New Teacher Center 2012 Symposium Presentation

Review of State Policies
on Teacher Induction
14th National Symposium on Teacher Induction

February 6, 2012

when we focus
on teachers,
our students
succeed

Copyright © 2011 New Teacher Center. All Rights Reserved.

Who’s in the Room?
Raise your hand if you are a:
• Classroom Teacher
• Mentor or Coach
• School Leader
• District Leader
• Union Leader
• Policy Maker
• State Department of Education Staff
• University Faculty/Staff
• Non-Profit Organization Staff

Session Outcomes
1. To learn about the current status of
induction from our Summary of State
Policies on Teacher Induction.
2. To examine NTC policy criteria and to use
them to assess existing state policies.
3. To think about how the policy summaries
could be utilized in your work.


What Is Policy & Why It Matters
• Includes statutes, regulations, code, rules, program
standards & other program guidance and support.

• Influences the design and scope of induction and
mentoring programs.

• Creates a supportive context & establishes an expectation
that induction will be provided to every beginning teacher.

• States with more comprehensive policies provide local
programs enhanced opportunities and guidance to
implement high-quality induction and mentoring
approaches.

Review of State Policies on
Teacher Induction
• Resource for state/local policymakers,
advocates, and other stakeholders
• Summary of state policies (statutes,
regulations, codes, rules, program
standards & other guidance) on educator induction
• Web-based, annual updates (Current: 2010-11)
• Components include individual state summaries &
accompanying policy paper with analysis and
recommendations
• Formative in nature – did NOT grade/rank states

NTC State Policy Criteria
Policy Criterion Description
1. Teachers Served Two years of induction support required?

2. Administrators Served Two years of induction support required?

3. Program Standards Formal standards govern program design &
operation?
4. Mentor Selection Rigorous selection process required?

5. Mentor Training Foundational training & ongoing PD required?

6. Mentor Assignment Policy addresses mentor assignment,
manageable mentor caseloads & release time?
7. Program Delivery Policy identifies key program elements: contact
time, formative assessment & observation?
8. Funding Dedicated program funding?

9. Teacher Accountability Participation in/completion of induction required to
advance to professional teaching license?
10. Program Accountability State assesses/evaluates/monitors program
quality?


Activity
• Take 5 minutes to individually read through a state
summary that is either:
• Your state or
• A state of interest
• Take 5 minutes to individually identify two things:
• How the state fares on the policy criteria.
• Identify which criterion is of most interest to you for
further discussion in our next activity.


Findings/Analysis
Criterion 1: Teachers Served
• 27 states require some form of induction or mentoring
for all beginning teachers (BTs).
• 11 states meet criterion 1 for requiring induction for first-
and second-year BTs.
• 6 states require induction for more than two years, typically
three.


Findings/Analysis
Criterion 2: Administrators Served
• 16 states require some form of professional support for
all beginning school principals.
• 3 states meet criterion 2 by requiring induction or
mentoring for first- and second-year school administrators.


Findings/Analysis
Criterion 3: Program Standards
• 15 states have formalized induction program standards.

• Another 20 states provide detailed program
requirements in administrative code, regulations or
through informal program guidelines.


Findings/Analysis
Criterion 4, 5, 6: Mentor Selection, Training &
Assignment
• At least 29 states clearly define who is eligible to serve
as a mentor teacher.
• 31 states require mentor training. 15 require training
plus ongoing mentor professional development.
• 22 statesaddress mentor assignment within their
policies.
• 3 states affirmatively allow for full-time mentors. 10 states
effectively prohibit the utilization of full-time mentors.


Findings/Analysis
Criterion 7: Program Delivery
• 30 states mention the issue of mentoring time within
their policies in some fashion.
• 11 states quantify a minimum amount of mentor-BT
contact time
• At least 16 states address formative assessment.
• At least 25 states address classroom observation,
either by and/or of the BT.
• 9 states address all three elements (contact time,
formative assessment, and classroom observation).

Findings/Analysis
Criterion 8: Funding
• 17 states provided dedicated funding for induction and
mentoring in the 2010-2011 school year.
• 11 states provide induction funding to all of its school districts,
and among them only 4 states provide funding for local
induction program costs.
• 4 states made funding available through a competitive
induction grant program but don’t require induction and
mentoring.
• 6 states reserve all funding for mentor stipends.


Findings/Analysis
Criterion 9: Teacher Accountability
• At least 22 states require participation in or completion of an
induction program to advance from an initial to professional
teaching license.

• Only 10 states require induction for certification/licensure &
also require a program of at least two years in length.


Findings/Analysis
Criterion 10: Program Accountability
• At least 22 states have a clear focus on induction program
quality & program improvement.
• 6 states create the tightest linkage between program evaluation &
state induction program standards.
• 12 states take a compliance-focused approach, requiring local
programs to submit program plans, verify the provision of
induction and mentor support or require some local evaluation
activities.
• 16 states require local evaluation activities, but don’t play an
active or leadership role.


Activity
• Form 3 groups at different tables depending on
your criterion of interest.
• 3 groups: Mentor Quality (4, 5, 6), Program Quality
(3, 7, 10) and State Requirements (1, 2, 8, 9).
• Prompt to Discuss:
• What are your recommendations for state policy related to your
criterion of interest?
• What would you recommend a state require in relation to your
criterion of interest?
• Group share out:
• What are your tables’ recommendations?


Policy Paper Recommendations
• Read through the recommendations
• While reading the recommendations, think about:
• Which ones are most useful or controversial.
• Which ones should be changed or eliminated
• Do you have any additional recommendations?
• Share ideas with an elbow partner
• Share out to room


Closing Question
• How would you use this information to help
re-shape induction policy in your state?
What are some of the obstacles?


Our Next Steps
• Gather up-to-date policy information for each of
the 50 states.
• Provide the 50 state reviews and policy paper to
state policymakers and program leaders so they
can begin to use them as a roadmap for
developing stronger induction policies.
• Advocate for & help to develop more
comprehensive educator induction policy in
states.


Thank you
50 state reviews available on the NTC Website:
http://www.newteachercenter.org/policy/policy-map

Liam Goldrick
lgoldrick@newteachercenter.org

David Osta
dosta@newteachercenter.org

Jennifer Burn
jburn@newteachercenter.org

New Teacher Center 2012 Symposium Presentation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to New Teacher Center 2012 Symposium Presentation

Similar to New Teacher Center 2012 Symposium Presentation (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

New Teacher Center 2012 Symposium Presentation

Editor's Notes