New Directions in Teacher Induction:
A Comprehensive University’s Response to the Teachers for a New Era Initiative
Katherine Ramos Baker
Associate Professor, Department of Music
Nancy Burstein
Department Chair and Professor, Department of Special Education
Sandra B. Chong
Associate Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Elementary Education
Arlinda J. Eaton
Associate Dean and Professor, Michael D. Eisner College of Education
Marilynn Filbeck
Interim Associate Dean and Professor, College of Health and Human Development
Christine C. Smith
Professor Emeritus, Department of Secondary Education
of
California State University, Northridge
and
Richard A. Dewey
Coordinator, Instructional Support Services, Local District C
of
Los Angeles Unified School District
American Educational Research Association
San Diego
April 16, 2004
Permission to quote from this paper must be requested.
New Directions in Teacher Induction:
A Comprehensive University’s Response to the Teachers for a New Era Initiative
Teacher education has traditionally focused on the pre-service preparation of teacher candidates, with little support or guidance provided to new teachers once they obtain a credential. However, regardless of the quality of the preparation program, the transition into teaching is challenging. Beginning teachers are assigned to classes, often with the most hard-to-reach students, and left to “sink or swim” on their own (Huling-Austin, 1990; American Federation of Teachers, 2000; SRI, 2003). Over one-fifth of classroom teachers leave their positions within the first three years of teaching (Fideler, 2000); in urban schools up to one-half of all new teachers leave teaching within the first five years (Claycomb, 2000).
The retention of teachers is critical to providing high quality education. Students with teachers who stay in their classrooms for more than five years have higher achievement levels than teachers with less than three years of experience (Fideler, 2000). To address the need to retain teachers, there is a growing demand for induction programs. These programs extend the preparation of new teachers through their first years of teaching (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999; Huling-Austin, 1990).
Induction programs typically provide an array of supports that include mentor/support teachers prepared to work with beginning teachers who provide ongoing support through classroom observation and consultation; opportunities to observe experienced teachers; professional development that provides additional knowledge and skills; and a system that encourages assessment and reflection (Huling-Austin, 1990; White & Mason, 2001). Teachers who participate in induction programs are more committed and satisfied with their jobs and more likely to remain in the profession (Cooley & Yovanoff, 1996; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Fideler, 2000; U.S. Department of Education, 1998; Whitaker, 2000a; Wood, 2001).
Need for School/University Induction Programs
Induction programs have increased in the last two decades, primarily through state-initiated programs (Fideler, 2000). For example, the California Department of Education (CDE) established a state-initiated induction program in 1992-93 with 15 programs, the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA), which grew to over 145 BTSA programs in 2001-02. Historically, California Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) actively participated in creating induction programs with districts. However, funding has shifted to districts, resulting in fewer collaborative programs with IHEs than in the 1990s (Wood, 2001). Moreover, like many state-initiated programs, funding for induction programs is dependent on healthy state budgets and is often eliminated with funding cuts or a change in legislative priorities (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999).
Educators have become increasingly concerned about the stability of induction programs, given the decreasing role of IHEs and the dependency on state funding. They recommend that induction is an important part of the learning to teach continuum of pre-service, induction, and inservice. As such, induction should be a logical extension of the preservice program and as entry into staff development programs that provide opportunities for continued professional growth (Huling-Austin, 1990; Wood, 2001). Just as in pre-service, effective induction programs should include school-university collaboration in which district personnel and university faculty work with one another to provide support and ongoing professional development for new teachers (Carnegie, 2001).
Clearly, induction programs contribute to the retention of teachers, a high-quality teaching force, and student achievement. Therefore, it is critical that universities work with school districts to institutionalize induction programs so that, like pre-service programs, they become an integral part of the learning to teach continuum.
In this article, we describe the efforts of a large public institution, California State University, Northridge (CSUN), to develop an induction program that reflects state standards and effective practices in supporting beginning elementary and secondary school teachers. First, we describe the demographics of the institution and its surrounding community. Second, we describe the changing regulations in the state, explaining the context in which the induction program was designed. Third, we discuss the process in designing the program and describe the induction program. Finally, we discuss next steps, issues, challenges, and successes as we move forward to implement the program.
