from the Gates Foundation for res earch on what makes teachers effective and students more successful (Ackerman, 2009). Now is an opportune time for states to capit alize on federal and private funds to create high-quality induction programs described by Wong (2005). Wong identified three basic characteristics of effective induction program s. First, programs are comprehensive; the organization of the program includes many peopl e and many activities. There is a designated group that oversees and monitors the program to ensure student learning is the focus. A second characteristic is that effective induction progr ams are coherent; there is a logical connection between the various activities and people. A fina l characteristic is that these programs are sustained; that is, the comprehensive and coherent program continues for many years. Often, because of the cost, policymakers and school administrators are dissuaded from authorizing and implementing high-quality indu ction programs. Programs can cost up to $7,000 per teacher, per year. However, one study, (as ci ted by NTC, 2007a), found that the cost of a single teacher leaving Milwaukee Public Schools and Chicago Public Schools, both urban school districts, was $15,325 and $17,872 respectively. The Maryland State Teachers Association (as cited in Hewitt, 2009) estimated that the loss of a teacher can cost a school district up to $100,000 for hiring and future training. A NTC study demonstrates that high-quality induction programs provide a positive return on investment both because of teacher re tention and teacher eff ectiveness. Costs are incurred in the first two years, yet benefits c ontinue to accrue. The ne t present value of an induction program can be calculated for students, new teachers, districts, and the state. When each constituent is taken to account, the return s on time and program resources expended show benefits for all four groups. Students benefit the most withou t having invested any money, new

PAGE 109

109 teachers earn a return of $3.61 per dollar, and dist ricts earn a return of $1.88 per dollar. The state recoups 98 cents on the dollar from its original investment (NTC, 2007a). Comprehensive, quality induction programs are likely to appeal to neophyte teachers and can therefore serve as a district recruitment tool. One school ad ministrator in a Florida county not included in this study reported a 200% to 300% increase in teacher applicants since the inception of its quality induction program. Another issue for policymakers is a recurring theme in the literature review: time. States need to support district efforts to provide the necessary time for the mentor and mentee to work together. States can provide funding for s ubstitute coverage or for training of full-time mentors. District policy could provide for both the school-based mentor and the mentee to have reduced teaching loads. Both quali tative and quantitative data suggest that time with a mentor is a powerful indicator of program effectiveness (NTC, 2006, p. 19). The school administrator has a critical role in ensuring that time is allocated for the mentor and mentee to work together. As the results of this study demonstr ate, districts need to make i nduction training for administrators a high priority. State policymakers need to allow for some flex ibility in the implementation of a districts induction program. A match in grade level or su bject matter may not be possible for certain groups of teachers such as special education teachers. It might be necessary to seek an instructional mentor outside of the school and provide a general support mentor at the school site. Additionally, districts, and even the schools within districts, will inevitably demonstrate variability in support needed for new teachers. For example, state leaders must ensure that additional professional development funds are provided for those districts serving large concentrations of students in hi gh poverty schools and district leaders must ensure funds are

PAGE 110

110 provided for individual school needs. Rather than a one-size-fits-all induction policy that focuses on compliance, policymakers can create locally driven instructional improvement policies. State policymakers should establish str ong links among the policies that form a comprehensive educator development system Policymakers should carefully explore how induction policy will be linked to other teacher policies such as preparation, licensure, evaluation, and professional development. Induc tion policies should be designed as part of a continuous system of teacher preparation and professional development (Curran & Goldrick, 2002). Curran and Goldrick (2002) also assert that provisions for program evaluation should be included in state policy. State policymakers need to plan and budget for program evaluation in order to determine the impact of the program and its cost-effectiveness. Data collection provisions about the effectivene ss of different strategies to support new teachers should be initiated at the beginning of a program as it is much easier than reconstructing the information later. Recommendations for Future Research Ingersoll and Smith (2004) found that nearly 3 of 10 new teachers move to a different school or leave teaching altogether at the end of their first year. A certain amount of this turnover is normal, inevitable, and even beneficial (p. 37 ). However, we have a fiscal, educational, and organizational responsibility to provide i nduction support for all beginning teachers. Comprehensive Induction Program Policies (IPPs ) and adequate, stable funding are both necessities, not luxuries if no child is to be left behind. Recommendation 1: Study IPPs for Alternatively Certified Teachers The focus of this research was to analyze the 2008-2009 IPP utilized by seven large public school districts in Florida. This policy an alysis focused on policy written for traditionally

