Richard M. Ingersoll

The Impact of Induction and Mentoring Programs for Beginning Teachers A Critical Review of the Research

This review critically examines 15 empirical studies, conducted since the mid-1980s, on the effects of support, guidance, and orientation programs—collectively known as induction—for beginning teachers. Most of the studies reviewed provide empirical support for the claim that support and assistance for beginning teachers have a positive impact on three sets of outcomes: teacher commitment and retention, teacher classroom instructional practices, and student achievement. Of the studies on commitment and retention, most showed that beginning teachers who participated in induction showed positive impacts. For classroom instructional practices, the majority of studies reviewed showed that beginning teachers who participated in some kind of induction performed better at various aspects of teaching, such as keeping students on task, using effective student questioning practices, adjusting classroom activities to meet students’ interests, maintaining a positive classroom atmosphere, and demonstrating successful classroom management. 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. There were, however, exceptions to this overall pattern—in particular a large randomized controlled trial of induction in a sample of large, urban, low-income schools—which found some significant positive effects on student achievement but no effects on either teacher retention or teachers’ classroom practices. The review closes by attempting to reconcile these contradictory findings and by identifying gaps in the research base and relevant questions that have not been addressed and warrant further research.

The Problem of Underqualified Teachers in American Secondary Schools

This article presents the results of a research project on the phenomenon of out-of-field teaching in American high schools–teachers teaching subjects for which they have little education or training. Over the past couple of years, the problem of out-of-field teaching has become a prominent topic in the realm of educational policy and reform, and the results of this research have been widely reported and commented on both by education policymakers and the national media. But unfortunately, out-of-field teaching is a problem that remains largely misunderstood. My research utilizes nationally representative data from the Schools and Staffing Survey, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. The purpose of this article is to summarize what my research has revealed about out-of-field teaching: how much of it goes on; to what extent it varies across different subjects, across different kinds of schools, and across different kinds of classrooms; and finally, the reasons for its prevalence in American schools. The data show that even using a minimal standard for qualified teachers — those holding a college minor in the fields in which they teach —the numbers of out-of-field teachers are striking. For example, a third of all secondary school teachers of mathematics have neither a major nor a minor in mathematics. My analyses have also shown that out-of-field teaching greatly varies across schools, teachers, and classrooms. The crucial question, however, and the source of great misunderstanding is why so many teachers are teaching subjects for which they have little background. 1 examine three widely believed explanations of out-of-field teaching — that out-of-field teaching is a result of either inadequate training on the part of teachers, inflexible teacher unions, or shortages of qualified teachers. My analysis shows that each of these views is seriously flawed. The article closes by offering an alternative explanation for out-of-field teaching—one focused on the organizational structure of schools and the occupational conditions and characteristics of teaching.

Beginning Teacher Induction: What the Data Tell Us.

Induction is an education reform whose time has come.

Is the Supply of Mathematics and Science Teachers Sufficient

This study seeks to empirically ground the debate over mathematics and science teacher shortages and evaluate the extent to which there is, or is not, sufficient supply of teachers in these fields. The authors’ analyses of nationally representative data from multiple sources show that math and science are the fields most difficult to staff, but the factors behind these problems are complex. There are multiple sources of new teachers; those with education degrees are a minor source compared to those with degrees in math and science and the reserve pool. Over the past two decades, graduation requirements, student course taking, and teacher retirements have all increased for math and science, yet the new supply has more than kept pace. However, when preretirement teacher attrition is factored in, there is a much tighter balance between supply and demand. Unlike fields such as English, for math and science, there is not a large cushion of new supply relative to losses—resulting in staffing problems in schools with higher turnover.

The Magnitude, Destinations, and Determinants of Mathematics and Science Teacher Turnover

This study examines the magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. The data are from the nationally representative Schools and Staffing Survey and the Teacher Follow-Up Survey. Over the past two decades, rates of mathematics and science teacher turnover have increased but, contrary to conventional wisdom, have not been consistently different than those of other teachers. Also, contrary to conventional wisdom, mathematics and science teachers were also no more likely than other teachers to take noneducation jobs, such as in technological fields or to be working for private business or industry. The data also show there are large school-to-school differences in mathematics and science turnover; high-poverty, high-minority, and urban public schools have among the highest rates. In the case of cross-school migration, the data show there is an annual asymmetric reshuffling of a significant portion of the mathematics and science teaching force from poor to not-poor schools, from high-minority to low-minority schools, and from urban to suburban schools. A number of key organizational characteristics and conditions of schools accounted for these school differences. The strongest factor for mathematics teachers was the degree of individual classroom autonomy held by teachers. Net of other factors such as salaries, schools with less classroom autonomy lose math teachers at a far higher rate than other teachers. In contrast, for science teachers salary was the strongest factor, while classroom autonomy was not strongly related to their turnover.

