Expert services in teacher mentoring & coaching that target your needs. 

Survey: What's Happening in Mentoring & Induction in Each of the United States?

By Barry Sweeny, © 2000

---

• The Major Surveys of the States
• What's Been Happening in Each State?
• A Need to Broaden the Scope of the Research Into State programs
• Improving? or I'm Proving?
• A Search for Program Purpose: Assistance or Assessment?
• Understanding These Two Approaches
• Some Conclusions
• The Approach That We Need

---

The author of this web site has been keeping track of state-level mentoring programs for years. During that time I have seen that it's:

1. Difficult to draw conclusions about the sum of state-level novice teacher programming, because it is in constant flux

2. Possible to look at state level activity from several different perspectives, because of the various and complex themes that weave through beginning teacher support systems.

This report takes one view point in presenting and analyzing the patterns in state-wide mentoring and induction programming. That approach views mentoring on a continuum in which assistance of novice teachers is at one end of the continuum and assessment of novice teachers is on the other end. Necessarily, that perspective "colors" how this information is presented and analyzed.

What is presented here is:

• A chart summarizing some of the studies and illustrating the changing picture described above, plus references to all the studies I found.
• Statements and conclusions I have reached about state-mandated novice teacher programming in the 50 states.

Please do not contact me for more current information. I do not have it.

The Major Surveys of the States

I am aware of 11 comprehensive studies of state-wide novice teacher programming since 1980. These are all referenced at the end of the chart below. One of the busiest times in mentoring, for example, was between 1985 and 1989, when there was so much activity that there were four major projects to survey the state level efforts to support beginning teachers through induction and mentoring programs. These were:

A Study of State-Mandated Beginning Teacher Programs and Their Effects, by Hoffman, J. Edwards, S. Paulissen, M. O'Neal, S. & Barnes, S. (1985). Journal of Teacher Education. 37 (1), 16-21.

The Association of Teacher Educators, Commission on the Teacher Induction Process (See Hawk and Robards, (1987). "State-Wide Teacher Induction Programs", in D.M. Brooks (ed.) Teacher Induction: A New Beginning, pp. 33-44, ATE, Reston, VA)

The Illinois State Board of Education (See "Final Report for Initial Year of Teaching Study", Eastern Illinois University, 1986)

The Association of American Colleges for Teacher Education (Neuweiler, (1987) "Teacher Education Policy in the States: A Fifty State Survey of Legislative and Administrative Actions". Wash. DC)

Beginning Teacher Performance Evaluation: An Overview of State Policies, by E. Sclan & Linda Darling-Hammond, 1992. The cost for this report is $14.50 prepaid, from ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. One DuPont Circle NW, Suite 610, Washington D.C. 20036, Phone (202) 293-2450 and FAX (202) 457-8095.

To the best of my ability I have tried to ensure that I am comparing "apples to apples". I am also sure that there are variations seen when comparing reports or when reaching conclusions about trends. As I review the information, I see statements about state programs which seem not to align with what I know very well to be the current case. On closer examination I have found many of these apparent inaccuracies to be explained by a number of facts. Primarily the problems can be attributed to the date at which a report was written.

For example, a state may at one point have a state-funded and mandated mentoring program for a few years for the general assistance of new teachers. They may then lose some or all of the funding for mentoring support but continue the mandate, or may drop the mandate when the funding is lost. Several years later the same state may institute mentoring requirements again, but this time related to certification and teaching standards and may be able to fund that mentoring as a support for new teacher accountability. Thus, the same state may be said at different times and in different reports to have or not have a state mandated induction program, and to have or not have state funding to support those programs.

Therefore, my conclusions here need to be viewed as tentative, even temporary, and certainly in-process as I continue to seek more accurate information through original documents and studies.

Also, to confirm the accuracy of my information, I identified the state contact person and sent each a set of survey questions and a copy of the web page, stating that this was what had been posted on the web and if it was inaccurate to please inform me so I might correct it. Of the fifty letters sent, exactly 30 states sent a response. While that is about a 63% return rate (not bad!), it does not assure me about the remaining 20 states. Does that mean they reviewed it, found no problem and so, just did not respond? Or, does that mean the info is incorrect, but they never responded? Oh well. I press on with my project.

TRACING THE CHANGES:

1986) The Illinois survey listed above was the most definitive and found that 17 states had pilot programs underway, 14 states had programs under development, and 20 states had no programs in place or under development.