PAGE 111

111 certified teachers, those teachers who were college of education graduates. It may be helpful to analyze policy created for support of alternatively certified teach ers to determine what, if any, different needs are found. Recommendation 2: Study Larger Sample of Urban Districts IPPs in Other States The turnover of teachers (and administrators) in urban schools is higher than in nonurban schools. The challenges found in urban settings accentuate and magnify the needs of new teachers (Bartell, 2005). This policy analysis focu sed on the IPPs of seven large, urban school districts with student populati ons greater than 100,000. An examination of IPPs from a larger sample of urban districts, outside of Florida may provide valuable solutions for policymakers with regard to overcoming challe nges specific to urban districts. Recommendation 3: Parallel Studies of Large and Small Districts IPPs The focus of this study was large, urban school districts. There are many exemplary small district induction programs (Wong, 2002). The Flowing Wells School District in Tucson, Arizona and the Lafourche Parish Public Schools in Thibodaux, Louisiana educate approximately 6,000 and 15,000 students respective ly. The Flowing Wells induction process has been in place since the early 1980s and takes teachers through five stages: novice, advanced beginner, competent teacher, pr oficient teacher, and expert. Educators from around the country come to the districts annual workshop to learn how to implement such a program in their own districts. The Lafourche Parish i nduction program is so successful that Louisiana has adopted it as the statewide model for all school district s. Both programs initiate the induction process before the beginning of the school year. If smalle r districts have successful programs, what are the policy implications of those programs?

PAGE 112

112 Related research questions may include: Does district size affect capacity for success of the new teacher induction program? What factors (district size, f unding, availability of mentors, etc.) affect capacity? Recommendation 4: Study Duration of Induction Programs Induction program support duration is anot her policy area worthy of investigation. The NTC recommends that new teachers particip ate in high-quality induction programs for at least the first 2 years of their careers. NTC res earch suggests that the s econd and third years are when mentoring facilitates the most d eep learning about instruction (2007b). Recommendation 5: Utilize Needs Assessment Data All too often education polic y and practice evolves in an information vacuum (Berry, Hopkins-Thompson, & Hoke, 2002, p. 15). States need to determine what works so that effective policies can be designed or policie s can be revised. Surveys of begi nning teachers frequently cite the misalignment of intended and actual support (Castorina, 2003; Russo, 2008; Whisnant, Elliott, & Pynchon, 2005). Needs assessment data can be useful for establishing induction program goals. Berry et al. also suggest that surv eying beginning teachers at regular intervals to determine what they want and need can se rve as a powerful tool for policy design and implementation. Mentors should also be queried regarding their perceived needs for the induction program. Data gathered from administrators and teache rs entering their second year could also benefit the induction program (Brock & Grady, 2001). Recommendation 6: Study the Relationship Be tween State Policy and Implementation of Induction Program This study focused solely on policy content, not implementation of policy. Future research could examine if clear policy guidelines re sult in better or more consistent application of research-based induction practices. Additiona lly, researchers may study how state policies for

PAGE 113

113 induction programs change what districts do to implement those policies (cost of implementation, length of program, etc.). Summary If America is to attract, retain, and fully develop our teaching force into high-quality professionals who teach every child to high st andards, then we must make comprehensive induction a priority for every teacher in ever y school (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2004, p. 29). Well-crafted IPP supported by adequate, equitable, and stable funding provides an efficacious route toward meeting this goal.