Why Some Schools Have More Underqualified Teachers Than Others

The failure to ensure that the nations classrooms are all staffed with qualified schoolteachers is one of the most important problems in contemporary American education. Over the past two decades, dozens of reports and national commissions have focused attention on this problem, and, in turn, numerous reforms have been initiated to upgrade the quality and quantity of the teaching force. Comments Reprinted from Brookings Papers on Education Policy, 2004, edited by Diane Ravitch (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2004), pages 45-88. The author, Dr. Richard M. Ingersoll, asserts his right to include this material in ScholarlyCommons@Penn. This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/144 EDUCATIoN POLICY 2°°4 Diane Ravitch Editor Sponsored by the Brown Center on Education Policy BROOKINGS INSTITUTION PRESS Washington. D.C. EDUCATIoN POLICY 2°°4

What Are the Effects of Induction and Mentoring on Beginning Teacher Turnover

In recent years there has been a growth of support, guidance and orientation programs – collectively known as induction – for beginning elementary and secondary teachers during the transition into their first teaching jobs. This study examines whether such programs have a positive effect on the retention of beginning teachers. We focus on a number of different types and components of induction, including mentoring programs, group induction activities and the provision of extra resources and reduced workloads. The data used in the analysis are from the nationally representative 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. The results indicate that beginning teachers who were provided with mentors from the same subject field and who participated in collective induction activities, such as planning and collaboration with other teachers, were less likely to move to other schools and less likely to leave the teaching occupation after their first year of teaching. While, some of the components of induction we examined did not, individually, have a statistically significant impact on teacher turnover, most did collectively. That is, teachers participating in a combination or packages of mentoring and group induction activities were far less likely to depart their jobs at the end of their first year. What Are the Effects of Induction In recent years there has been a growth of support, guidance and orientation programs – collectively known as induction – for beginning elementary and secondary teachers during the transition into their first teaching jobs. Historically, the teaching occupation has not had the kind of structured induction and initiation processes common to many white-collar occupations and characteristic of many of the traditional professions (Waller, 1932; Lortie, 1975; Tyack, 1974). Although elementary and secondary teaching involves intensive interaction with youngsters, ironically the work of teachers is largely done in isolation from colleagues (e.g., Sizer, 1992; Johnson, 1990; Ingersoll, 2003a). This is especially consequential for new entrants, who upon accepting a teaching position in a school, are often left on their own to succeed or fail within the confines of their own classrooms – an experience likened by some to being “lost at sea.” (e.g., Kauffman, Johnson, Kardos, Liu, & Peske, 2002; Johnson & Birkeland, 2003). Indeed, critics have long assailed teaching as an occupation that “cannibalizes its young” and in which the initiation of new teachers is akin to a “sink or swim,” “trial by fire,” or “boot camp” experience. Perhaps not surprisingly, teaching has also traditionally been characterized as an occupation with high levels of attrition, especially among beginners (Lortie, 1975; Grissmer & Kirby, 1987, 1992, 1997; Veenman, 1985). All occupations, of course, experience some loss of new entrants – either voluntarily because newcomers decide not to remain or involuntarily because employers deem them to be unsuitable. But, researchers have held that teaching has long had high rates of attrition among newcomers. A number of studies have found as many as 50 percent of new teachers leave within the first five years of entry into the occupation (e.g., Murnane et al., 1991; Ingersoll & Smith, 2003; Huling-Austin, 1990; Hafner & Owings, 1991). Moreover, several studies have found a significant correlation between a teacher’s likelihood of What Are the Effects of Induction 2 retention and their scores on exams, such as the SAT. The “best and the brightest” amongst the newcomers appear to be those most likely to leave (Murnane et al., 1991; Schlecty & Vance, 1981; Henke et al., 2000). In recent research we have also documented what many educators have long suspected – a strong link between the perennially high rates of beginning teacher attrition and the perennial teacher shortages that plague teaching. It is widely believed that one of the pivotal causes of inadequate school performance is the inability of schools to adequately staff classrooms with qualified teachers as a result of teacher shortages. However, in analyses of national data we found that school staffing problems are not solely, or even primarily, due to teacher shortages, in the sense of too few new teachers being produced. In contrast, the data indicate that school staffing problems are to a large extent a result of a ”revolving door” – where large numbers of existing teachers depart their teaching jobs long before retirement (Ingersoll, 2001, 2003b). These are the kinds of occupational ills that effective organizational induction programs are supposed to cure and, accordingly, in recent decades a growing number of states and school districts have developed and implemented a variety of such programs (for reviews of theory, policy, and research on teacher induction see, e.g., Arends & Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Holloway, 2001; Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999; Gold, 1999; Hegsted ,1999; Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999; Scherer, 1999; Serpell & Bozeman, 1999). Teacher induction, it is important to clarify, is distinct from both pre-service and inservice teacher training