Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to present the most valuable and most challenging aspects of an induction and mentoring program as perceived by teachers, mentors and principals in four rural counties in West Tennessee. Data for this study were collected during the 2011-12 academic year. The 165 teachers, mentors, and principals who responded to an online induction survey were majority White and female. The combined student body of 101,621 was 74% White and 24% African American.  Over half (67%) of the students served were living in poverty. Over half (67%) of the students served were living in poverty (described as “economically disadvantaged”).  These small school districts ranged in size from a low of 7,745 students to a high of 36,820.

With the advent of high-stakes standardized testing ushered in by the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and the resulting evaluation of teachers based on the tests scores of students they teach, more school districts are investing in induction and mentoring programs designed to assist in promoting increased student outcomes. The districts in this study provided mentoring support for new teachers and many veteran teachers who made low teacher evaluation scores the prior academic year.

The researchers analyzed the responses of teachers, mentors, and principals to open-ended survey questions related to the most valuable features of the induction and mentoring program and the most challenging working conditions in their school building. This paper is organized into four major sections: a) a brief review of related literature; b) description of the study; c) findings; and d) conclusions and recommendations.

Related Literature

Outside-of-School Factors That Impact Student Outcomes

In a review of studies related to factors that influence the educational outcomes of children living in poverty, Milner (2013) identified six outside-of -school (OSF) factors that impact student outcomes in schools, including: “student and family homelessness, geography and social contexts, policy and school funding, outside-of-school realities that cause school dependence, and parental/family involvement with their children at home and at school” (p. 26). Berliner (2009) also delineates a number of OFS factors that are related to the school success of children living in poverty. His lists overlaps several of the factors noted by Milner (2013) and include: “(1) low birth-weight, and non-genetic prenatal influences on children, (2) inadequate medical, dental, and vision care, often a result of inadequate or no medical insurance; (3) food insecurity; (4) environmental pollutants;  (5)  family relations and family stress; and (6) neighborhood characteristics” (p. 1).  Berliner added a seventh factor related to the six factors noted, i.e., “the absence of extended learning opportunities, such as preschool, after school and summer school programs” (p. 1). He further states that “these OSF have a significant impact on what occurs, and what possibilities exist for achievement, inside our nations’ schools” (p. 40).

While both Milner (2013)  and Berliner (2009) agreed that communities must work together to alleviate the OSF that influence student success in school, this is not an excuse for schools to sit by and refuse to engage in practices in which we already know that teachers can make a difference. Milner emphasized that: “teachers must be prepared and supported to develop and enact curriculum and instructional opportunities that meet the needs of students living in poverty” (Milner, 2013, p. 43).  This process must include the informed support and actions of policy makers, central office administrators, principals, family and community members, teacher preparation programs, and fellow teachers. One of the critical ways that teachers can be prepared and supported to meet the needs of students living in poverty, inside the school, is via a high quality mentoring program.

Inside-of- School Factor that Influences Student Success: High Quality Induction and Mentoring

Providing mentoring for teachers was one of the major actions promised in the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) which had the potential to make a positive impact on the academic achievement of low achieving children in our nation’s highest-poverty schools and to close achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students by 2014. However, by 2012 most states clearly saw that the goals set by NCLB would not be met by 2014 and applied for waivers to be relieved of meeting the mandates set forth in 2001 (Feller & Hefling, 2012; “26 More States,” 2012).

The implementation of high quality mentoring programs is one of the most powerful strategies for improving student achievement. “For student achievement, almost all of the studies showed that students of beginning teachers who participated in induction had higher scores, or gains on academic achievement tests” (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011, p.1). The results of one comprehensive longitudinal study, revealed the significant impact of effective mentoring on student outcomes (Glazeman, et al., 2010). Despite the presence of induction and mentoring programs in many of our nation’s schools, “teachers in suburban schools were significantly more likely to participate in an induction program than teachers in urban and rural schools” (Wei et al., 2010, p. 30). While many teachers do have the benefit of induction and mentoring programs, little data is available on the quality of programs that are being administered (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009; Haycock, 2012). Everston and Smithey (2000) report an important finding in their study of mentoring: “the presence of a mentor alone is not enough; the mentor’s knowledge and skills of how to mentor are also crucial” (p. 303).