PAGE 114

114 Table 5-1. Summary of Research Data DISTRICT A B C D E F G Inclusion of a Definition of Induction Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Inclusion of a Definition of Mentoring Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No Inclusion of Mentor Selection Criteria 10 RBC CNS 5 RBC 1 CNRB 1 RBC 1 CNRB 12 RBC 1 RBC 1 CNRB Inclusion of Mentor and Mentee Pairing Criteria 1 RBC 1 RBC 2 RBC 1 RBC 1 CNRB 1 CNRB 1 CNRB 1 CNRB Inclusion of Mentor Training Criteria 10 RBC CNS 10 RBC 2 RBC 1 RBC 10 RBC NU Rutherfords Book Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Roles and Responsibilities 17 RBC 5 RBC 16 RBC 3 RBC 7 RBC 23 RBC 2 RBC Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Support 1 RBC CNS 1 RBC 1 CNRB 1 RBC 1 RBC 1 CNRB Inclusion of Criteria for Mentor Recognition Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Inclusion of Criteria for Administrator Roles and Responsibilities 11 RBC 9 RBC 7 RBC 3 RBC NU 3 RBC 2 RBC Inclusion of Criteria for Administrator Training 3 RBC CNS 1 RBC 5 RBC NU None 1 RBC Inclusion of Criteria for Induction Program Evaluation 3 RBC 1 RBC 1 RBC 1 RBC 1 RBC 2 RBC 1 RBC RBC = Research-Based Criteria CNRB = Criteria Not Research-Based CNS = Criteria Not Specified NU = No Uniformity

PAGE 115

115 APPENDIX A ANALYSIS OF INDUCTION POLICIES IN SEVEN FLORIDA SCHOOL DISTRICTS CODE BOOK The seven Florida school districts provided their Induction Program Policy (IPP) to the researcher. The researcher read the IPP in order to categorize th e variables. All variables were marked onto the coding form by one coder, the researcher. The total number of vari ables (V) recorded on the coding form were 12: (V1) The school dist ricts assigned letter. (V2) Does the districts IPP incl ude a definition of the term induction (0=No, 1=Yes)? (V3) Does the districts IPP include a de finition of the term mentoring (0=No, 1=Yes)? (V4) Does the districts IPP in clude mentor selection (0=No, 1=Yes)? (V5) Does the districts IPP include pair ing of the mentor and mentee (0=No, 1=Yes)? (V6) Does the districts IPP include training of the mentor (0=No, 1=Yes)? (V7) Does the districts IPP include res ponsibilities of the mentor (0=No, 1=Yes)? (V8) Does the districts IPP include support for mentors (0=No, 1=Yes)? (V9) Does the districts IPP include recognition of mentors (0=No, 1=Yes)? (V10) Does the districts IPP incl ude administrator role (0=No, 1=Yes)? (V11) Does the districts IPP include administrator training (0=No, 1=Yes)? (V12) Does the districts IPP incl ude program evaluation (0=No, 1=Yes)?

PAGE 116

116 APPENDIX B ANALYSIS OF INDUCTION POLICIES IN SEVEN FLORIDA SCHOOL DISTRICTS CODING F ORM (V1) The school districts assigned letter: _______ In reviewing the districts Induction Program Policy (IPP), the following va riables were categorized with a 1 if the IPP included the variable as relate d to induction program policies and with a 0 if the IPP did not include the vari able as related to induction program policy. Additionally, counts of specific subv ariables, representing specific di strict criteria, for Variables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 were coded. (V2) Does the districts IPP incl ude a definition of induction: _______ (V3) Does the districts IPP incl ude a definition of mentoring: _______ (V4) Does the districts I PP include mentor selection: _______ Subvariables: V5) Does the districts IPP include pairing of mentor and mentee: _______ Subvariables: (V6) Does the districts IPP incl ude training of the mentor: _______ Subvariables:

PAGE 117

117 (V7) Does the districts IPP include responsibilities of the mentor: _______ Subvariables: (V8) Does the districts IPP in clude support for mentors: _______ Subvariables: (V9) Does the districts IPP incl ude recognition of mentors: _______ Subvariables: (V10) Does the districts IPP include administrator role: _______ Subvariables: (V11) Does the districts IPP incl ude administrator training: _______ Subvariables: (V12) Does the districts IPP in clude program evaluation: _______ Subvariables:

