|USFDC Home||| RSS|
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 3issue 3series Year mods:caption 19951995Month February2Day 1515mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1995-02-15
1 of 22 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 3 Number 3February 15, 1995ISSN 1068-2341A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal. Editor: Gene V Glass,Glass@ASU.EDU. College of Educ ation, Arizona State University,Tempe AZ 85287-2411 Copyright 1995, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES.Permission is hereby granted to copy any a rticle provided that EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES is credited and copies are not sold.Beginning Teachers Programs: Analysis of State Actions During the Reform Era Carol B. Furtwengler Wichita State Universitycfurtwen@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu Abstract: This article reports the findings from the conduct of a 50state survey to determine the status of state requirements and state components o f beginning teacher programs instituted from 1983 to 1992. The article discusses the implementat ion of beginning teacher programs during the 1980s reform movement and describes the methodology used for the study. An analysis of seven state policy issues derived from an interpretation of the information about beginning teacher programs is provided, and four major themes identif ied in beginning teacher programs are presented. Appendices include detailed state-by-sta te information about beginning teacher programs and an annotated reference list of state m aterials and publications related to these programs. One facet of the 1980s reform era was the infusion of beginning teacher programs developed by local school districts, colleges of ed ucation, and state agencies (Ashburn, 1987; Association of Teacher Educators, 1989; Huling-Aust in, 1989; Theis-Sprinthall, 1986). Beginning teacher programs were designed to have me ntor teachers assist and support novice teachers in their professional development (Bowers & Eberhart, 1988; Gehrke & Kay, 1984; Henry, 1989; Littleton, Tally-Foos, & Wolaver, 1992 ). Key goals of these programs were to retain new teachers in the profession and help thos e teachers advance through Berliner's (1986) identified stages of competent, proficient, or expe rt. Beginning teacher programs took on various ownerships at the local and state level (school dis tricts, regional service centers, state departments of education, institutions of higher ed ucation), but the major policy initiative for their emergence occurred at the state level. Early state efforts for personnel reform began wit h pay-forperformance systems and career ladder programs intended to improve and rewa rd teacher personnel. It became apparent
2 of 22during the reform movement, however, that beginning teacher programs were needed to develop and retain "master teachers." By the late 1980s, th e second wave of reform (Hawley, 1988) had shifted the focus from accountability for experienc ed teachers to the provision of support and professional growth for beginning teachers. The Nat ional Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (Mastain, 1991) collected information on support systems for beginning teachers in 1984. At that time, eight states reported the operation of such programs. By 1991, 31 states reported that they had launched beginning teacher programs. The Center for Policy Research in Education (1989) reported that t he impetus for new educational policies and programs during the reform movement came from state leadership rather than local or national government. This Rstate houseS leadership prompted the enactment of legislation and regulations for state-level beginning teacher progr ams. This article results from a study that examined st ate-level actions for beginning teacher programs during the 1980s. It answers the question of whether "top down" state policy actions created the infusion of beginning teacher programs at the local school level and whether these programs were sustained throughout the reform perio d. The article presents an analysis of state actions for beginning teacher programs from 1983 to 1992 that describes the involvement of states in these programs and discusses how this inv olvement compares to other state policy initiatives related to school personnel. The analys is identified other key issues of state-level beginning teacher programs: the involvement of high er education personnel; the unsolved dilemma of formative vs. summative evaluation; the collaborative, nonlegislative approach of states in the Northeast; the elimination of model p rograms during the latter part of the reform period; and the uncertainty of state resources to s upport mandated beginning teacher programs. A thematic analysis of major components of beginni ng teacher programs identifies that: (a) support for the beginning teacher was provided by mentors and support teams, (b) training programs for staff development were a necessary com ponent of beginning teacher programs, and (c) beginning teacher programs served two purposes: formative and summative evaluation. Appendixes contain detailed information obtained fr om the 50 state agencies about beginning teacher programs and will be referenced where relev ant to the text. Methodology Information obtained through interviews with state agency personnel and reviews of state documents provided the base material for a state-by -state summary and analysis of beginning teacher programs The data collection consisted of a series of predetermined steps. Each Chief State School Officer (CSSO) received a letter expla ining the research project. Follow-up telephone calls were made to each CSSO to obtain na mes of appropriate staff members for telephone interviews. A structured interview protoc ol was developed and pilot tested with personnel in two state agencies. Structured telepho ne interviews were conducted with the designated state agency personnel, and documents we re requested that pertained to the state's beginning teacher program. Information from the str uctured interviews and document review was entered by state into a data base. The data base in formation was compared and verified with survey results reported by Mastain (1991) and the S outhern Regional Education Board (1991; 1992; 1993). The information for each state was ana lyzed and comparisons among states were made to draw conclusions about state-level actions for beginning teacher programs. State Policy Issues: Beginning Teacher Programs The analysis of data pertaining to state statutes, regulations, and programs for beginning teachers revealed intense state activity in this ar ea during the educational reform movement. Several states instituted such programs at the begi nning of the reform movement, but the