Crocco and Costigan (2007) also agree that mentors must have the knowledge and skills to be effective teacher mentors. They asserted that when the appropriate skills are absent, mentoring can be misguided. They reported that mentors in their study focused their efforts on: “enforcing the regimen of scripted lessons and evaluating the degree of compliance with these protocols” (p. 525). Crocco and Costigan also communicated that many teachers being mentors reported that: “support from district offices was negative, consisting of one or several supervisors arriving unannounced in the classroom to see that desks were arranged in a certain way, blackboards and bulletin boards conformed to prescriptions, the lesson was the mandated one for that day, and the curriculum was “covered” and taught in the prescribed way” (p. 525).

What are the teacher working conditions that must be present in schools which will enable new teachers, especially, to mentored well and to remain in schools long enough to become master teachers that have the potential to make a significant difference in the academic achievement of children living in poverty and who are often children of color, as well? Research studies reveal that school leaders must ensure that new teachers must have: an appropriate assignment, a manageable work load, sufficient resources with which to teach, principals and fellow teachers that maintain a stable and orderly work environment, and advice and support from principals and colleagues (Johnson & Birkeland, 2003; Johnson et al., 2007).  Which of working conditions matter the most?

Johnson, Kraft and Papay (2012) concluded that: “ a range of working conditions matter to teachers, but the most important—those that both retain teachers in low-income, high-minority schools and make it possible for students to achieve—are the ones that shape the social context of teaching and learning” (p. 27). They reported that the in-school conditions of “collegial relationships, the principal’s leadership, and school culture are the strongest determinants of student achievement growth” (p.25).

Description of Study

In this study, the researchers sought the perceptions of teachers, mentors and principals on the valuable feature of their support program the most challenging conditions in their school environments. One-hundred-sixty five (165) teachers, mentors, and principals responded to an online induction conducted by the New Teacher Center, Santa Cruz. The majority of the respondents were White and female who served a majority White school population in four rural Tennessee counties. The 54 mentors were classroom teachers or support personnel in the buildings of the teachers they mentored. The analyses included a summary of respondent demographics, and an evaluation of responses to the open-ended survey questions for each group.

Findings

Most Valuable Aspects of Support Program

When asked about the most valuable features of the program, nearly half of the comments from  teachers were related to collaboration, communication, and support (47.2%), with the majority of these comments (66.7%) referring to having access to a mentor for support, feedback, and guidance. The mentors’ comments (61.5%) pertained to collaboration, communication, and support as did more than half (53.9%) of the principals.

What aspects of the support program had the greatest impact on student learning and achievement? The largest percentage of teachers who responded (33.0%) discussed the instructional strategies and assistance that the program provided them, such as feedback on teaching strategies and skills help with assessments and student data, classroom management ideas, and guidance regarding goal-setting and preparation.  Nearly half of the mentor comments also (45.8%) involved improving student achievement by providing new teachers with instructional strategies and assistance.  Principals (53.9%) noted that teacher collaboration and support had the greatest impact on student learning and achievement. 

Most Challenging Working Conditions at School Site

When asked about the most challenging working conditions teachers faced at their schools, over half of the teacher responses (54.0%) discussed the school environment.  Comments (49.5%) for mentors were related to effective management, which included classroom management, time management, balancing multiple roles, and engaging students.  One-third of the principals’ comments (33.3%) identified instructional responsibilities as a challenging working condition. 

Conclusion and Recommendations

Responding teachers, mentors and principals in this study agreed that collaboration, communication, and support were the most valuable aspect of the induction and mentoring   program.  The majority of responding teachers and mentors noted that providing new teachers with instructional strategies and assistance contributed to improving student achievement while principals believed that teacher collaboration and support contributed most to student achievement.  All responding groups agreed that the school or classroom environment was the most challenging condition faced in their buildings.

It appears that in this study, school climates developed that enabled teachers and mentors to focus on student achievement; however classroom management appeared to be an area in which teachers required additional assistance. It appears that at least two of the strongest determinants of student achievement growth in schools were present in the schools in this study, i.e., collegial relationships and school culture (Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012). These conditions would probably not be possible without the leadership of the principals. These findings might be clearer if student achievement data were available also. Future studies with these and other districts should include the availability of student achievement data. On the other hands, based on comments from teachers, mentors and principals, there appears to be a need for professional development in the area of classroom management skills for teachers and training for principals on the induction and mentoring program conducted.