PAGE 118

118 APPENDIX C UF IRB

PAGE 119

119 APPENDIX D INITIAL REQUEST FOR PUBLIC DOCUMENTS January 28, 2009 Laura Asta 214 Heatherwood Court W inter Springs, FL 32708 407-359-2221 lasta@ufl.edu Dear Director of New Teacher Induction: My name is Laura Asta and I am a doctoral candida te at the University of Florida. I am gathering information for the purpose of conducting a cont ent analysis of new teacher induction policies from seven large Florida school districts. I wa nt to study how teacher mentors are selected, trained, matched with new teachers, what respon sibilities mentors have, and how mentors are supported and recognized. Additionall y, I would like to learn what the administrators role is in new teacher induction and what ki nd of induction training administrators are provided. Finally, I plan to study how the district evaluates its induction program. I would appreciate you sending me a copy of the current policy and/or program manual relating to induction and mentoring. I will not be studyin g the implementation of induction programs; I am simply interested in the content of your current policy as it re lates to induction and mentoring. The name of your district will remain confidential throughout my report. Thank you for your help and cooperation. Should assi stance in interpreting or clarifying any of your district policies be necessar y, please indicate your willingne ss to be contacted and briefly interviewed by telephone by signing and returning the attached fo rm to me. According to the University of Florida guidelines, I cannot o ffer you any monetary compensation for your assistance. However, I would like to provide you with an executive su mmary of my findings, including any new teacher induction policy recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this resear ch, please contact me at 407-359-2221. Please send all materials to 214 Heatherwood Court, Winter Springs, FL 32708. Sincerely, Laura Asta University of Florida

PAGE 120

120 As Director of New Teacher Induction, I am willing to be contacted by telephone to interpret or clarify information regarding the induction a nd mentoring program fo r XXXX Public Schools. Please Print Name: _____________________________________________ Please Sign Name: _____________________________________________ Please Provide Telephone Number: ________________________________ Thank you in advance for your help and cooperation. Laura Asta

PAGE 121

121 LIST OF REFERENCES Ackerm an, S. (2009, October 21). School di strict gets Gates research grant. Tampa Tribune Retrieved October 31, 2009, from http://www.2tbo.com Alliance for Excellen t Education. (2004). Tapping the potential: Reta ining and developing highquality new teachers Washington, DC: Author. American Federation of Teachers. (2001). Beginning teacher inducti on: The essential bridge Washington, DC: Author. Archer, J. (1999). New teachers abandon field at high rate. Education Week, 18 (27), 20-21. Association for Supervision and Curr iculum Development (ASCD). (1999). Mentoring to improve schools: Facilitators guide Alexandria, VA: Author. Auton, S., Berry, D., Mullen, S., & Cochran, R. ( 2002). Induction program for beginners benefits veteran teachers, too. Journal of Staff Development Retrieved October 20, 2006, from http://www.nsdc.org/news/jsd/index.cfm Baker, D. R. (2002). Mentoring: Participant perc eptions of a program s e ffectiveness. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, 2002). Digital Dissertations (UMI No 3053865) Bartell, C.A. (2005). Cultivating high-quality teachi ng through induction and mentoring. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Bartell, C. A. (1995). Shaping teach er induction policy in California. Teacher Education Quarterly, 22 (4), 27-43. Bendixon-Noe, M., & Giebelhaus, C. ( 1997). Mentoring: Help or hindrance? Mid-Western Educational Researcher 10(4), 20-23. Berry, B. (2004). Recruiting and retaining highl y qualified teachers for hard-to-staff schools. NASSP Bulletin, 88 5-27. Berry, B., & Hirsch, E. (2003, January). What we know and can do to recruit and retain quality teachers. Presented at Teaching Quality, Recr uitment and Retention Symposium, Clearwater, FL. Berry, B., Hopkins-Thompson, P., & Hoke, M. (2002, December). Assessing and supporting new teachers: Lessons from the Southeast. The Southeast Center for Teaching Quality 1-16. Bey, T. M. (1992). Mentoring in teacher education: Diversifying support for teachers. In T. M. Bey & C. T. Holmes (Eds.), Mentoring: Contemporary Principles and Issues (pp.111120). Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators. Bercik, J. (1994). The principals role in mentoring Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals. (ERIC Do cument Reproduction Se rvice No. ED378687)

