Over twenty percent of teachers leave their position within the first three years, and 9.3% do not even finish their first year (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999).  Five-year attrition rates are even more staggering, with estimates ranging from thirty-five percent in suburban areas to fifty percent in urban and isolated rural areas (Danielson, 1999; Moir & Gless, 2001. A contributing factor to teacher attrition is the stress experienced by novice teachers during their transitional years into the teaching profession.  The sources of this stress stem from teachers experiencing: (a) a major life transition that entails an identity change from student to professional, the loss of their established support network (Williams, 2001); (b) a steep learning curve filled with unexpected challenges (Danielson, 1996; Williams, 2001); (c) the expectation for them to assume the same responsibilities as more experienced teachers (Danielson, 1996); (d) being given the most difficult teaching assignments (Danielson, 1996); and (e) “culture shock” upon entering the classroom caused by the struggle with classroom management and discipline practices, issues of translating theory to practice, and adjusting to the expectations and practice of the school (Tickle, 2000; Veeman, 1984).

There is a growing public sentiment that teachers are no longer effectively preparing the country’s diverse learners for an increasingly complex, knowledge-based, technologically oriented future (Weis & Weiss, 1999).  These opinions have stimulated various waves of educational reform and political mandates.  Educational reform agendas increasingly pressure policy makers to articulate traits of teacher effectiveness, call for greater accountability, achievement, and new standards of excellence (Fieman-Nemser et al., 1999).  Many believe that the way to achieve effective school reform will require a commitment to improve teacher preparation programs and expanded professional development opportunities advocate that widespread implementation of induction programs is one strategy.

The Southeast Center for Teaching Quality (2003) identified schools in Texas that have been successful in closing the achievement gap for poor and minority students.  They reported that a strong induction program that provided mentors who worked with teachers to develop quality teaching.  Support is very important to beginning teachers in urban schools (Quartz (2003).  Recruiting New Teachers, Inc. (1999) reports that a growing number of low wealth urban districts with acute shortages are turning toward induction programs to keep new teachers from leaving. Urban districts reported a 93% retention rate for teachers who participated in such programs. Despite the positive impact of induction programs on retention rates, there has been little sustained commitment in recent years to permanently institute teacher induction programs as part of a formal entry process into the field (National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 1996). While their research analysis does not directly focus on induction programs, Wilson, Floden and Ferrini-Mundy (2001) report that research support five year teacher education programs with a strong internship year and that mentoring is an important quality factor in alternative certification.

Induction

A universal induction format does not exist.  Induction programs take on many structures including, but not limited to, short-term orientation programs, mentoring programs, staff development sessions, and multi-year programs that address the ongoing challenges of teaching (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999).  Induction programs can be administered by individual schools, school districts, or through university teacher education programs.  However, individual schools organize the majority of induction programs.  Common components of most induction programs include goals of the local school district, details of the delivery system (such as the mentor selection process, mentor training, and financial, physical and personnel resources), the needs of the novice teachers along with the needs of the mentoring teachers.  Serpell’s review of the literature (2000) found that most induction programs typically share one or more of the following goals: socializing teachers into the school culture and community, improving teacher skills, resolving teacher fears and anxieties, and beginning teacher professional development.  Huling-Austin (1992) also identified two additional goals; increasing the retention of beginning teachers and satisfying the mandated requirements of certification.  Most programs include the use of formalized training sessions for new teachers that include workshops and seminars.  These sessions usually provided new teachers with information regarding all aspects of school administration and functioning.  Teachers also received information and training on the curriculum and the use of the county or state standardized assessments (Serpell, 2000).

Richard Arends and Anthony Rigazio-DiGilio (2000) meta-analysis of 226 articles relating to teacher induction programs and Serpell’s (2000) review of the literature confirm that mentoring in an induction program can mean the difference between a successful induction program and one that is not.  Selection of mentors is a very important aspect of a successful mentoring program.  Compatible matching of novices and mentors fosters constructive and productive relationships (Williams, 2001).  Successful mentor programs are dependent upon the quality of training afforded the mentors (Feiman-Nemser, 1996; Ganser, 1996; Ganser & Koskela, 1997). Research indicates that beginning teachers who are mentored are more effective teachers in their early years, since they learn from guided practice rather than depending upon trial-and-error alone. Mentored novice teachers tend to focus on student learning sooner and leave teaching at a lower rate  (National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, 1996). Mentors also benefit from the experience expanded their rewards and opportunities in teaching and that the experience made them better teachers (Danielson, 1996).