(1987) By November 1987, one year later, the AACTE survey found that only 3 states did not have a program, at least in the planning process. (I believe that several of these did not result in full, state-wide programs. For example, in Illinois a three year "pilot" of a few programs resulted, and these ended after the three years when state funding expired.)

(1988) By 1988 at least 15 of the 17 states with operating induction/mentoring programs had used an approach that included assessment of beginning teachers for purposes of teacher certification.

What's Been Happening in Each State:

The following chart lists the findings of several surveys of state-wide new teacher induction programs. This data illustrates the degree to which the picture of state-mandated programs is in flux from year to year. These changes reflect adding or removing funding, program revisions, changes from a pilot to a full implementation, and other political and economic issues.

See the citations after the chart below for the original sources of this information.

STATE    \/	1986 ISBE *I=implement in yr *P=pilot in yr *S=Support, *A=Assess, *S/A= both *For certif? *Length/yrs *State $	1987 ATE *I=implementing *P=piloting *C=Considering *N= Nothing *S=Support, *A=Assess, *S/A= both *For certif? Y/No *Length/yrs *State $ =YE$	1992 -Sclan *Beginning Teacher support program approach	1996 -CPRE *Formal state mandated AND funded new teacher induction or mentoring?	1996 - NASDTEC *Mentoring of BT? *State funding?
Alabama		N,	eval.	No	Yes, no $
Alaska		N,	eval.	No	No
Arizona	I 85, S/A, N, ?, $440K	N,	State-funded, optional	No	No
Arkansas		C,	eval.	No	No
California		C,	37 State-funded pilots	Partial, guidelines, no req'mt	Yes, $4.8 M, 30% BT
Colorado		N,	1999 implementation	Pending	For provis. lic. No $
Connecticut		C,	Funds certification mentoring	Yes	Yes, $3 M
Delaware		N,	eval.	Proposed	Yes, pilot, $100K
Dist. of Columbia	I 85, S/A, Y, 1 yr, $1.5M	I, S/A, NO, 1-2, YE$	$?, mentor & principal	Yes	Yes, $1,200K
Florida	I 80, S/A, Y, 1 yr, $2.5M	I, S/A, Y, 1 YR, YE$	$?, mentor, considering PD schools	Partial	Yes, $3.4 staff dev & MT
Georgia	I 86, S, Y, 3 yr, $1M	I, S/A, Y, 1-3 YRS, YE$	1990 dropped BT performance eval. for certif., 1991$?, eval.	Yes	Yes, $33M staff dev/MT
Hawaii		N,	$?, BT mentor pilots	No	Guarantee support unsatisf. grads of U. of H.
Idaho		N,	State $, mentor all BT	No	No
Illinois		C,	State $ for mentor pilots	No	No
Indiana		C,	$?, mentor	Yes	Yes, $1.5M
Iowa		N,	No state $, eval of BT	No	No
Kansas	P 85, Remedial, Y, 1 yr, $241K	P, S/A, Y, 1 YR, YE$, expect 1989 implem.	Ks. Internship Plan, no $	Piloting	No
Kentucky	I 85, S/A, Y, 2 yrs, $1.25M	I, S/A, Y, 1-2 YRS, YE$	State induction, M team support & eval.	Yes	Yes, $3.3M
Louisiana		N,	1990 dropped BT performance eval. Plan to pilot revised internship	Yes	Yes, $3.8M
Maine	P 84, S/A, Y, 2 yrs, ?	P, S, Y, 2 YRS, expect 1988 implem.	State induction, M support	No	Yes, no $
Maryland		C,	Fund 5 induction pilots	No	No
Massachusetts		C,	Considering induction	No	Yes if poor eval.
Michigan		N,	Considering induction	Partial	No
Minnesota		N,	Creating internship year	Yes	No
Mississippi	I 86, A, Y, 3 yrs, $300K	I, S/A, Y, 1-3 YRS, YE$	Mandated BT support	No	Yes, $20K, rest local
Missouri	I 85, S/A, Y, $0	I, A, N, ?, NO $	Voluntary mentoring	Partial	Yes, guidelines, no $
Montana		N,	Funded mentor pilot	Proposed	No
Nebraska		C,	3 yr plan cut, no funds	No	No
Nevada		N,	1986 state BT internship request of legisl., no $	No	No
New Hampshire		N,	4 pilots in 1990-91	No	Yes, pilot, $20K, 30% BT
New Jersey		N,		No	Yes, for alt certif., yes
New Mexico		C,	State has 4 induction models, requires support until "competent"	No	Yes, no $
New York		C,	State funds 77 of 700 district mentor programs	No	No
North Carolina	I 85, S, Y, ?, $150K	I, S/A, Y, 2-5 YRS, YE$	Req'd mentoring for certif.	Proposed	Yes, no $
North Dakota		C, S/A, Y, 1-2 YRS, YE$	Developing a mentoring model	No	Univ. encour'd to help BT
Ohio		C,	$2.5M for mentor support	Proposed	Yes, pilot grants
Oklahoma	I 82, A, Y, 2 yrs, $1.01M	I,	M team eval. & assist.	No	Yes, $1.02M
Oregon		C,	Voluntary assist, some state $	No	No
Pennsylvania	P 85, S, Y, ?, $0	P, S, Y, 1 YR, NO $, expect 1987 implem.	State induction, no $	No	Yes, no $
Rhode Island		N,	No	No	No
South Carolina	I 82, A, Y, 2yrs, $385K	I, A, Y, 1-2 YRS, YE$	Internship, eval., considering PD schools	No	Yes, $560K
South Dakota	I 86, S/A, Y, 1 yr, $100K	I, S/A, Y. 1-2 YRS, YE$	State induction repealed	No	No
Tennessee		C,	Mentors, career ladder, developing a state program	No	Seeking funds
Texas		N,	Mentor pilot in 1988-89, implement in 1991	Partial	New law req. mentor
Utah		C,	State induction, assess & assist via univ., no $	No	Yes, $87K
Vermont		N,	Considering BT internship w/ support & assessm't	No	No
Virginia	I 85, S/A, Y, 2 yrs, $1.2M	I, A, Y, 6 MO-2YRS, YE$	State BT eval. progr. rescinded 1991, mentoring pilots in 1992	Partial	No
Washington	P 85, S, N, 1 yr, $1.5M	P, S, Y, 1 YR. +, $1.5M	State mentoring program pilots	Yes	Yes, $ vary ea. yr. 60-80% of BT
West Virginia		P, S, NO, 3 YRS, expect 1988 implem.	Counties orient, state BT assist & assess	Partial	Yes, $220K
Wisconsin	P 84, S, Y, 2 yrs, $3M	P, S/A, Y, 1-2 YRS, expect 1988 implem.	BT assist pilots 1985-88, guide lines, no $	No	Guide lines, no state $
Wyoming		N,	Considering induction/internship	No	No