California State University, Northridge
California State University, Northridge (CSUN) is one of 23 campuses within the California State University System (CSU), the largest system of higher education in the nation. With an enrollment of 32,997 students, CSUN is located in the Northwest San Fernando Valley, a metropolitan suburb of Los Angeles with a multi-ethnic population of over 2 million, including students who commute into Los Angeles from Ventura County to the North and desert communities to the East. The demographics of the service region have changed dramatically over the past 20 years, with CSUN serving an increasingly diverse student population. Approximately 48% of CSUN students come from underrepresented groups, predominantly Latino (24%), Asian (12%) and African-American (7%).
The CSU system plays a central role in preparing teachers. In 2001-02 it recommended 55% of all teachers for credentials in California, with CSUN credentialing more teachers than any other public institution in California. Moreover, reflecting high standards, all CSUN professional education programs meet the demanding certification requirements of the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE).
In recognition of the university’s commitment to maintaining high quality teacher preparation programs, CSUN was one of four universities selected nation-wide to participate in the Carnegie Corporation’s Initiative in 2002, Teachers for a New Era (TNE), a reform effort to establish exemplary teacher education programs. This initiative is organized around three major principles: reliance on research-based evidence for improving student achievement through instruction; active engagement of Arts and Sciences faculty in teacher preparation; and close collaboration between colleges of education and P-12 schools. The initiative emphasizes that an exemplary teacher education program is involved in the induction of teachers during their first two years of teaching. Induction through TNE is referred to as residency, reflecting a medical model in which newly licensed professionals practice their craft under the guidance and support of experienced veterans in their field. Education faculty and those in the arts and sciences are expected to provide mentorship and supervision, confer with the teacher on a regular basis, arrange for observation of teacher’s clinical practice, and provide guidance to improve practice. Unlike traditional induction programs, the university is expected to play a major role, expanding its responsibilities beyond initial teacher preparation to include the induction of new teachers.
The California Context
The emphasis on induction at CSUN through TNE is also consistent with a new credential structure in California in which graduates of preliminary credential programs are required to enroll in a program to clear the credential (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2003). In 1998, the Governor of California signed legislation (SB 2042, Alpert/Mazzoni, Ch. 548, Statutes of 1998) that led to the restructuring of teacher credentialing in California. One of these restructuring efforts included a new requirement for earning a Professional Teaching Credential as outlined by the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs (2001).
Induction programs. Under SB 2042 legislation, candidates with preliminary teaching credentials were allowed to complete a two-year induction program of support and formative assessment during their first two years of teaching in order to earn a Professional Teaching Credential. Furthermore, the California Education Code Section 44279.2c permitted local education agencies (LEAs) to apply for and receive state funding to support induction programs through the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment System, a jointly administered program by the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC).
Therefore, it was initially believed that the Districts were to design, sponsor, and administer two-year induction programs based on the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs. Induction programs were to include an assigned support provider for each beginning teacher and provide support services appropriate to the working conditions experienced by the beginning teacher at his/her school/district sites. Furthermore, based on the beginning teachers’ annual Individual Induction Plan (IIP), the programs were to provide comprehensive, extended preparation and professional development to support participating teachers in their attainment of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) in relation to the state-adopted academic content standards and performance levels for students and state-adopted curriculum frameworks.
Upon verification of completion of the professional teacher induction program, the districts were allowed to recommend for the Professional Clear Credential those teachers who had completed and met all Induction Program requirements and demonstrated their knowledge and ability to teach state-adopted academic content standards and competencies in the five specified areas of advanced studies: using technology to support student learning (Standard 16); equity, diversity, and access to the core curriculum (Standard 17); creating a supportive and healthy environment for student learning (Standard 18); teaching English learners (Standard 19); and teaching special populations (Standard 20).