3 of 22widespread creation of programs occurred during the second wave of reform, or the late 1980s. Detailed information about each state's program is found in Appendices A and B. Discussion in this section focuses on distinct policy issues deri ved from an analysis of beginning teacher programs.Thirty-Four States Enacted Policy Initiatives for B eginning Teacher Programs Prior to 1984, only eight states had initiated pol icy for beginning teacher programs. Information obtained from the states indicated that 26 other states initiated such programs during the years 1984 through 1992. Eighteen of the 34 sta tes mandated statewide programs (Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvani a, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia). Tennessee, however, d id not receive funding to implement its program; Georgia, South Dakota, and Virginia implem ented and later rescinded their statewide mandated programs. Sixteen states that did not mandate statewide prog rams either implemented pilot programs or provided competitive grant money to local school districts for beginning teacher programs (Alabama, California, Delaware, Idaho, Kansas, Loui siana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Texas, Washington, Wes t Virginia, and Wisconsin). Kansas, Missouri, and Wisconsin discontinued fiscal support for their pilot programs. Meanwhile, Virginia and Georgia replaced their rescinded state wide programs with competitive grant money for local pilot programs. The general success of state-level policy for begin ning teacher programs is interesting when compared to other state policy actions regardi ng school personnel that failed during the reform movement. For example, some key issues such as the testing of inservice teachers and performance pay programs (career ladders) became hi ghly contested issues. Six states enacted performance pay programs and then revoked them prio r to implementation. Another 14 states enacted, implemented, and later discontinued perfor mance pay programs. Only nine state programs for performance pay remained in operation in 1992 and, of these nine, only five were viable programs (Furtwengler, 1994). Beginning teacher programs and testing of beginnin g teachers, however, proved to be successful policy initiatives. Data from this study revealed that only five beginning teacher programs were rescinded and not replaced, while beg inning teacher programs became successful policy in 29 states. New state policy for testing o f beginning teachers--either prior to their entry into teacher training programs or for initial certi fication--also was a successful initiative. Eissenberg and Rudner (1988) reported that 10 state s tested teacher candidates prior to 1980 and the number increased to 46 states by 1988. The success or failure of policy initiatives can o ften be traced to contextual variables in each state. States involved in this study whose beg inning teacher initiative failed reported causes related to state politics and lack of state appropr iations. The National Education Association (NEA) strongly opposed the testing of inservice tea chers and performance pay programs, but the NEA did not oppose beginning teacher programs. Anot her variable to consider in the success or failure of policy initiatives related to school per sonnel is the opposition or support of national teachers unions. What part, if any, did national in fluences such as teachers unions play in the success or failure of state policy initiatives?Involvement of Higher Education Faculty Seven states reported that state departments of ed ucation and local school districts involved higher education personnel in their beginn ing teacher programs (Alabama, Kentucky,
4 of 22Idaho, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas). In Kentucky, teacher educators serve on a three-person team and are responsible for observing the beginning teacher three times and attending four team meetings. The department of edu cation contracts with the universities to pay partial reimbursement of travel expenses and staff time. In New Jersey, a college faculty member serves as part of a four-member Professional Suppor t Team Advisory Committee. The faculty member is responsible for visiting the provisional teacher, giving assistance in making connections between theory and practice, and provid ing inservice education. The state provides monies for personnel assigned to the support teams. State programs that result in higher education's i nvolvement in beginning teacher programs foster collaboration to improve the perfor mance of beginning teachers and the institutions that prepare them. By working with beg inning teachers, teacher education faculty assist the novices and identify areas where preserv ice training programs can be modified or strengthened. These collaborative policy initiative s address the improvement of both the preservice and inservice teaching.Formative vs. Summative Purposes for Evaluation All state-level beginning teacher programs reporte d a formative evaluation component to assist the novice with becoming a better teacher. S ix states specified that their beginning teacher program was used only for formative purposes, not f or summative evaluation (Alabama, California, Idaho, Ohio, Oregon, and Texas). Conver sely, 13 states reported in 1992 that they required summative evaluations of beginning teacher s and used the evaluation results for continuing employment and certification (Connecticu t, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and West Virginia). Three other states--Louisiana, Mass achusetts, and New York--reported future plans summative certification programs for beginnin g teacher The issue of formative vs. summative evaluation ha s not been resolved in the evaluation of experienced personnel, and it appears to be a co ntinuing quandary for beginning teacher programs. The intent of beginning teacher programs-to assist younger persons entering the profession--is entangled with the accountability is sue of competent performance. The dilemma of providing support for a beginning teacher and/or ju dging the teacher's performance in a "high stakes" arena appears in statelevel programs. Man y states combined the formative and summative purposes for participants in beginning te acher programs, but removed the mentor from the role of a summative evaluator. Only a few states assigned the mentor a summative role in determining the future employment and/or certifi cation of beginning teachers. What, then, is the purpose of beginning teacher programs--to impro ve performance and provide professional growth opportunities-or to determine certificatio n and continuing employment? A major question for policy makers is whether beginning tea cher programs can serve two masters. Even more interesting is the involvement of local school districts in teacher certification. In more than one-fourth of the states, certificatio n decisions concerning beginning teachers are delegated to or shared with local school districts. This decentralization represents a major policy shift in traditional state responsibility for the c ertification of school personnel and moves important decision-making to the local authority.Collaboration in the Northeastern States In most areas of the country, individual states dev eloped their own beginning teacher programs and did not work in concert with other sta tes. An exception to this generalization is a consortium of Northeastern States that worked joint ly with the Northeastern Regional Laboratory to develop a training program for mentor teachers. Northeastern states, with the exception of