Sources of the above information:

1986 - "Final Report for Initial Year of Teaching Survey". (1986). Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, for the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE).

1987- Hawk, P.O. & Robards, S. "State-Wide Teacher Induction Programs", in Brooks, DM (ed) Teacher Induction: A New Beginning. National Commission on the Teacher Induction Process, Assn. of Teacher Educators, Reston, Va. (ATE)

1992 -Sclan, E. & Darling-Hammond, L. "Beginning Teacher Performance Evaluation.: Overview of State Policies". (1991 data) ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Educ.

1996 -Consortium for Policy Rsrch in Ed. U. of Pa. "State mandated & funded new teacher formal induction or mentoring" (CPRE)

1996 - National Assn. of State Directors of Teacher Education & Certification "Manual on Certification" (NASDTEC)

Other major studies which were sources used to find info on each state's web page:

1980 - McDonald, F.J. "A Study of Induction Programs for Beginning Teachers". Princeton, NJ.: Educational Testing Service. ERIC ED 257-776 to 257-781.

1984 - Defino, M.E. & Hoffman, J.V. "A Status Report & Content Analysis of State-Mandated Induction Programs". Austin, TX.: Univ. of Texas at Austin, R & D Center for Teacher Educ. ERIC ED 251-438.

1985 - Hoffman, J., Edwards, S., Paulissen, M., O'Neal, S., & Barnes, S.A. "A Study of State-Mandated Beginning Teacher Programs and Their Effects". Journal of Teacher Education. 37 (1), 16-21

1987 - Neuweiler, J. "Teacher Education Policy in the States: A Fifty State Survey of Legislative and Administrative Actions". Washington D.C.: Assoc. of Amer. Colleges for Teacher Education.

1993 - Furtwengler, C.B. "The Reform Movement: A Fifty-State Survey of State Actions for Beginning Teacher Programs". Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Amer. Educ. Research Assn., Atlanta, GA.

1998 - Amer. federation of Teachers. "Mentor Teacher Programs in the States". Educ. Issues Policy Brief #5: Washington D.C.