PAGE 122

122 Black, S. (2001). A lifeboat for new teachers: W ithout mentors and other support, new teachers are left to sink or swim. American School Board Journal, 9. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from http://www.asbj.com/2001/09/0901 research.html Boreen, J., Johnson, M. K., Niday, D., & Potts, J. (2000). Mentoring beginning teachers: Guiding, reflecting, coaching. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Boreen, J., Johnson, M. K., & Niday, D. (2003). Mentoring across boundaries: Helping beginning teachers succeed in challenging situations. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Breaux, A. L., & W ong, H. K. (2003). New teacher induction: How to train, support, and retain new teachers Mountain View, CA: Harry K.Wong Brock, B., & Grady, M. (1998). Beginning teacher i nduction programs: The role of the principal. Clearing House, 71, 179-184. Brock, B., & Grady, M. (2001). From first-year to first-rate: Principals guiding beginning teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Carver, C., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2009). Using policy to improve teach er induction: Critical elements and missing pieces. Educational Policy, 23 295-328. Casey, J., & Claunch, A. (2005). The stages of mentor development. In H. Portner (Ed.), Teacher Mentoring and Induction: The State of the Art and Beyond (pp. 95-108), Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Castorina, S. S. (2003). An exploration of the relationships between administrators, mentors, and teachers beliefs and practices in a teach er induction program. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2003). Digital Dissertations (UMI No. 3117305) Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (2000). Ge tting into the ha bit of reflection. Educational Leadership 57(7), 60-62. Chisena, C. P. (2002). A study of the perceptions of Orange Count y, Florida first-year elementary teachers regarding the effectivene ss of selected induction activities and the main sources of assistance for first-year t eachers. (Doctoral dissert ation, University of Central Florida, 2002). Digital Dissertations (UMI No. AAT3042947) Coppenhaver, A., & Schaper, L. (1999). Mentoring the mentors. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A Better Beginning: Supporting and Me ntoring New Teachers (pp. 60-68). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision a nd Curriculum Development. Curran, B., & Goldrick, L. (2002). Mentoring and supporting new teachers (Issue brief). Washington DC: National Gover nors Association Center for Best Practices. Retrieved April 14, 2007, from http://www.nga.org/cda/files/010902NEWTEACH.pdf Darling-Hammond, L. ( 1994). Professional development schools: Schools for developing a profession. New York: Teachers College Press.

PAGE 123

123 Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 166-173. Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defini ng highly qualified teachers: What does scientifically-based research actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31 (9), 13-25. Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers. Educational Leadership, 60 (8), 6-12. DeBolt, G. P. (Ed.). (1992). Teacher induction and mentoring : School-based collaborative programs Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Dictionary.com (2009) Retrieved April 21, 2009, from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epistemology Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Foleno, T (2000). A sense of calling: Who teaches and why. New York: Public Agenda. Fideler, E., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teac her induction practices in the United States Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers. Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education (ED397060). Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational Leadership 60(8), 2529. Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. B. (1992). Los Angeles mentors: Local guides or educational companions ? East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. Florida Department of Education, Office of Policy Research and Improvement (2003a). Florida teacher retention: 1992-2002. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from http://www.fldoe.org/evaluati on/pdf/retentionbrieffinal.pdf Florida Departm ent of Education, Office of Policy Research and Improvement. (2003b). Tracking teacher education graduates to Florida classrooms Retrieved April 29, 2006, from http://www.fldoe.org/evaluation/pdf/trackingbrief.pdf Florida Departm ent of E ducation, Press Office (2006). Governor Bush announces $239 million initiative to recruit and retain teachers. Retrieved January 25, 2006, from http://www.fldoe.org/news/2006/2006_01_23.asp Florida Departm ent of Education, Offi ce of Evaluation and Reporting (2007a). Projected number of teachers needed. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://www.fldoe.org/evaluation/pdf /tchr_proj_feb07_text_rpt.pdf Florida Departm ent of Education (2007b). Class size redu ction amendment Retrieved April 14, 2007, from http://www.fldoe.org/arm/pdf/amendment.pdf