5 of 22Connecticut, were not highly involved in legislatio n that required the evaluation of school personnel (Furtwengler, 1993). The Northeast's cons ortium efforts suggest that the state's role is to provide technical assistance for local beginning teacher programs rather than to enact legislation that mandates and requires compliance m onitoring of these programs. This approach is in sharp contrast to the 18 states that did mand ate programs and reflects the Northeast's preference for less state involvement in legislatio n for local school districts concerning educational personnel.Elimination of Model Programs Two states--Georgia and Virginia--implemented exte nsive beginning teacher programs that included state-developed summative evaluation systems. Considerable research, development, funding, and training undertaken by th ese states produced nationally visible programs. Implementation of both of these programs was halted because of limited fiscal resources and political pressures from newly electe d state leaders. New state political leaders did not support programs originated by previous adminis trations. In addition, Kansas, South Dakota, and Wisconsin did not receive funding after the con duct of pilot programs. A major policy issue is how to develop and sustain programs in times of tight fiscal resources and turbulent political turnover.State Funding for Beginning Teacher Programs: A Mov e Toward Unfunded Requirements? State funding of beginning teacher programs reveale d an interesting dichotomy. Funding increased in some states (California, Minnesota, Ne w York); more often, however, funding continued to be problematic in other states. Propos ed programs in several states, some of which were pilot-tested, did not receive funding for stat ewide implementation (Alabama, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas) Five states severely reduced or eliminated their program appropriations (Connecticut, $8 milli on to $3 million; Washington, $3.7 million to $2.3 million; Georgia and Virginia terminated their programs). The states' funding of public education--and especi ally innovative for its improvement--is an unresolved policy issue that is reflected in the implementation of beginning teacher programs. Over two-thirds of the states enacted policies for beginning teacher programs and exerted energy and resources to create and introduce these program s (see Appendix C). Funds for these state initiatives, however, were not always appropriated or were rescinded during fiscal shortfalls. This lack of funding--or discontinuance of program fundi ng--created a climate of fiscal uncertainty at the local school level. With state funding not fort hcoming, local school districts either absorbed the fiscal cost of program continuation or eliminat ed a program whose development and implementation required considerable local investme nt. Moreover, this problem in state-local financial pol icy could be worsened with the current political climate favoring state responsibility for major educational programs. If the federal government sends block grant or unallocated funds t o states, will states continue to enact policy, implement programs, and then, in times of fiscal sh ortfalls, withdraw financial support? Unfunded state-mandated programs that require local school system compliance can lead to severe fiscal problems at the local level.Duration of Beginning Teacher Programs and Teacher Certification The length of time for a beginning teacher program varied among the states. The majority
6 of 22of states reported one-year programs. Programs that included certification decisions were usually two-year programs or required an optional second ye ar of participation (Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maine, North Carolina, Oklahoma, West Virg inia). New Mexico was the only state that reported a three-year program. Beginning teacher pr ograms that are used for "high stakes" evaluation such as continuing state certification r equired at least two years of participation, while programs that are used for formative evaluation (gr owth and improvement) required one year of participation. The change from certifying teachers upon graduation from college to waiting to grant certification until they complete one or two years of on-the-job employment indicates a new policy direction. It removes initial teacher certif ication from the direct responsibility of state agencies that automatically granted certification u pon verifying that applicants had completed teacher training programs. Instead, it places the c ertification decision on the assessment of a teacher's performance in a local school district. Further research is needed, however, to determine w hether this policy change in beginning teacher certification is to be judged successful. H ow many beginning teachers are required to spend an additional year in a beginning teacher pro gram or are refused certification at the local level? How successful are local school districts, s tate agencies, and higher education personnel in providing developmental programs to increase skills needed by novice teachers? Beginning teacher programs that incorporate certification dec isions are a national policy trend, and substantive program evaluation is necessary to dete rmine the success of failure of this legislated effort. Recurring Themes in State-level Beginning T eacher Programs Analysis of the state-level beginning programs iden tified four major recurring themes. These themes in beginning teacher programs were the use of support teams and mentor teachers, the development of training programs for participan ts, and the determination of summative evaluation decisions.Support Teams for Beginning Teachers State-level programs provided support teams for th e beginning teacher. These teams changed the usual RdyadicS nature of the mentoring process to a support "team" of coaches. The support team normally consisted of three members: a mentor, the principal, and a central office staff member or higher education faculty member. Th e principal served in a formative and summative evaluation role, while the other team mem bers usually served in formative evaluation roles.The Mentor Teacher "Master" or experienced teachers served as models to provide assistance to beginning teachers. The mentors were usually appointed by a s chool committee or by the school principal and were not selected by or RmutuallyS matched with the beginning teacher. In most instances, the mentor served as a peer coa ch and worked in a formative evaluation role. Mentors observed lessons taught by the beginn ing teacher and provided feedback and advice. Mentors were usually given released time fo r working with beginning teachers. In most instances, the mentor did not provide judgments abo ut the beginning teacher's performance for reemployment or certification decisions. Stipends for mentors of beginning teachers were a c ommon characteristic found in state programs. The amount of the stipend varied from $4, 300 in California to $1,000 in Kentucky to $500 in Oklahoma. Mentors in California, however, p erformed other duties in addition to assisting beginning teachers.