In addition to these major studies I have read hundreds of articles and reports, too numerous to mention here, and allowed this information to shape and inform my conclusions.

---

A Need to Broaden the Scope of the Research:

Clearly, the work in mentoring and induction has been in the service of two agendas. Every program must focus on meeting the needs and challenging the growth of novice teachers, while simultaneously, addressing the concerns of those non-educators who are the decision makers who appropriate the funds to support the program. This would suggest that any research into the funded programs should have collected data that answered the questions asked by educators and non-educators alike. That is, it seems that any research done should have inquired into both how the mentoring process and program worked as well as what the results of that mentoring process were.

A review of at least those studies of mentoring mentioned in this report shows that many of the studies completed during the 1980's were descriptive in nature. Often these studies focused on answering:

• How are mentoring programs structured?
• How do mentoring programs make decisions like selecting & matching of mentors & proteges?
• What happens in an effective mentoring relationship that makes it effective?
• What do principals perceive about the speed with which new teachers seem to become effective teachers, and how does mentor support impact on this?
•  What are the changes in mentors whose roles were defined as teacher leader?
• What are the feelings of novice teachers about the importance of mentoring assistance to their success and self confidence?

Such descriptions are very valuable for further program refinement or for design of a new program, but do not lead to conclusions in which non-educators would be interested. Another common research question, "What is the impact of mentoring on retention of novice teachers?" is focused on answers which should be of more political interest, but that interest might only exist if the financial and human costs of teacher attrition have been established and found to be excessive.

The number of programs which have been tried and never funded or which were funded and then later lost the funding, suggests that the descriptive approach to the study of mentoring was not all that was needed. On the contrary, this report contains several examples, such as California, in which program goals were clearly defined and the attainment of those goals was carefully documented. In these cases the programs and the inquiry have both been sustained over a considerable length of time. I think that this is because the research has served the interests and needs of both educators and non-educators.

---

Improving? or I'm Proving?

As the pressure for accountability has increased, so has the number of states with a willingness to mandate and pay for programs to implement the mandates. In many of the programs included in this report there has been an on-going dialogue about which approach to working with novice teachers is the most effective in promoting excellence in the classroom. A critical factor in sorting out the patterns and learning from the experiences of these programs is the degree of concern existing in each state for school improvement and the quality of teaching and learning. Where that concern was high the assessment of novice teachers has become a program priority focused on ensuring that only the better teachers are certified. In other cases, induction programs have undertaken the potentially conflicting dual role of assessing and assisting new teachers.

---

The Search for Program Purpose: Assistance or Assessment?

Many of the earliest programs chose one of two very clear purposes. Some programs were intent on supporting beginning teachers during their stressful transition into a new profession. Other programs focused on teacher competency and sought to ensure that the practices associated with effective teaching were known and used by the novice teacher. Many of the states that took the latter approach have provided an initial, short-term license and have linked awarding of the standard teaching certificate to successful demonstration of the desired competencies as defined in a state-required assessment instrument. Programs with this emphasis have often had to invest most or all of the time provided for the mentoring pair in the clinical supervision model of observations and conferences.

The two purposes of assisting and assessing are hard to avoid, however. The concerns of educators drive programs toward assisting and the concerns of non-educators drives a program toward assessment. A natural result of these opposing pressures was seen in the late 1980s and on into the 1990s as programs tried to serve "both masters". This dilemma continues to today. When mentors have been made responsible for both these roles the stress on the mentors and the required program resources are very high. The result has sometimes been that the program's success has been compromised. Linking the mentoring process to such a high stakes result as granting or denying a teaching certificate may also have had a dampening effect on the mentoring relationship which is required for honest sharing of problems, open reflection and discussion of concerns, and a willingness to take the risks required for learning in front of one's colleague. When the mentor's role was assisting and the principal's role was assessing, the mentoring has had a better chance of causing the desired professional growth and the assurance of quality has still been addressed.

---

Understanding the Two Approaches

A common pattern in the information in this report is the changing balance between those programs which focus on assisting new teachers and those with an emphasis on assessment of the competency of teaching. At its root is the question of whether to focus on developing the person or observing and documenting the practices. It appears that how this question has been answered has depended on whether the voice of educators or of non-educators was dominant in the state at the time the decision was made. As the pendulum swings between assertions about development of effective teachers to documentation of effective practices, two perspectives about teachers have emerged. Clearly, there are those who see teachers as "the problem" and there are those who see teachers as "the solution" to the problem.