PAGE 124

124 Florida Department of Education, (2007c). C hange, and response to change in Floridas public schools. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://www.fldoe.org/eias/e iaspubs/pdf/changes0207.pdf Florida Departm ent of Education, (2007d). Retention of first-yea r instructional staff. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pdf/tch1keep.pdf Florida Departm ent of Education, (2008). Membership in Floridas public schools, Fall 2007 Retrieved September 19, 2008, from http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eia spubs/pdf/pk-12m brship.pdf Frase, L. E. (1992). Maximizing people power in schoolsMotivating and managing teachers and staff Newbury Park: Corwin Press F.S. 1012.05 (3) (a) Teacher Recruitment and Retention (2008). Ganser, T. (1995). A road map for designing quality mentor ing programs for beginning teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Wi sconsin Association for Middle Level Education, Stevens Point, WI. (ERIC Docu ment Reproduction Service No. ED394932) Ganser, T. (2001). The princi pal as new teacher mentor. Journal of Staff Development, 22 (1), 3941. Ganser, T. (2002). Sharing a cup of coffee is only a beginning. Journal of Staff Development, 23(4), 28-32. Gates Foundation, (2009). Intensive partnerships for effective teaching Retrieved October 11, 2009, from http://www.gatesfoundation.org Goodnough, A. (2001, July 18). Interstate com petition for teachers from abroad. New York Times Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating pr ofessional development Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Halford, J. M. (1998). Easing the way for new teachers. Educational Leadership 55(5), 33-36. Haugaard, J. F. (2005). Critical elements of begi nning teacher induction: An analysis of support contributing to professional development. (D octoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2005). Digital Dissertations (UMI No. AAT3177977) Hensley, S. F. (2002). First-year teachers perceptions of what constitutes effective induction programs in North Carolina. Dissertation Abstracts International 63(01A), 38. Hewitt, P. M. (2009). Hold on to your new teachers. Leadership, 38(5), 12-14. Huling-Austin, L. (1988). A synthesis of research on teac her induction programs and practices Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Do cument Reproduction Service No. ED302546)

PAGE 125

125 Huling-Austin, L. (1989). A synthesis of resear ch on teacher induction programs and practices. In J. Reinharz (Ed.), Teacher Induction (pp. 12-33). Washington, DC: National Education Association. Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In R. W. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (pp. 535-548). New York: MacMillan. Humphrey, D., Adelman, N., Esch, C., Rieh l, L., Shields, P., & Tiffany, J. (2000). Preparing and supporting new teachers: A literature review. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Hunt Institute for Educational Lead ership and Policy. (2004, November). School leadership supporting teacher retention. Prepared for the James B. Hunt Jr. Institute by the Southeast Center for Teaching Quality. Ingersoll, R. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499-534. Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. NASSP Bulletin 86, 16-31. Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. M. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? NASSP Bulletin, 88 (638), 28-40. Johnson, S., & Birkeland, S. (2003). Pursuing a se nse of success: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal 40 (3), 581-617. Johnson, S., Birkeland, S., & Peske, H. (2005). Life in the fast track: How states seek to balance incentives and quality in alternat ive teacher certification programs. Educational Policy 19(1), 63-89. Johnson, S. M., Berg, J. H., & Donaldson, M. L. (2005). Who stays in teaching and why: A review of literature on teacher retention. The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Johnson, S. M., & Kardos, S. M. (2002). Keeping new teachers in mind. Educational Leadership 59(6), 12-16. Johnson, W. B., & Ridley, C. R. (2004). The elements of mentoring New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Jonson, K. F. (2002). Being an effective mentor: How to help beginning teachers succeed Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kardos, S., Johnson, S., Peske, H., Kauffman, D., & Liu, E. (2001). Counting on colleagues: New teachers encounter the profession al cultures of their schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 250-290.

PAGE 126

126 Koki, S. (1997). The role of teacher mentoring in educational reform Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED420647) Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental re lationships in organization life Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Lipton, L., & Wellman, B. (2005) Cultivating le arning-focused relationships between mentors and protgs. In H. Portner (Ed.), Teacher Mentoring and Induction: The State of the Art and Beyond ( pp. 149-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Littrell, P., & Billingsley, B. (1994). The eff ects of principal support on special and general educators stress, job satisf action, school commitment, health, and intent to stay in teaching. Remedial & Special Education, 15 (5), 297-311. Lloyd, S., Wood, T. A., & Moreno, G. (2000). Whats a mentor to do? Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 (1), 38-42. Majchrzak, A. (1984). Methods for policy research. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. McMillan, J. H. (2008). Educational research: Fundam entals for the consumer Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based Inquiry Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Missouri State Teachers Association (2006). Missouris mentoring framework. Retrieved September 18, 2007, from http://www.successlink.org Moir, E. (1999). The stages of a teac hers first year. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A Better Beginning : Supporting and Mentoring New Teachers (pp. 19-23). Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Moir, E. (2005). Launching the next generation of teachers: The New Teacher Centers Model for Quality Induction and Mentoring. In H. Portner (Ed.), Teacher Mentoring and Induction : The State of the Art and Beyond (pp. 59-73).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. National Center for Educati on Statistics (NCES). (1993-94). 1993-94 Schools and staffing survey. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Center for Educati on Statistics (NCES). (1999a). Predicting the need for newly hired teachers in the United States to 2008-09 Retrieved January 21, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs99/1999026.pdf