7 of 22Training for Participants in Beginning Teacher Prog rams A highly visible component of state-level programs was the development of training programs for participants in beginning teacher prog rams. An annotated reference list of the materials developed for these training programs is found in Appendix C. Mentors, administrators, and other support team mem bers were provided training in techniques for assisting beginning teachers; Twelve states reported special programs designed to train mentors, assessors, or other members of the s upport team for the beginning teacher (Alabama, California, Kentucky, Mississippi, New Je rsey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia). In addition, the consortium of states working with the Northeast Regional Laboratory deve loped an extensive training program to prepare mentor teachers.Summative Decision: Certification A new theme identified in beginning teacher progra ms was the involvement of local school district personnel in determining certificat ion of beginning teachers. Prior to the reform movements, local school districts only determined c ontinuing employment within their school district and states exercised exclusive rights over statewide certification of personnel. Thirteen states that implemented beginning teacher programs involved local school systems in determining ongoing certification and made them act ive participants in this "high stakes" decisionmaking. The recommendation for certificat ion was usually the responsibility of the school principal, but in some instances other membe rs of the support team contributed to summative, certification decisions. The four themes identified in beginning teacher pr ograms have implications for state-level policy. One focus of the second wave of educational reform was the need to enhance professionalism in teaching and teacher training pr ograms. Beginning teacher programs were one vehicle to achieve this goal. The use of teams and experienced personnel to provide support for beginning teachers changes the climate at the schoo l building level from one of teacher isolation to one of increased professional collaboration. Tea ms of professionals work with novices to improve their teaching skills and to improve the sc hool. Conversely, the training of exemplary personnel to become mentors and support team member s provides a new opportunity for their professional development and collaboration. The fourth theme, summative evaluation decisions fo r certification, is not congruent with the philosophy of mentoring nor with the under gird ing philosophy of beginning teacher programs. This theme is also not in concert with th e goal of increased professionalism declared in the second wave of educational reform. Did the q uest for accountability from the first wave of reform become embedded in beginning teacher program s? Did that mute the formative outcomes for new teachers intended by these programs? Conclusions This study provides a comprehensive status report o n these state-level programs and an analysis of state policy actions. State policy make rs, teacher educators, local school districts, and other interested parties concerned with beginning t eacher programs should benefit from the study's findings. State initiatives to create begin ning teacher programs occurred as a major improvement effort during the second RwaveS of the education reform movement. Thirty-four states enacted regulations for beginni ng teacher programs that included mandated statewide initiatives, pilot programs, or competitive grant money. Higher education personnel participated in these programs in seven s tates and worked with state agencies and local
8 of 22school districts in assisting novice teachers. Amon g the policy issues that emerged from this analysis was the function of evaluation. Beginning teacher programs did not resolve the dilemma of formative vs. summative evaluation. Six states r equired that the programs be exclusively formative in nature. In 13 other states, however, t here was a strong movement toward "high stakes" decisions for continuing employment and cer tification. Shifting responsibility for teacher certification from the state to local districts was a radical change in state-level policy. Beginning tea cher programs that were tied to reemployment or certification were usually two years in length, rather than the common year-long program. Four themes recurred in state-level beginning teac her programs. First, states often relied on a support team approach rather than on the sole use of a mentor teacher. Second, mentor teachers served as peer coaches and participated in formative evaluation. They were provided released time and stipends for assisting novice tea chers. Third, training of participants in beginning teacher programs became a function of the state, and most states instituted extensive training programs and created their own training ma terials. Fourth, 13 states relinquished their certification rights and allowed local school distr icts to recommend beginning teachers for state certification. Beginning teacher programs were more successful th an other reform initiatives related to school personnel--particularly testing of inservice teachers and pay-for-performance programs-but they wrestled with the lack of state fiscal res ources. Two extensive beginning teacher programs were eliminated because of fiscal reasons and changes in the political climate within their states. Three states increased funding for th eir programs, but more often, lack of state funding deterred the successful implementation of m any pilot programs and state-mandated programs. The active involvement of states in beginning teac her programs raises several policy issues. Should states be involved in program implem entation and staff development of local school personnel, or should their role be one of po licy and technical assistance? Should states relinquish the responsibility for certification of personnel, and, if so, what benefits accrue at the local school level? Is future state funding availab le that will lead to progress in beginning teacher programs, or will beginning teacher programs ultima tely become another unfunded state mandate? References Ashburn, E. (1987). Current developments in teacher induction programs. Action in Teacher Education, 8(4), 4-44.Association of Teacher Educators. (1989). Assisting the beginning teacher. Reston, VA: Author. Berliner, D. (1986). In pursuit of the expert pedag ogue. Educational Researcher, 15, 5-13. Bowers, G. R., & Eberhart, N. A. (1988). Mentors an d the entryyear program. Theory Into Practice, 27, 226-236.Center for Policy Research in Education. (1989). St ate education reform in the 1980s. CPRE Policy Briefs, 3, 1-6.Eissenberg, T. E., & Rudner, L. M. (1988). State te sting of teachers: A summary. Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 21-22.Furtwengler, C. B. (1994). The rise and demise of p erformance pay: A 50-state summary of the reform initiative. A paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
