Induction: Indiana

Retaining Effective Teachers Policy

Look at National Findings

Goal

The state should require effective induction for all new teachers, with special emphasis on teachers in high-needs schools.

Does not meet goal

Suggested Citation:
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2011). Induction: Indiana results. State Teacher Policy Database. [Data set].
Retrieved from: https://www.nctq.org/yearbook/state/IN-Induction-9

Analysis of Indiana's policies

Indiana does not require a mentoring program or any other induction support for its new teachers. Mentoring is no longer a mandatory component of the Indiana Mentoring and Assessment Program (IMAP). If schools choose to match mentors with new educators, the state's Department of Education recommends that the mentor have at least five years of teaching experience and a five-year license.

Recommendations for Indiana

Ensure that a high-quality mentoring experience is available to all new teachers, especially those in low-performing schools.
Indiana should ensure that all new teachers—and especially any teacher in a low-performing school—receive mentoring support, especially in the first critical weeks of school.

Set specific parameters.
To ensure that all teachers receive high-quality mentoring, the state should specify how long the program lasts for a new teacher, who selects the mentors and a method of performance evaluation.

Require induction strategies that can be successfully implemented, even in poorly managed schools.
To ensure that the experience is meaningful, Indiana should guarantee that induction includes strategies such as intensive mentoring, seminars appropriate to grade level or subject area and a reduced teaching load and/or frequent release time to observe other teachers.

State response to our analysis

Indiana recognized the factual accuracy of this analysis.

Professional Development

Select another topic

Delivering Well Prepared Teachers

Expanding the Pool of Teachers

Identifying Effective Teachers

Retaining Effective Teachers

Exiting Ineffective Teachers

Research rationale

Although many states have induction policies, the overall support for new teachers in the United States is fragmented due to wide variation in legislation, policy and type of support available. There are a number of good sources describing the more systematic induction models used in high-performing countries:

Teachers Matter: Attracting Retaining and Developing Teachers, a 2005 publication by the OECD, examines (among many other factors) the role that induction plays for developing the quality of the teaching force in 25 countries. For shorter synopses, consult Lynn Olson, "Teaching Policy to Improve Student Learning: Lessons from Abroad," 2007.http://www.edweek.org/media/aspen_viewpoint.pdf

Educational Testing Service's Preparing Teachers Around the World (2003) examines reasons why seven countries perform better than the United States on the TIMS and includes induction models in its analysis.

Domestically, evidence of the impact of teacher induction in improving the retention and performance of first-year teachers is growing. See Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Results from the Second Year of a Randomized Controlled Study. National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Department of Education (2009).

A California study found that a good induction program, including mentoring, was generally more effective in keeping teachers on the job than better pay. See Deborah Reed, et al., "Retention of New Teachers in California," Public Policy Institute of California, 2006.

Descriptive qualitative papers provide some information on the nature of mentoring and other induction activities and may improve understanding of the causal mechanisms by which induction may lead to improved teacher practices and better retention. A report from the Alliance for Excellent Education presents four case studies on induction models that it found to be effective. See Tapping the Potential: Retaining and Developing High-Quality New Teachers, Alliance for Excellent Education at: http://www.all4ed.org/files/archive/publications/TappingThePotential/TappingThePotential.pdf

For evidence of the importance of high quality mentors, see C. Carver and S. Feiman-Nemser, "Using Policy to Improve Teacher Induction: Critical Elements and Missing Pieces." Educational Policy v23 (2009) as well as K. Jackson and E. Bruegmann in "Teaching Students and Teaching Each Other: The Importance of Peer Learning for Teachers." American Economic Journal (2009).See also Harry Wong, "Induction Programs that Keep New Teachers Teaching and Improving," NASSP Bulletin, 2004; 87(638): 5-27.

For a further review of the research on new teacher induction see Lopez, et al., "Review of Research on the Impact of Beginning Teacher Induction on Teacher Quality and Retention," ED Contract ED-01-CO-0059/0004, SRI International, 2004.

The issue of high turnover in teachers' early years particularly plagues schools that serve poor children and children of color. Much of the focus of concern about this issue has been on urban schools, but rural schools that serve poor communities also suffer from high turnover of new teachers.

Research on the uneven distribution of teachers (in terms of teacher quality) suggests that, indeed, a good portion of the so-called "achievement gap" may be attributable to what might be thought of as a "teaching gap," reported by many including L. Feng and T. Sass, "Teacher Quality and Teacher Mobility." National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (2011); T. Sass et al, "Value Added of Teachers in High-Poverty Schools and Lower-Poverty Schools." CALDER Institute (2010) and C.T. Clotfelter, et al., "Who Teaches Whom? Race and Distribution of Novice Teachers," presented at the American Economic Association Meetings, Atlanta, 2002.

See also Bradford R. White, et al., "Leveling Up: Narrowing the Teacher Academic Capital Gap in Illinois," Illinois Research Council, June 2008.

State Teacher Policy