New Teacher Induction: Rhode Island
Retaining Effective Teachers Policy
Analysis of Rhode Island's policies
Rhode Island requires that all new teachers receive mentoring. Revised mentor program standards allow districts more flexibility in the design of mentor programs, but include fewer criteria than previous standards, omitting criteria such as: the length of the mentor program, the number of years of experience of mentor teachers, and the fact that state funds must be used to provide release time for mentors and teachers and mentor compensation.
Rhode Island's new mentor program standards do require that "mentors and beginning teachers are matched according to relevant factors, including certification, experience, current assignments and/or proximity of location." Mentors participate in classroom observations and conferencing with beginning teachers. Rhode Island's new standards encourage "protected time essential for high quality beginning teacher induction." Mentors are provided ongoing training. A regular survey and evaluation process to access the program's effectiveness is also required.
Recommendations for Rhode Island
Expand guidelines to include other key areas.
While still leaving districts with flexibility, Rhode Island should articulate minimum guidelines for a high-quality induction experience. The state should require a timeline in which mentors are assigned to all new teachers, ideally soon after the commencing of teaching, to offer support during those first critical weeks of school.
Select high-quality mentors.
Rhode Island should establish criteria for the selection of high-quality mentors. It is particularly important that the mentors themselves are effective teachers. Teachers
without evidence of effectiveness should not serve as
mentors.
Set more specific parameters.
As it did with the beginning internship requirements, Rhode Island should ensure that all teachers receive high-quality mentoring by specifying how long the program lasts for a new teacher and release time for mentors and new teachers.
State response to our analysis
Rhode Island stated that the Beginning Teacher Induction/Mentor Program Standards were not created to allow more flexibility but to set a clear framework and provide program guidance for developing a model program of support for beginning teachers. These standards are applicable regardless of the delivery model that the local district plans to implement. They were designed to ensure that whether a local school district called their program a mentor program or an induction program that the expectations/guidelines were the same. Standard 5 specifically states that the coach/mentor must demonstrate evidence of effective teaching practice to include content knowledge and the equal importance of the ability to work with adults.
-
Rhode Island
Select another topic
Delivering Well Prepared Teachers
- Admission into Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Reading Instruction
- Elementary Teacher Preparation in Mathematics
- Early Childhood
- Middle School Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation
- Secondary Teacher Preparation in Science and Social Studies
- Special Education Teacher Preparation
- Special Education Preparation in Reading
- Assessing Professional Knowledge
- Student Teaching
- Teacher Preparation Program Accountability
Expanding the Pool of Teachers
Identifying Effective Teachers
- State Data Systems
- Evaluation of Effectiveness
- Frequency of Evaluations
- Tenure
- Licensure Advancement
- Equitable Distribution
Retaining Effective Teachers
Exiting Ineffective Teachers
Pensions
Research rationale
Too many new teachers
are left to "sink or swim" when they begin teaching.
Most new teachers are overwhelmed and undersupported at the
outset of their teaching careers. Although differences in preparation programs
and routes to the classroom do affect readiness, even teachers from the most
rigorous programs need support once they take on the myriad responsibilities of
their own classroom. A survival-of-the-fittest mentality prevails in many
schools; figuring out how to successfully negotiate unfamiliar curricula,
discipline and management issues and labyrinthine school and district
procedures is considered a rite of passage. However, new teacher frustrations
are not limited to low performers. Many talented new teachers become
disillusioned early by the lack of support they receive, and it may be the most
talented who will more likely explore other career options.
Vague requirements
simply to provide mentoring are insufficient.
Although many states recognize the need to provide mentoring
to new teachers, state policies merely indicating that mentoring should occur
will not ensure that districts provide new teachers with quality mentoring
experiences. While allowing flexibility for districts to develop and implement
programs in line with local priorities and resources, states also should
articulate the minimum requirements for these programs in terms of the
frequency and duration of mentoring and the qualifications of those serving as
mentors.
New teachers in
high-need schools particularly need quality mentoring.
Retaining effective teachers in high-need schools is
especially challenging. States should ensure that districts place special
emphasis on mentoring programs in these schools, particularly when limited
resources may prevent the district from providing mentoring to all new
teachers.
Induction: Supporting Research
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:
Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers – Final Report: Teachers Matter, 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 TIMSS 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. Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education, NCEE 2009-4072, August 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
D. Reed, K. Rueben, and E. Barbour, "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://all4ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/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, Volume 23, No. 2, March 2009, pp. 295-328 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: Applied Economics, Volume 1, No. 4, October 2009, pp. 85-108. See also H. Wong, "Induction Programs that Keep New Teachers Teaching and Improving," NASSP Bulletin, Volume 88, No. 638, March 2004, pp. 44-58.
For
a further review of the research on new teacher induction see M. Rogers, A. Lopez, A. Lash, M. Schaffner, P. Shields, and M. Wagner,
"Review of Research on the Impact of Beginning Teacher Induction on Teacher Quality and Retention," ED Contract ED-01-CO-0059/0004, SRI Project P14173, 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," Calder Institute, Working Paper 57, January 2011; T. Sass, J. Hannaway, Z. Xu,
D. Figlio, and L. Feng, "Value Added of Teachers in High-Poverty Schools and
Lower-Poverty Schools," Calder Institute, Working Paper 52,
November 2010; and C. Clotfelter, H. Ladd, and J. Vigdor, "Who Teaches Whom? Race and Distribution of Novice Teachers," Economics of Education Review, Volume 24, 2005, pp. 377-392.
See
also B. White, J. Presley, and K. DeAngelis, "Leveling Up: Narrowing the Teacher Academic Capital Gap in Illinois," Illinois Education Research Council, Policy Research Report: IERC 2008-1, 44 p.