9 of 22Association, New Orleans, LA.Gehrke, N. J., & Kay, R. S. (1984). The socializati on of beginning teachers through mentor-protg relationships. Journal of Teacher Educ ation, 35(3), 233-242. Hawley, W. D. (1988). Missing pieces of the educati onal reform agenda: Or, why the first and second waves may miss the boat. Educational Adminis tration Quarterly, 24, 416-437. Henry, M. A. (1988). Multiple support: A successful model for inducting first-year teachers.Teacher Educator, 24(2), 7-12.Huling-Austin, L. (1989). Beginning teacher assista nce programs: An overview. In Assisting the beginning teacher (pp. 5-13). Reston, VA: Associati on of Teacher Educators. Littleton, M., Tally-Foos, K., & Wolaver, R. (1992) Mentoring: A support system for new teachers. Clearing House, 65(3), 172174.Mastain, R. K. (Ed.). (1991). The NASDTEC manual: M anual on certification and preparation of educational personnel in the United States. Seattle WA: National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification.Sclan, E., & Darling-Hammond, L. (1992). Beginning teacher performance evaluation: An overview of state policies. Washington, DC: ERIC Cl earinghouse on Teacher Education and American Association of Colleges for Teacher Educat ion. Southern Regional Education Board. (1991) Career la dder clearinghouse. Atlanta, GA: Author. Southern Regional Education Board. (1992) Career la dder clearinghouse. Atlanta, GA: Author. Southern Regional Education Board. (1993) Incentive programs: A focus on program evaluation. Career ladder clearinghouse. Atlanta, GA: Author.Theis-Sprinthall, L. (1986). A collaborative approa ch for mentor training: A working model.Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 13-20. Appendix A A State-by-State Summary of Beginning Teacher Progr ams Alabama Alabama designed and pilot tested its Beginning Te acher Assistance Program (BTAP) in 1989-90 and made the program available to all schoo l districts. At this time, BTAP is voluntary for local districts but mandatory for beginning tea chers in pilot projects. Funding has not been provided for statewide implementation. The BTAP is a structured program designed to assis t in the induction and development of beginning teachers. A mentor is assigned to a begin ning teacher to observe, comment, and critique the beginning teacher's performance. The m entor and beginning teacher work in a formative mode and all information between the two remains confidential. A suggested time sequence is provided for the BTAP, and the role of the mentor is described. Training activities are provided for the mentor and include suggested a ctivities for the mentor to use with the
10 of 22beginning teacher. The local school district provid es time, training, and release time for the mentors; identifies the beginning teachers; monitor s the program; and assists with the program development and evaluation. Regional Inservice Cent ers, utilizing higher education personnel, serve as mentor training sites.California The California New Teacher Project (CNTP) was init iated in 1988 by the legislature and governor and was co-administered by the California Commission of Teacher Credentialing (CTC) and the California Department of Education. T hirty-seven programs were piloted, each varying in the type of support, services offered, a nd methods used. The state funded or supplemented these pilots. In March, 1992, after ev aluating the pilot programs, the CTC made recommendations to the legislature regarding a stat ewide policy. They recommended that a state teaching framework be developed that clearly identi fies the knowledge, skills, and abilities expected of beginning teachers. They also recommend ed more coordinated evaluation efforts, increased assessor training, increased formative fe edback to the beginning teacher on teaching skills, and assistance in improvement of these skil ls. In addition to the CNTP, the Hughes-Hart Education Reform Bill of 1983 includes the California Mentor Teacher Program. The intent of th e program is to encourage teachers currently employed to remain in the profession and for these teachers to provide assistance and guidance to new teachers, career teachers, and teacher trainees The mentors are not to become evaluators but are to provide formative assistance to teachers. Me ntors are selected by teacher committees at the local level for a period not to exceed three years. Responsibility for the program is delegated to local school districts who select mentors and imple ment various programs. The legislature allocated a $4,000 stipend per mentor and an additi onal $2,000 per mentor to local districts for training, substitute pay, release time, and travel (23 days). Mentors duties range, however, beyond the assistance to beginning teachers. The So uthern Regional Education Board (1992) has reported an increase in these amounts to $4300 (ave rage) for mentors and $2,100 to local school districts for training. The program has received in creased funding from an original cost of $35 million to an estimated cost of $65 million in 1992 SREB (1993) reports that 10,000 mentors are now serving in a variety of professional developmen t positions and that an advisory committee has been appointed to review the program and make r ecommendations for its continued operation.Connecticut The Beginning Teacher Support and Training (BEST) P rogram was developed by the State Department of Education to enhance the quality of b eginning teachers. Mentor teachers serve as the support system to beginning teachers. The asses sment component includes interviews in an assessment center context to ascertain the teacher' s pedagogical-content knowledge, administrator attestations, teacher portfolios, and classroom-performance assessment. The Connecticut Competency Instrument (CCI) is the perf ormance assessment tool. Six trained assessors conduct independent classroom observation s of the beginning teacher. The beginning teacher receives notice of strengths and areas that need improvement and is encouraged to share this information with the mentor and principal. A b eginning teacher who is not recommended for certification may participate in the BEST program a second year, if recommended by the superintendent. Responsibility for the CCI is assigned to the loca l district, district facilitators, principal, mentor, and the beginning teacher. The local distri ct provides release time for the participants, and the state provides substitute reimbursement for a maximum of six days per school year.