PAGE 127

127 National Center for Educati on Statistics (NCES). (1999b). Teachers report need for more preparation. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pressrelease/rel1999/1_28_99.asp National Center for Educati on S tatistics (NCES). (2000). Progress through the teacher pipeline: 1992-1993 college graduates and elementary/secondary school teaching as of 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Edu cation, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for Americas future New York: Author Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. New Teacher Center (NTC) at the Univer sity of California, Santa Cruz. (2006). Understanding New York Citys groundbreaking induction initiative: Policy im plication for local, state, and national leaders. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://newteachercenter.o rg/pdfs/NYCPolicyPaper.pdf New Teacher Center (NTC) at the U niversity of California, Santa Cruz (2007a). New teacher support pays off: A return on investment for educators and kids. Retrieved July 14, 2008, from http://www.newteachercenter.org/pdfs/NTC_Policy_Brief-Hill_Briefing.pdf New Teacher Center (NTC) at the U niver sity of California, Santa Cruz (2007b). High quality mentoring and induction practices: A resour ce for education leaders seeking to create and/or improve induction programs with practice s that support teacher retention, teacher development, and improved student learning. Retrieved September 6, 2009, from http://newteachercenter.org /pdfs/Cap_Hill_HQM_final.pdf North Carolina State Board of Education. (2006). Policies on the beginning teacher support program. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://www.ncpublicschools.or g/docs/recruitm ent/beginning/policysupportprogram.pdf Odell, S. J. (1989). Developing support programs for beginning teachers. In Assisting the Beginning Teacher. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators. Odell, S. J., & Ferraro, D. P. (1992). Teacher mentoring and teacher retention. Journal of Education Teaching, 43 200-204. Orland, L. (2001). Reading a mentoring situat ion: One aspect of learning to mentor. Teacher and Teacher Education, 17 75-88. Pearson, M. J., & Honig, B. (1992). Success for beginning teachers: The California New Teacher Project 1988-1992. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education. Portner, H. (2001). Training mentors is not enough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

PAGE 128

128 Portner, H. (2003). Mentoring new teachers Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Rauch, C., & ORourke, J. (2001). Induction, mentoring, and retention of teachers Paper presented at the Annual Holmes Partnershi p Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED452181) Riggs, I. M. (2000). The impact of teaching and induction ac tivities upon mentors as indicated through measurement of mentor self-efficacy San Bernardino, CA: California State University. (ERIC Document Re production Service No. ED442639) Rowley, J. B. (1999). The good mentor. Educational Leadership, 56 (8), 20-22. Rowley, J. B. (2006). Becoming a high-performance mentor: A guide to reflection and action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Rutherford, P. (2005). The 21st century mentors handbook Alexandria, VA: Just ASK Publications. Russo, J. (2008). An exploration of the relationshi ps between elementary principals, mentors, and novice teachers beli efs and practices in a teacher retention program. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida, 2008). Digital Dissertations (UMI No. 3334501) Sanchez, S. (2003). Characteristics associated wi th successful mentoring and induction programs in South Texas. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, 2003). Digital Dissertations (UMI No. AAT 3099255) Saphier, J., Freedman, S., & Aschheim, B. (2001). Beyond mentoring: How to nurture, support, and retain new teachers Newton, MA: Teachers 21. Scherer, M. (2001a). Improving the quality of th e teaching force: A conversation with David C. Berliner. Educational Leadership 58 (8), 6-10. Scherer, M. (2001b). Making standards work. Educational Leadership, 1 (1), 5. Schn, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smylie, M., & Hart, A. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A human and social capital development perspective. In J. Murphy & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Administration (pp. 421-441). San Fran cisco: Jossey-Bass. Smith, R. D. (1993). Mentoring new teachers: Strategies, structures, and successes. Teacher Education Quarterly, 20 (4), 5-18. Sprinthall, N. A., Reiman, A. J., & Thies-Sprinthall, L. (1992). Teacher professional development. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education pp. 666703). New York: Macmillan.