The legislation not only gave provisions for districts to design and implement induction programs for beginning teachers but also allocated resources for the districts and other LEAs to support the program implementation. These resources made it possible for districts to offer induction programs free of charge to the participating teachers. Therefore, the initial understanding was that districts and other LEAs would be the only institutions providing induction programs to beginning teachers in the State of California.
The fifth year of study program (FYSP). Subsequently in September, 2003, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing issued Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Advanced Course Work for the Multiple Subject and Single Subject Professional Clear Teaching Credential and Submission Guidelines for Approval of the Fifth Year of Study Program. This authorized institutions of higher education (IHE) to seek approval of a program for the Fifth Year of Study (including Advanced Study Courses), providing another option for candidates to earn the SB 2042 Professional Clear Credential. Now beginning teachers will elect to complete a Commission-approved FYSP at an institution of higher education or a Commission-approved Induction Program sponsored by a local education agency.
An IHE- or university-sponsored FYSP was defined by the Commission as a program of coursework consisting of a minimum of 30 semester units beyond the bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree. Candidates were required to complete coursework in four areas of advanced study: health education, teaching special populations, using technology, and teaching English learners. Teachers who completed and met all program requirements for the FYSP would be recommended for the Professional Clear Credential by the IHE. However, unlike the district- or LEA-sponsored induction programs for the Professional Clear Credential, the university-sponsored FYSPs received no allocation to support their implementation. Thus, teachers would need to bear the cost of a university program.
Designing the CSUN Residency Program
An Induction Committee was formed in 2002 to design a program that reflected the TNE prospectus. The Committee was comprised of education and arts and sciences faculty and district personnel. A first step in designing the program was to gather information on best practices in the induction of beginning teachers. To this end, the Committee conducted a needs assessment of beginning teachers and reviewed the literature on induction programs.
To assess the needs of beginning teachers during their first or second year of teaching, the Committee developed a questionnaire, along with an interview protocol. Focus group meetings were conducted with 1) recent graduates of CSUN’s Multiple Subject (elementary), Single Subject (secondary), and Special Education programs; 2) students currently enrolled in a master’s program in Elementary Education; 3) students currently enrolled in a master’s program in Educational Administration; 4) education faculty; 5) arts and sciences faculty; and 6) administrators and program directors in neighboring LAUSD school districts. Of the 127 students, faculty and administrators who participated in the focus group interviews, there were 10 recent CSUN graduates, 28 current master’s degree candidates in the College of Education, 56 education faculty, 20 arts and sciences faculty, and 13 LAUSD administrators and program directors. These focus group interviews were conducted over an eight-month period, May through December, 2003.
In addition to the needs assessment, the Committee reviewed the body of literature on beginning teacher induction programs and visited numerous new teacher websites nationwide to identify salient program features. The literature confirmed the beginning teacher needs that were delineated in the focus group meetings. Data from the interviews and literature findings were examined for common themes which are described below.
Broad base of commitment and participation from all stakeholders. Induction programs need to be broad based and include state agencies, local districts, school boards, teacher associations, local school and community parents, IHEs, and professional organizations. Constituencies pool their talents and resources together, across, between and within a system to formalize a structure of collaborative problem solving and decision making (Huling-Austin, 1990; Moir & Gless, 2001; Wood, 2001).
Long-term induction. Induction programs should be part of a larger professional development effort with tiered expectations (e.g., preservice, induction, and post-induction (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999). Clearly, this suggests a program duration that ranges beyond 3-5 years. Nonetheless, the most frequently recommended length of duration for an induction program is two years (AFT, 2001).
Funding support. It is critical that funding is provided to support the planning, development, implementation and evaluation of induction programs. Funding may be secured through a shared fiscal responsibility between an LEA and an IHE by means of allocating new funds through federal, state, local and private grants, or reallocating funds within institutions. Regardless of how the funds are secured, fiscal solvency of induction programs is critical to their success (White & Mason, 2001; Wood, 2001).