11 of 22Funding for the program has been reduced due to the stateUs economic conditions. In 199091, $8 million was provided for the program; in 1991-92 only $3 million of the requested $11 million was granted. Delaware Delaware provides $100,000 which local school dist ricts can request to use toward beginning teacher programs. Local school systems de sign, implement, and provide training for a support system for beginning teachers.Florida The Florida Beginning Teacher Program was passed b y the legislature in 1982. Funded by the state and revised in 1990, the program is now c alled the Professional Orientation Program (POP) for Beginning Teachers. The program requires that all beginning teachers participate in POP. Local districts develop their own POP which mu st meet certain legal requirements, be reviewed by the Department of Education, and be app roved annually by the Commissioner of Education. A support staff is assigned to each begi nning teacher. Members of the support staff are a principal, peer teacher, and another professi onal educator. They conduct clinical activities to assist the teacher in refining teaching competen cies and provide induction into the profession. This staff observes the teacher at least five times : one diagnostic/screening observation, three formative observations, and one summative observati on. Most districts use the Florida Performance Measurement System (FPMS), a formative and summative instrument. Georgia Georgia eliminated its beginning teacher certifica tion program in 1990. SREB (1993) reports that $750,000 has been allocated by the leg islature in 1993 for a Teacher Induction/Mentor-Teacher Stipends Program. Mentors must obtain a certification endorsement through participation in ten quarterhours of trai ning. The role of the mentors is to provide support to teachers during their first three years of service or to teachers who are serving their first year in a new position.Idaho A voluntary beginning teacher program was begun in Idaho in 1989. The state provides $1,000 per each first-year certificated employee, a nd all school districts have elected to participate in the program. The funds may be used f or release time, supplementary pay, professional growth activities for beginning employ ees, or for contracting with higher education institutions to provide support to beginning teache rs and administrators. School districts determine the criteria and processes for the oney ear program. Indiana Beginning in 1988-89, all school districts were re quired to have a mentor teacher program for all beginning teachers. Mentor teachers in the program must have at least five years of experience, be recognized as an outstanding teacher and be recommended by their school principal. The program includes a support system fo r the beginning teacher and training for the support team. Evaluation of the beginning teacher i s done by the principal using the Beginning Teacher Assessment Inventory. Teachers who are unsu ccessful in the first year may continue in the program for a second year. The program is summa tive and determines state certification. Those who are unsuccessful after two years may not teach in the schools in Indiana. The program
12 of 22is funded annually at $2 million; mentor teachers r eceive $600 per year, and districts receive $200 for mentor release time (SREB, 1993).Kentucky Legislation, effective January 1, 1985, requires t hat all beginning teachers and out-of-state teachers with less that two years of successful tea ching experience pass written tests and complete a one-year internship program. Beginning teachers are issued a provisional certif icate for their internship year. The teacher internship committee consists of three memb ers: the principal, resource teacher, and a teacher educator. All members are trained to use a separate supervision and assessment process for the beginning teacher. The Classroom Observatio n Instrument was developed by the State. The team observes the beginning teacher at least th ree times for one hour or one class period and meets a minimum of four times. The resource teacher who serves as a mentor, is appointed by the Department of Education and spends a minimum of 70 hours working with the intern, which consists of 20 hours inside the classroom and 50 ho urs outside the classroom. The teacher educator is appointed by a regional university. The Department of Education contracts with local s chool districts to pay resource teachers for extra meetings and work done outside the normal working hours. This amount does not exceed $1,000. Substitutes are also provided for th e resource teachers. The department also contracts with the universities for partial reimbur sement of the travel expenses and staff time for the teacher educators. The program was funded at $3 .2 million during 1991. Louisiana SREB (1993) reports that Louisiana implemented a pi lot mentor teacher program in 24 sites during 1992-93. In these sites, 24 mentors ar e providing assistance to beginning teachers and receive $2,000 in additional pay and $850 for s taff development travel expenses. Mentors are selected by their local schools systems based upon seven qualifications defined by the state. In addition, Louisiana is developing and field testing an Intern Teacher Assessment Program. Maine A beginning teacher component was part of a new, m andatory certification program enacted on July 1, 1988. Beginning teachers receive a two-year provisional certificate and receive assistance from their local school district during this time. A support team originally was provided for the beginning teacher, but local schoo l districts now have the option of assigning a single mentor. Local districts develop their own ev aluation procedure. Beginning teachers must successfully complete the provisional term before r eceiving a professional certificate. Minnesota Minnesota does not have a mandated statewide progr am for beginning teachers. In 1990-91, $500,000 was available for local pilot pro grams. Legislation has allocated $700,000 for the 199293 school year for local school districts to implement a teacher mentoring program or to expand an existing one. Funding exists for up to $5,000 for five or more beginning teachers and up to $10,000 for ten or more beginning teacher s. Mississippi
13 of 22 One of the outcomes of the Education Reform Act of 1982 was the development of assessment instruments for a variety of certified s chool personnel, including beginning teachers. Three instruments were developed to assess the begi nning teacher: Teaching Plans and Materials, Position Skills, and Interpersonal Skills. These in struments are administered twice during the school year, once each semester. The instruments ar e completed by an external evaluator, building principal or designee, and a peer teacher. The external evaluator or peer teacher must be certified for the same grade level as the beginning teacher. The beginning teacher must prepare a portfolio of instructional plans that is given to t he evaluators before the observations. The beginning teacher selects the lesson to be observed for at least one class period. The state provides training for the evaluators and each evalu ator must be certified as a provisional teacher evaluator. Legislation was passed in 1991 for a statewide Men tor Teacher Program. Developing and piloting this program is to be a joint effort of th e State Department of Education and a selected university. Depending on funding, full implementati on is scheduled for 1994. Montana Montana began a new teacher mentor program in the fall of 1992. A beginning teacher support program is being piloted in fifteen locatio ns across the state (SREB, 1992). New Hampshire New Hampshire provides $20,000 to local school dis tricts for participation in beginning teacher programs. Mentor teachers must be excellent experienced teachers and meet other criteria determined by the local school district. T he state recommends that the mentor not be involved in summative evaluation; the decision is t he option of the local school district. Approximately 10% of the state's teachers are invol ved in the program (Mastain, 1991). New Hampshire, along with other northeastern states, is working with the Northeastern Regional Laboratory on the development of an extensive mento r handbook. New Jersey New