University-based Induction

A National Science Foundation sponsored study looked at exemplary teacher induction in China, France, Japan, Switzerland, and New Zealand (Britten, et al., 2000). The researchers found that inductions programs are most effective when programs involve preservice institutions and professional associations.  Induction programs are created to both improve teacher retention and to promote “ambitious levels of classroom instruction” (Moir and Gless, New Teacher Center, USC, p. 3).  University-based induction programs, when implemented properly “can represent a new conceptualization of teacher development in which the responsibility for teacher learning is shared across traditional institutional boundaries by linking university teacher preparation with in-service learning” (New Teacher Center,  p. 3).  College faculty must accept accountability for the quality of teachers prepared at their institutions.  A well-planned systematic induction in which invaluable support is offered during the initial years in the classroom is vital to maximize the effectiveness of novice teachers- especially in high-need schools. (National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996;  Hunt & Carroll, 2003). 

Close partnership with local school districts allows the university to “work intensively…to prepare teachers in ways that are more responsive to the districts” (Ballinger, 2000, p.7).  An “Integrated Professional Culture” expects frequent interaction among faculty members and novice status teachers (Johnson, Birkeland, Kardos, Kauffman, Liu, Peske, 2001 Harvard Education Letter p. 4).

Challenges Facing University Based Induction Programs

In an era of increasing budgetary cuts, funding is often the largest hindrance to creating successful induction programs.  Induction can cost thousands of dollars per teacher per year and should include the salary and teacher benefits for mentor teachers.

Programs also need to promote a sense of need among novice teachers to encourage them to participate in an extended “internship phase” ((Moir and Gless, p.5) Another issue is choosing and preparing support providers to be effective.  A great need is time for support activities throughout both the school day and the school year (Stansbury and Zimmerman, 2002, Journal of Staff Development, p.7). 

Conclusion

Induction programs should involve school systems, universities/colleges, and other agencies.  It is essential that all educational resources possible be coordinated and brought to bear to develop high quality teachers who stay in the profession.

References

Achinstein, B. & Villar, A. (2002, April). Politics of the mentoring process for novices:

Negotiating professional relationships and new teacher learning.  Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Arends, R.I. & Rigazio-DiGilio, A.J. (2000). Beginning teacher induction: Research and

examples of contemporary practice. (Report No. SP-039-647). Connecticut:

Teacher Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 450 074).

Britton, E., Raizen, S., Paine, L. & Huntley, M.A. (2000). More swimming, less sinking: Perspectives on teacher induction in the U.S. and abroad. Paper presented at a meeting of the National Commission on Teaching Mathematics and Science in the 21^st Century. The article is available on the Web at http://web.WestEd.org/online_pubs/teacherinduction/index.html.

Clement, M.C. (2000, July/August). Making time for teacher induction: A lesson from

the New Zealand model, The Clearinghouse, 329-330.

Cruickshank, D.R. (1996). Preparing America’s teachers.  IN: Phi Delta Kappa

Educational Foundation.

Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. VA:

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Danielson, C. (1999). Mentoring beginning teachers: The case for mentoring. Teaching

and Change, 6(3), 251-257.

Fideler, E. & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the roles: Urban teacher induction

practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers Inc.

Feiman-Nemser, S., Schwille, S., Carver, C. & Yusko, B. (1999). A conceptual review of

literature on new teacher induction. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington DC: (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. 449147).

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2002, April). Mentored learning to teach: An agenda for beginning

teachers.  Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational

Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). Teacher mentoring: A critical review. Washington, DC: ERIC DIGEST, ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, AACTE.

Ganser, T. (1996). Mentor roles: Views of participants in a state-mandated program. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 9, (2), pp. 15-20.