programs. Pre-service refers to the training and preparation candidates receive prior to employment (including clinical training, such as student teaching). In-service refers to periodic upgrading and additional training received on-the-job, during employment. Theoretically, induction programs are not additional training per se, but are designed for those What Are the Effects of Induction 3 who have already completed basic training. These programs are often conceived as a “bridge” from student of teaching to teacher of students. Of course, these analytic distinctions can easily become blurred in real situations. Like the induction processes common to other occupations, there are a number of different, and sometimes conflicting, purposes behind teacher induction programs. Moreover, teacher induction can refer to a variety of different activities – workshops, collaboration, support systems, orientation seminars, and especially, mentoring. The latter refers to the personal guidance provided, usually by seasoned veterans, to beginning teachers in schools. Over the past two decades teacher mentoring programs have become the dominant form of teacher induction (Fideler & Haselkorn 1999); indeed, the two terms are currently often used interchangeably. What kinds of induction programs exist, and to what extent they help, are clearly fundamental questions for the field and for policymakers faced with decisions about supporting such programs. Accordingly, with the growth of beginning teacher induction there has also been a growing interest in empirical research on both the variety and effects of these initiatives. Over the past two decades, numerous descriptive studies have documented that the content and characteristics of different types of programs themselves widely vary (e.g., Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999; Scherer, 1999; Ganser, 1997; 2002; Schaffer et al., 1992; Wollman-Bonilla 1997). This research has shown that duration and intensity are important sources of variation: induction programs can vary from a single orientation meeting at the beginning of a school year to a highly structured program involving multiple activities and frequent meetings over a couple of years. Programs vary according to the numbers of new teachers they serve; some include anyone new to a particular school, even those with previous teaching experience; while others focus solely upon inexperienced candidates new to teaching. Programs vary according to their purpose. What Are the Effects of Induction 4 Some for instance are primarily developmental and designed to foster growth on the part of newcomers; others are also designed to assess, and perhaps weed out, those deemed ill suited to the job. Finally, mentoring programs themselves differ along these same dimensions. For example, they vary as to whether they include training for the mentors and how much attention they devote to the match between mentor and mentee and the degree to which the mentor is compensated for their efforts, either with a salary supplement or a reduction in other duties. Further, while some programs strive to see that new secondary math teachers, for instance, are provided with mentors who have had actual experience teaching secondary-level math; others do not. In addition to descriptive studies of the content of induction programs, there have been numerous evaluative studies examining the effects of induction, particularly mentoring, on various teacher outcomes. These outcome measures typically fall into two categories: teacher attitudes (e.g., teacher’s job satisfaction, efficacy, and commitment); and teacher retention or turnover. A number of studies do seem to provide support for the hypothesis that well-conceived and well-implemented teacher mentoring and induction programs are successful in increasing the job satisfaction, efficacy and retention of new teachers (e.g., Holloway 2001; Fuller 2003; Wilson, Darling-Hammond & Berry, 2001; Strong & St John, 2001). In turn, educational advocates and reformers frequently cite examples drawn from this research to secure additional funding, to garner political support, or to confirm a particular educational perspective. There are, however, important limitations to the existing empirical research on the effects of teacher induction and mentoring programs. First, the majority of these empirical studies are program evaluations that collected data on outcomes solely from those who had participated in the particular programs being assessed (e.g., Wilson, Darling-Hammond & Berry, 2001; Mitchell What Are the Effects of Induction 5 & Scott, 1999; Gregson & Piper, 1993; Strong & St John, 2001; Fletcher, Strong & Villar, 2004; Strong, 1998; Stroot et al. 1999; Scott 1999). Such studies can provide valuable feedback to both providers and participants of such

Accountability and Control in American Schools.

Abstract One of the most controversial and significant of contemporary education reforms has been the teacher accountability movement. From this perspective, low-quality teachers and teaching are a major factor behind inadequate school performance, and a lack of accountability and control in schools is a major factor behind the problem of low-quality teachers and teaching. In turn, to advocates of this reform movement, the solution is to centralize control of schools and hold teachers more accountable. Utilizing a sociology of organizations, occupations and work perspective, the objective of this article was to offer a critique of the teacher accountability perspective and movement. This article draws from, and summarizes, the results of a series of empirical research projects on the levels, distribution and effects of accountability and control in American schools. The argument of the article is that the teacher accountability perspective overlooks some of the most important sources and forms of organizational accountability and control that exist in schools and overlooks the ways schools themselves, and in particular the ways they are managed and organized, contribute to the teacher quality problem. As a result, teacher accountability reforms often do not succeed and can have a negative impact on teacher quality and school performance.