Recent studies related to school factors that matter most in determining student achievement appears to be shifting from the teacher to working conditions in schools for which the principal is primarily responsible (Andrew & Soder, 1987; Brown, Benkovitz,  Muttilo, & Urban, 2011; Cherian & Daniel, 2008;  Johnson, Kraft, & Papay, 2012) ; Wahlstrom, Louis, Leithwood & Anderson, 2010).  Johnson, Kraft, & Papay (2012) noted that:

Guaranteeing an effective teacher for all students—especially minority students who live in poverty—cannot be accomplished simply by offering financial bonuses or mandating the reassignment of effective teachers. Rather, if the school is known to be a supportive and productive workplace, good teachers will come, the will stay, and their students will learn (p. 31).

They also asserted that: “In seeking to improve failing schools, the most important decision a superintendent makes is to select and assign principals who know how to build a school organization collaboratively with teachers” (p. 31). 

Future research should consider posing some of the following questions:

• Should teachers - whose yearly evaluations are based on student achievement tests (as much as 50% of their teacher effectiveness scores) - be solely accountable for student outcomes?
• Or should school principals bear a significant degree of accountability for student outcomes, along with the superintendents who appoint those principals?
• Do local school boards possess the knowledge and skills to select a superintendent that has the ability to select and assign principals who know how to build a school organization work collaborately with teachers? How will communities who select boards know this?
• Do school working conditions at the initial school of employment of the new teacher have more impact on student outcomes or student achievement scores than the teacher preparation program completed?

 

 

REFERENCES

Andrews, R. L. & Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement. Educational Leadership,  9-11. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198703_andrews.pdf.

Brown, K. M., Benkovitz, J., Muttillo, A. J., Urban, T. (2011). Leading schools of excellence and equity: Documenting effective strategies in closing achievement gaps. Teachers College Press, 113 (1) 57-96. Retrieved from 38_15988-1.pdf.

Berliner, D. C. (2009). Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success.

Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential

Cherian, F, & Daniel, Y. (2008). Principal leadership in new teacher induction: Becoming agents of change. International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, 3 (2), 1-11. Retrieved from http://journals.sfu.ca/ijepl/index.php/ijepl/article/viewFile/97/35.

Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42 (6) 512-535. Retrieved from http://uex.sagepub.com/content/42/6/512

Everston, C. M., & Smithey, M. W.  (2000) Mentoring effects on proteges’ classroom practice: An experimental field study. Journal of Educational Research, 93 (5), 294-304. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/27542279.

Feller, B., and Hefling, K. (2012). Official: 10 states given waiver on No Child Left Behind learning laws. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46323704/ns/politics/t/official-states-given-waiver-no-child-left-behind-learning-laws/#.T2oqWVaP3cs.

Ingersoll, R., &  Smith, T. M.  (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter? NASSP Bulletin. 88 (638), 28-40. Retrieved from http://bul.sagepub.com/content/88/638/28.

Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011).  The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81 (2), 201-233. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23014368.

Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New Teachers explain their career decisions.  American Educational Research Journal, 40 (3), 308-312.

Johnson, S. M., Birkeland, S. E., Donaldson, M. L., Kardos, S. M., Kauffman, D., Liu, E., & Peske, H. G., (2007). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay (2012).  How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114 (10), 1-39.

Milner, H. R., IV (2013). Analyzing poverty, learning, and teaching through a critical race theory. Review of Research in Education: Extraordinary Pedagogies for Working within School Settings Serving Nondominant Students, 37, 1-53

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110, January 8, 2002. Retrieved from  http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf.

26 more states and D. C. seek flexibility from NCLB to drive education reforms in second round of requests (2012). U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/26-more-states-and-dc-seek-flexibility-nclb-drive-education-reforms-second-round. and http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/TchTrnStAch%20AERJ%20R%26R%20not%20blind.pdf

Wahlstrom, K. L., Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved Student learning: Executive summary of research Findings. New York: The Wallace foundation. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/KnowledgeCenter/KnowledgeTopics/CurrentAreasofFocus/EducationLeadership/Documents/Learning-from-Leadership-Investigating-Links-Ex-Summary.pdf