Ganser, T., & Koskela, R. (1997). A comparison of six Wisconsin mentoring programs for beginning teachers. NASSP Bulletin, (81), 591, pp. 71-80.

Georgia Professional Standards Commission. (2002, January 27). Standards for unit and

program approval.  Retrieved January 27, 2002 from the World Wide Web: 

http://www.gapsc.com/TeacherEducation.asp.

Goodland, J.  (1988) School‑University partnership for educational renewal: Rationale and Concepts. In Sirotonik, K. and Goodland, J. School‑university Partnerships in Action, New York: Teachers College Press, pp. 3‑31.

Gratch, A. (1998). Beginning teacher and mentor relationships. Journal of Teacher

Education, 49(3), 220-227.

Gratch, A. (2001). The culture of teaching and beginning teacher development. Teacher

Education Quarterly, 28 (4), 121-136.

Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach: Implications for teacher

induction and mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 173-

180.

Hunt and Carrol. (2003) National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. 

Johnson, S., Birkeland, S., Kardos, S., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., Peske, H.  Retaining the next generation of teachers:  The importance of school‑based support.  Harvard Education Letter (INsights) July/August 2001.

Katzman, J. & Hodas, S. (1995). Class action.  How to create accountability, innovation,

and excellence in American schools.  NY: Villard Books.

Lawson, H.A. (1992). Beyond the new conception of teacher induction. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 163-172.

Lucas, C. J. (1997). Teacher education in America: Reform agendas for the twenty-first

century.  NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Merriam, S. & Carrarella, R.S. (1999).  Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide.

(2^nd ed.). CA: Jossey Bass.

Moir, E. and Gless, J.  Quality induction: An investment in teachers.

            The New Teacher Center at The University of Santa Cruz

            http;//www.newteachercenter.org/article‑CCETQInd.html. Retrieval date 4/3/2002.

Moskowitz, J. & Stephens, M. (1997). From students of teaching to teachers of students:

Teacher induction around the Pacific Rim. Washington, DC: Asia-Pacific

Education Forum.

Moir, E. & Gless, J. (2001). Quality induction: An investment in teachers. Teacher

Education Quarterly, 28(1), 109-114.

Moir, E. & St. John, L. (2002, April). The effects of professional development on the

practice of beginning teacher mentors.  Paper presented at the annual conference

of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's Future. New York: Author, Teachers College Columbia University.

Quartz, K.H. (2003).  Too angry to leave:  Supporting new teachers’ commitment to transform urban schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 54 (2), 99-111.

Recruiting New Teachers, Inc. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction programs and practices in the United States. Belmont, MA.

Serpell, Z. (2000). Beginning teacher induction: A review of the literature. (Report No. SP039330). Pleasantville, NY: DeWitt Wallace / Reader’s Digest Fund. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 443783).

Southeast Center for Teaching Quality (January, 2003.  How do teachers learn to teach effectively:  Quality indicators from quality schools.  Chapel Hill, NC:  Author.

Shank, M.J. (2002, April). The power of a group: Mentoring as collaborative and

reciprocal. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational

Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Smith, M.C. & Pourchot, T. (Eds.). (1998). Adult learning and development:

Perspectives from educational psychology.  NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Veeman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational

Research, 54(2), 143-178.

Weiss, E.M. & Weiss, S.G. (1999). Beginning teacher induction. (Report No. EDO-99-

CO-0007). Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 436487).

Weasmer, J. & Woods, A.M. (2000). Preventing baptism by fire: Fostering growth in

new teachers. The Clearing House, 73(3), 171-173.

Wilkinson, G.A. (1997). Beginning teachers identify gaps in their induction programs.

Journal of Staff Development, 18, 48-51.

Williams, B. (2001). Adult learning theory: The mentoring connection. (Report No.

SP039775). Akron, OH: University of Akron. (ERIC Document Reproduction

Service No. ED450101).

Wilson, S.M., Floden, R.E. & Ferrini-Mudy, J. (2001).  Teacher preparation research:  Current knowledge, gaps, and recommendations.  East Lansing, MI:  Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.