Jersey's beginning teacher program was an outg rowth of the Provisional Teacher Program, an alternative route for state certificati on. Effective September 1, 1992, all first-year teachers must participate in the beginning teacher program. Students who graduate from an approved preparation program, who are recommended b y their dean, and who make a passing score on the NTE are considered provisional teacher s with advanced standing. Students in the alternative route are considered provisional teache rs (no advanced standing). State regulations require that a Professional Support Team be assigne d to each provisionally certified teacher to provide support, supervision, and evaluation. This team includes the principal or designee, mentor teacher, college faculty member, and a curri culum supervisor. The principal is the chairperson of the support te am and serves as the liaison with the state department and evaluates the provisional teacher. T he mentor teacher has a close working relationship with the provisional teacher, orients the teacher to district policies, visits the classroom, models effective teaching techniques, an d gives feedback. The curriculum supervisor gives the provisional teacher perspective in curren t /new teaching techniques, access to resources, and assistance in developing an improvement plan. T he college faculty member visits the provisional teacher, gives assistance with making c onnections between theory and practice, and provides inservice education. The State Department of Education provides orientation for the
14 of 22support team. Evaluations, conducted at 10, 20, and 30 weeks, are done by at least two members of the team, excluding the mentor teacher. Stipends for mentors and support team members are $450 to $550. In addition, $800 is provided for 200 hours of formal instruction to a provisional teacher with no advanced standing.New Mexico New Mexico grants beginning teachers a three-year certificate. School personnel who have a Level II or III license are provided local t raining for assisting beginning teachers. The training includes observation skills, conference sk ills, skills and strategies for working with adults, and strategies for addressing the six essen tial teaching competencies. Local personnel are to provide beginning teachers instructional support emotional support, and information about the local district. During the three-year period, begin ning teachers must demonstrate six essential teaching competencies before the local school syste m recommends a state Level II certificate. New York The Mentor Teacher Internship Program was one of t hree programs established by the legislature for the purpose of improving teaching. State funds are used for release time for mentors, mentor and intern training, coordination, and development of materials. Districts may be reimbursed at a rate of 10% for part-time mentor s, 100% for full-time mentors, and up to 20% for interns. In 1986-87, 25 projects were funded wi th $4 million. This increased each year and by 1990-91, 78 projects were funded with $16.5 million A booklet with start-up suggestions and regional a nd state meetings is provided for communication among program participants. Mentors a re recommended by a committee of certified employees, with final selection by the di strict superintendent. Based on a normal contract, interns are restricted to no more than 80 % classroom instruction assignment. Part-time mentor teachers (no more than four interns) are res tricted to no less than 60% classroom instruction assignment, and full-time mentor teache rs (from five to 10 interns) are assigned 100% of contractual time. These restrictions allow the i nterns and mentor teachers time for assistance. Program evaluation results indicate that interns ma ke greater progress toward induction and professional maturation than do other beginning tea chers. Effective in 1993, all provisionally certified teachers must participate in an internshi p program as a requirement for a permanent teaching certificate.North Carolina A statewide mentor program for beginning teachers was implemented in 1985 as part of the North Carolina Initial Certification Program (I CP). A Continuing Certificate is issued at the end of the second year if teaching competencies are satisfactorily demonstrated. Each local education agency is required to develop a two-year plan for beginning teachers and provide a mentor/support team for guidance, cou nseling, and assimilation into the profession. The members of the mentor team include a trained mentor and principal or designee. The mentor/support team conferences with the beginn ing teacher regarding expectations, observes the teacher three times during the first y ear, provides data on areas of strengths and areas that need improvement, assists in designing a Professional Development Plan, models teaching behavior, provides resources, assists with problem solving, and interprets individual teachers' needs to the principal. Three state train ing programs that support beginning teacher programs are available to the local school district s.
15 of 22 The North Carolina Professional Practices Commissi on conducted a study of the Initial Certificate Program and reported in May, 1991, that participants rated the program worthwhile. They recommended that (a) additional funds be made available for mentors, (b) more release time be provided, (c) more consistency among distri cts be sought, (d) paperwork be reduced, and (e) structure be better defined.Ohio The Ohio Entry-Year Program became effective July 1, 1987. The statute requires local districts to establish their own beginning teacher programs and assign a mentor to each beginning teacher for one year. Beginning teachers are given inservice regarding the program and information about their assigned schools. Mentors a re provided an orientation, training for mentoring responsibilities, and time to consult and assist the beginning teachers. The local school district and the Ohio Department of Education separ ately evaluate the program every five years. Oklahoma Legislation enacted in 1981 mandates an entry-year assistance program for beginning teachers. An assistance committee, composed of a pe er teacher, a local administrator, and an education professor, guide and assist the beginning teacher for the first year through a structured program. The peer teacher receives $500, and higher education institutions receive reimbursement for faculty time. This committee make s recommendations regarding certification and designs a staff development program for the beg inning teacher. A beginning teacher may be recommended for certification or for a second-year in the program. A recommendation for noncertification may occur at the conclusion of the second year. The principal evaluates the beginning teacher for renewal of the contract; the committee evaluates the teacher for certification recommendations. The assistance committee meets with the beginning teacher during the first 20 teaching days to explain the program. The committee meets th ree times and each member of the committee independently observes the teacher's clas sroom and completes two observation instruments. The beginning teacher is given feedbac k from these observations. Then, the third round of observations is completed. The committee m akes a recommendation concerning certification during its third meeting based on a m ajority vote of the members. Oregon The Beginning Teacher Support Program (BTSP) was e nacted in 1987 and requires that assistance be provided to beginning teachers by exp erienced classroom teachers, designated as mentors. The program was piloted in 1987-1988 in 55 school districts. Biennial funding of $3 million was provided for the 1991-93, a reduction f rom the previous biennial budget of $3.9 million. The program is mandatory for teachers in t he pilot sites. The mentor teacher provides information, direct as sistance, and collegial support to promote success for the beginning teacher. The Oreg on Department of Education provides workshops for mentor teachers that focus upon the m entor's role, instructional assistance, strategies and skills in delivering information to the beginning teacher, and collegial support. Pennsylvania A Teacher Induction Program (TIP) for beginning te achers became effective June 1, 1987.
