First-Time Teacher and the Importance of Induction Programs

The first few years of a new teacher’s career are critical in the teacher’s formations as a professional. Argue how you would approach the induction process for new teachers and how you might provide individualized professional development and mentoring based on the teacher effectiveness evaluation you think is most appropriate for teachers; and in particular, ELL teachers.

Induction programs are defined to serve new teachers to successfully transition from pre-service teacher candidates to in-service teachers (Laurie-ann, et al., 2009; Bullough, 2012; Joerger, & Bremer, 2001). This transition is extraordinary in many ways and definitely requires some helping hands along the way because of the multiple activities (conduct teaching activities, deal with classroom management issues, meet state/local licensure, changing legislation, practices of career and technical education, etc.) requiring timely attention and actions. This post will attempt to answer why induction programs are important in three different phases. The first phase will lay the foundation for its need; the second phase will provide few examples of existing induction programs in the United States and will report their success/failure status, and the third phase will attempt to provide an overview of required components for the success of induction programs.  

Throughout this semester we basically argued on how teacher education programs can produce teacher candidates that are well-prepared to handle everyday classrooms with much less pain. Since the long history of teacher education, it is evident that the first-time teachers never feel fully prepared to take on this job regardless of the university they attended or the materials they studied to complete the program. It is true with every profession we can think of. Unlike many other professions where novice and rookie employees are given enough time (few months to few years based on the type of job and company) to learn required skills; teaching demands teachers to meet the professional levels of veteran teachers when new entrants are still trying to transition from students to teachers (Joerger, & Bremer, 2001). Many researchers argue that the demand of utmost professionalism, and a huge burden on before being able to understand this profession, is responsible for high teacher attrition rates in the United States (Harrison, et al., 2005). A smooth transition is a key to keep the teacher retention rates higher. It is important for school, and school districts to link new teachers with experienced ones for mentorship and guidance, and provide necessary professional development opportunity to successfully navigate through this phase, and keep a positive attitude towards the profession they passionately commit rest of their lives. Multiple research conducted in this area have firmly established that the teachers who go through induction phase in early days of their career are more confident, qualified, and competent than ones who do not (Joerger, & Bremer, 2001; Laurie-ann, et al., 2009).

Many states in the United States require school districts to provide induction and mentoring opportunities to the new teachers. There are multiple models of teacher induction programs currently being practiced in the United States. Some of them are exemplary, while many fail to achieve the goals they founded upon. One of the best remembered is carried out in the state of California named Individualized Induction plan (IIP) offered by school districts, county education offices including higher institutions. The law requires new teachers to be provided rigorous support to guarantee a smooth transition into teaching and unceasing professional growth. Currently renamed as New Teacher Center (NTC) acts as an independent non-profit organization helped more than 49000 state teachers and more than 1 million nationwide. New York State Mentor Teacher-Internship Program (MTIP) on the other hand, is doing a good job despite the inconsistent funding from the state Education Board. In this model, district superintendents assign a mentor to a new teacher, who then, provides one year of support to meet the need of new teacher dictated by teacher union.  The model currently being used in the state of Utah serves as the last and probably the least favorable one. It requires each new teachers be tied to a mentor chosen by the school principal. It is reported that in most cases teachers or mentors do not receive any kind of compensation or time release, and the program itself is always poorly funded. It is ineffective in many levels (no strict plan to meet, no assignment) and entirely depends on the goodwill of the mentors (Bullough, 2012, p. 60-62).

Based on the comparison of the effective and ineffective models we can come up with few characteristics that make an inductive program a pleasant experience. The first one obviously is the funding. New teachers in California receive impressive grants to participate in induction programs that help them keep motivated without a need to worry about their personal financial status (compared to the self-funded teachers in many parts of the United States). Second, comes to the state legislation and policies that include continuous research-based assessment of on-going practices and their effectiveness. The case of Utah seems to exist just to meet the formality rather than a serious endeavor. If state takes an action and makes it compulsory for schools to carry out induction programs in proper manner to meet the goals of ‘collecting and interpreting evidence of teaching performance, in reflecting on their teaching, and identifying meaningful professional development activities that are targeted to their individual needs’ (Bullough, 2012, p. 60) we can expect improvement in many fronts. And the last would be to establish a system of rigorous and scientific assessment to identify the strength and weaknesses of the new teachers to tailor-make individual induction plan to be carried out in a specific time frame.

Finally, induction programs provide required support for new teachers to adapt to the new roles (Feiman-Nemser, 1983). It provides multiple opportunities for professional development and growth within the institution, which dramatically increases the chances of staying in the profession. If so happens, it benefits the student, school, school district, states, and nation alike. Thus, induction program should not be considered a requirement of a single person, but be taken a serious vocation by all parties, and need to be carried out with a due sentiment. If we learn from success and failure of existing induction models we can increase the chances of creating new model prone towards success flexible enough to adapt policy, technology, philosophy, and time-related reforms to go a long way.

References:

Bullough, R. V. (2012). Mentoring and new teacher induction in the United States: A review and analysis of current practices. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 20(1), 57-74.

Feiman-Nemser, Sharon. (1983). Learning to teach. Information Analysis (070), 1-40.

Harrison, J., Lawson, T., & Wortley. (2005). Facilitating the professional learning of new teachers through critical reflection on practice during mentoring meetings. European Journal of Teacher Education, 28(3), 267-292.

Hellsten, L. M., Prytula, M. P., Ebanks, A. (2009). Teacher induction: Exploring beginning teacher mentorship. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(4), 703-733.

Joerger, R. M., Bremer, C.D. (2001). Teacher induction programs: A strategy for improving the professional experience of beginning career and technical education teachers. Career and Technical Education, 1-47.