PAGE 129

129 Stein, M. K., & DAmico, L. (2002). Inquiry at th e crossroads of policy and learning: A study of a district-wide literacy initiative. Teachers College Record, 104, 1313-1344. Strong, M. (2009). Effective teacher induction and ment oring: Assessing the evidence. New York: Teachers College Press Sweeny, B. (2005). Mentoring: A matter of time and timing. In H. Portner (Ed.), Teacher Mentoring and Induction: The State of the Art and Beyond (pp. 129-148).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Tannen, D. (1990). You just dont understand: Women and men in conversation New York: Ballantine Books. Tickle, L. (2000). Teacher induction: The way ahead. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Udelhofen, S., & Larson, K. (2003). The mentoring year: A step-by-step program for professional development Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Preparing and supporting new teachers: A literature review Washington, DC. Retrieved November 24, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/Final_report.pdf U.S. Departm ent of Education. (2005). Improving teacher quality state grants non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC. Retrieved March 21, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/guidance.pdf U.S. Departm ent of Education. (2009). Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Overview information: Race to the Top Fund (ARRA) CFDA 84.395. Washington, DC. Retrieved September 5, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedR egister/proprule/2009-3/072909d.html Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research 54 143-178. Villani, S. (2002). Mentoring programs for new teachers : Models of induction and support Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Whisnant, E., Elliott, K., & Pynchon, S. (2005, July). A review of literature on beginning teacher induction Silverdale, WA: Center for Stre ngthening the Teaching Profession. Wildman, T. M., Magliaro, S. G., Niles, R. A., & Niles, J. A. (1992). Teacher mentoring: An analysis of roles, activities, and conditions. Journal of Teacher Education, 43 205-213. Williams, B. (2001). Adult learning theory: The mentoring connection Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED450101)

PAGE 130

130 Wong, H. K. (2002). Induction: The best form of professional development. Educational Leadership, 59, 52-55. Wong, H., & Wong, R. (2003). Ef fective teaching: How to retain new teachers. The teachers.net Gazette Retrieved March 4, 2006, from http://www.teachers.net/g azette/FEB03/wongprint.htm l Wong, H. K. (2005). New teacher induction: The foundation for comprehensive, coherent, and sustained professional development. In H. Portner (Ed.), Teacher Mentoring and Induction: The State of the Art and Beyond (pp. 41-58).Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Yalen, T. (2004). The retired master teacher as mentor: Meeting a national need Retrieved October 27, 2006, from http://teachersnetwork.org/TNPI/research/prep/Yalen/ Young, B. (2003). Public school student, staff, and graduate counts by state, school year 200102 (NCES 2003-358). Washington, D C: National Center for Educational Statistics, U. S. Department of Education, Office of E ducational Research and Improvement. Youngs, P. (2003). District induc tion policy and support for beginni ng teachers: An examination of induction programs in three C onnecticut districts. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2003). Digital Dissertations (UMI No. 3101407) Yusko, B., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Embrac ing controversies: Combining assistance and assessment in new teacher induction. Teachers College Record, 110 923-953. Zimpher, N. L., & Grossman, J. E. (1992). Co llegial support by teacher mentors and peer consultants. In C. D. Glickman (Ed.), Supervision in Transition: 1992 Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 141-154). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisi on and Curriculum Development.

PAGE 131

131 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Laura Ann Asta was born in Macon, Georgia in 1963. She is the youngest of W ally and Betty Williams six children. Laura graduate d from Coosa High School in 1981. In 1986, Laura earned a Bachelor of Science de gree in education from Berry College, Mount Berry, Georgia and then returned to school to graduate in 1992 with an Associate of Science degree in nursing from Dalton State College, Dalton, Georgia. She comp leted her Master of Science degree in counseling and psychology at Troy Un iversitys Orlando campus in 1999. Laura has been fortunate to enjoy many different career opportunities. She has worked as a classroom teacher, guidance counselor, registered nurse, and adjunct professor at Seminole State College of Florida. She is curre ntly employed as a re gistered nurse for Orange County Public Schools (OCPS) in Orlando. After graduating from the University of Flor ida, Laura plans to continue working for OCPS and teaching part-time at Seminole Stat e College. Laura has been married to Rick Asta for 16 years. They have one daughter, Jennifer and one son, Ricky.