Commission: Mentoring and Induction Progress and Dissemination of Commission Sandra J. Odell, Professor (Commission Chair) University of Nevada Las Vegas Virginia Resta, Assoc. Prof. & Asst. Dean Texas State University - San Marcos Richard Lange National-Louis University Sharon Schwille, Teacher Prep. Prog. Coor. Michigan State University Renee Tipton Clift, Professor University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Elizabeth A. Wilkins, Assoc. Prof. Northern Illinois University Katharine Cummings, Associate Dean Western Michigan University Michael Strong, Director of Research New Teacher Center,, UC Santa Cruz Pearl Mack, Retired Teacher Chicago Illinois Jian Wang, Associate Professor University of Nevada, Las Vegas Ed Pultorak, ATE President Southern Illinois University, Carbondale Association of Teacher Educators

Teacher Induction Teacher Induction Policies at National and State Levels Ed Pultorak Ph.D. and Richard E. Lange Past, Present, and Future Research on Teacher Induction: An Anthology for Researchers, Policy Makers and Practitioners. Editors Jian Wang, Sandra J. Odell and Renee Clift

Introduction Some of the most successful educational reforms of the early 1980s were new teacher mentoring and induction programs The major policy initiative for their emergence occurred at the state level In 1984, eight states reported the operation of new teacher programs. In 2008, 25 states require and finance mentoring for all beginning teachers and 20 of those states have some form of mentoring program standards for selecting, training, and/or matching mentors to novice teachers There are great disparities between the states in regards to the type of programs available and the amount of funding. This chapter does not provide analysis of emerging data; rather, the purpose is to paint a picture of the diversity of support programs by providing a cross section of five states for examination.

California California is one of the leaders in promotion and legislation of new teacher programs since The state provided increased funding in 1992 to provide for extensive mentor training. The success of this program is because it encourages collaboration among local school districts, county offices of education, colleges, and universities to organize and deliver professional development for beginning teachers.

Kentucky In 1984, Kentucky created its first new teacher induction program. The program was then mandated and funded in 1985 as the Kentucky Beginning. New teachers and out-of-state teachers who had less than two years of experience were required to enter into a one year internship program. The quality of Kentucky's induction programs can be reflected based on its 2008 standards for new teachers. Three key standards are: The teacher reflects on and evaluates teaching and learning The teacher evaluates teaching and implements professional development The teacher provides leadership within school/community/profession

New Jersey The beginnings of new teacher induction and mentoring programs in New Jersey started in Provisional teachers were required to pay $900 for mentor support. In 1992, a new policy was approved that required all New Jersey beginning teachers to participate in an induction program provided by their hiring school districts. Since 2004 mentoring plans are developed by the local Professional Development Committee and reviewed and approved by the local board of education and the county superintendent. Mentors must take part in a comprehensive mentor training program based on the professional teacher standards.

Iowa Iowa Mentoring and Induction Program began as part of the Iowa Teacher Quality legislation enacted in Iowa pays $1,300 for each first or second year teacher. $1,000 of those funds are paid to the mentor and the remaining dollars can be used by the district or to pay for related program costs. New teachers must demonstrate their ability to enhance academic performance and support for implementation of the school district's student achievement goals. New teachers must use a variety of methods to monitor student learning and engage in professional growth.

Texas In 1991, the Texas Induction Year Program for Beginning Teachers (TIYPBT) was mandated. The seven goals including retention, socialization, improved instruction, and K-16 collaboration. The state has developed a state-wide network of Centers for Professional Development and Technology. By 1997, several centers were fully functional and included 43 universities, 15 service centers, and 113 school districts (Sweeney, 1998). In 2007, the state provided $13 million to support such programs through grants.

Implications and Summary Mentoring of new teachers and the various new teacher induction programs have wide and varied implications for the practitioner, researcher, and policy maker. The quality and quantity of administrative support provided for new teachers varies drastically between states. Because of the diversity among state programs, research into program effectiveness is just beginning to appear. Just how effective new teacher induction programs have been is open to debate. The call for more large scale quality research investigations similar to those completed in 2007 by Villar and Strong regarding the impact of support programs for beginning teachers on student learning, and cost effectiveness of such programs (Fletcher, Strong & Villar, 2008) is apparent.

Implications and Summary One suggestion offered is to ask for greater cooperation between states that have policies regarding support programs for new teachers, encouraging non-mandating states to begin to explore what standards, goals, and model programs they need to establish to insure that new teachers are highly qualified to work with our nation's children. Prospective new teachers who are searching for their first position need to seriously consider the type of induction program available to them. Candidates must be aware that their beginning years are most important to their continuing success as educators.

Teacher Induction Thank you