---

Some Conclusions

Numerous conversations with state board contacts and with educators in the various states during this survey have led this author to several conclusions about the "wandering and searching" so evident in an overview of the whole sequence of program change since the mid-1980s.

Those conclusions are:

1. That earlier efforts which emphasized assessment for certification based on a list of effective practices often have concluded that their approach has been too prescriptive and simplistic to adequately define teaching excellence given the complexity of the classroom and an entrenched school culture.

2. That when funding has been cut or programs rescinded, that the experience of the leadership of those programs has often been lost or, at least, unused as a resource to inform the next round of decisions about mandates and programs.

3. That when the effort to support new teachers has been collaborative and has involved all the stake holders from higher education, the schools, regional service centers, and the public, it has been a slower but more reasoned process of program evolution. In these cases the discussion has most often been about the need to maintain the safe learning environment of the mentoring relationship which leads to growth and about how to find a balance between the focus on development of people and documentation of effective practices where neither are an obstacle to the other.

4. That the shift from using a checklist of effective practices to defining standards for excellent teaching really represents a shift in accountability from focusing on a definition of HOW to attain the desired results, to a recognition that clearly defined RESULTS must be central. The search for how to attain those results requires a dialogue that is specific to the individual classroom and student so it cannot be mandated. Such a dialogue is both internal and social, requiring a skillful and career-long process of inquiry, reflection, self assessment, student assessment, and adjustment of method to better attain the goal.

5. That the approach of providing assistance through mentoring has varied from a short-term focus on developing effective teaching practices to a more long-term investment in developing the skills and dispositions in the emerging educator of reflection, self-assessment, openness to the perspectives and feed back of others, and continuous inquiry and growth.

6. That the lessons learned in state new teacher programs about the balanced approach of assisting and assessing need to be incorporated into the processes underway to define teaching and student learning standards. That is that what works to support student learning and adult learning must be integrated for each to impact the other.

7. That the process of defining teaching and student learning standards needs a parallel process to define standards for effective mentoring and induction programs and for effective mentoring practices so that mentoring and induction of new teachers also supports the student learning agenda.

8. That there are overlooked links between effective teaching and assessment of students, effective mentoring of novice teachers as learners, and effective novice teacher support programs which themselves need to be learning. The quest to learn how to become more effective is a multi-layered process of interacting efforts and initiatives which may have a multiplying effect.

9. It seems to this author that part of what is needed is a more careful adherence to principles of solid research. Inquiry about defining the problem, testing an hypothesis, and drawing conclusions about solutions to the problems sometimes seem to have been ignored. It is my conclusion that where research has been undertaken in a collaborative setting involving both educators and non-educators, that then solid methods of inquiry have been better used and the results of the research have been more valued and have led to a more consistent, long-term effort to improve the ability of programs to resolve problems and attain the desired results of improved teaching and learning.

---

The Approach That We Need:

Further, it is my conclusion that the lack of research about these desired results is a direct result of the problem described here.

This author is led to the final conclusion that programs for new teachers and the persons in them, need a continual, three-part agenda which examines the relationships between effective mentoring programs, effective mentoring, effective teaching and effective learning at every level. It is as if the role of the mentor as a model of effective teaching is being redefined from a person with all the answers to be cloned, to a person who asks the right questions and who is always challenging themselves to become more effective and productive in their work. The image of the teacher as an isolated professional struggling in their classroom on behalf of the students is shifting to an image of the teacher as a member of a team which challenges and supports the same struggle as a collective journey, not a private quest.

The way one defines the role of the mentor and the approach of the program more clearly than ever, reflects some deep seated and often unexamined assumptions about teaching, learning, and change. If anything, a review of this document should lead mentors and all those interested in increasing the effectiveness of their efforts to support novice teachers, to a reexamination of purposes and the extent to which program methods align with and support those intentions.

Finally, as we work to define excellence in mentoring practices and programs, we need to attend to the lessons learned in the programs across our nation. To ignore those lessons is to ignore the dichotomous realities of accountability to the public which sends us their children, as well as the realities of the classrooms and schools in which those children are students.

Clearly, when the conversation about new teacher programs has been a collaborative one, the stake holders and decision makers have come to a shared vision of what the goal is and of the best way to attain it. When that has happened, the infamous pendulum of focus and of how our scarce resources are spent has been stilled and the consensus has allowed them to move ahead, rather than back and forth between the two realities.