16 of 22State program guidelines were revised in 1990 and r equire that each school establish an induction council to develop individual goals/objectives for its TIP and to structure the program to meet the school's needs. Local schools must select a mentor or mentor teams and define responsibilities of the mentor or teams and the district administration A mentor or mentor team is comprised of certified personnel who are recognized by peers for excellence in teaching. Completion of the TIP is one criterion for an Instructional II Certif icate. Texas A framework for a teacher induction program was de veloped in 1989. In 1990-91, three pilot programs were conducted by Southwest Texas St ate University, Abilene Independent School District, and Education Service Center VI Huntsville. The program, however, has not received statewide funding. The state agency sought funds of $2,000 per teacher for 1992-93. The program is designed to be formative in nature a nd to rely on interactions between a mentor and beginning teacher for its success. The local di strict appoints a policy committee comprised of one or more persons from the following positions: a dministrator, faculty member from higher education, experienced teacher, and if possible, a former beginning teacher who has completed the induction program. The local district is respon sible for providing new teacher orientation and a minimum of 30 clock hours (five days) of release time for the beginning teacher and mentor. A support team consisting of the mentor, an induct ion-year teacher, and another individual is part of the plan. Mentors receive a stipend of $ 1,500 and are trained in communication and conferencing skills, observation techniques, models of instruction, and use of the Texas Teacher Appraisal System. They visit the classrooms of indu ction-year teachers at least two times each semester and conduct a follow-up conference. Induct ion teachers receive training in district policies and procedures, needs of the school and co mmunity, activities relating to the opening and closing of the school, student assessments and reports, instructional strategies, content knowledge and curriculum assistance, classroom mana gement, communication and conferencing skills, self-evaluation techniques, and utilization of instruction media. Representatives of higher education institutions serve in several roles: (a) membership on policy committees, (b) research and evaluation, and (c) training.Utah Utah requires that local school systems operate a mandatory beginning teacher program. The program includes a teacher support team and the conduct of three evaluations each year by trained evaluators. The criteria and processes for evaluations are local decisions. The state provided $70,000 during 1990-91 to fund training ac tivities for beginning teachers and mentors (Mastain, 1991).Washington A Teacher Assistance Program (TAP) was begun in 19 85-86 when 100 mentor positions received state funding to assist beginning teachers State funds of $1.5 million were provided for the next two years, and other educational personnel (counselors, nurses, school psychologists, reading resource specialists, social workers) becam e qualified to participate in the program. In 1989-90, state funds provided $950 to the mento r and $250 to the beginning teacher, plus travel expenses to the mentorteacher worksho ps and substitute teachers' cost for both mentor and beginning teacher. Nine hundred beginnin g teachers and 100 mentors from 109 school districts were accepted to participate in th e program. State support increased to $3.7
17 of 22million for the biennium budget. The program was evaluated in 1989-90 and the recom mendations were to: (a) continue the program as voluntary, (b) provide more support for the teams, (c) continue the local district-sponsored training, and (d) consider assig ning the educational service districts the responsibility for program administration. State fu nds for the program recently decreased from $3.7 million to $2.3 million, and mentor participat ion decreased from 1000 mentors in 1990 to 600 mentors in 1991.West Virginia The mandatory Beginning Educator Internship Progra m became effective on August 1, 1991, and is funded at 1.5 million dollars. A three -member professional support team is chaired by the principal and includes a person from the pro fessional staff development council and a mentor who is an experienced classroom teacher. The mentor teacher must be from the same or a similar subject or grade level as the beginning tea cher. Inservice professional development programs are provided for the beginning teacher and mentor. The mentor and teacher meet weekly, and the mentor observes the classroom at le ast one hour weekly during the first semester. During the second semester, observations and meetin gs are biweekly. The mentor receives release time and a stipend of at least $600. The pr ofessional support team meets monthly. The principal makes the final evaluation and recommends the beginning teacher's status to the county school superintendent. Appendix B Beginning Teacher Programs: Proposed, Eliminated, o r Locally Implemented This appendix summarizes three types of beginning teacher programs that have been reported by various states. These include proposed programs, programs implemented but later eliminated, and local programs reported by states t hat have a major statewide impact. Proposed Programs Four states reported that they have proposed progr ams for beginning teachers. Maryland field tested a beginning teacher program in 1986-87 Since then, the Maryland State Board of Education has moved toward considering the inclusio n of performance assessment criteria for initial certification for students in teacher educa tion programs. There is, however, no beginning teacher program at this time. Massachusetts plans to implement a beginning teach er program in 1994 that will be a two-year certification program (SREB, 1992). Missou ri adopted state guidelines for a beginning teacher program but has no state requirements for l ocal districts and has provided no state funding for the program since June, 1991. North Dak ota completed a three-year study in 1992 that assessed the needs of beginning teachers in ru ral school districts. The state agency plans to ask the legislature to provide the Department of Pu blic Instruction with more capacity in staff development and quality assurance in teacher educat ion. Tennessee adopted a beginning teacher program in 1988 but has not received state funding for program implementation. Programs Implemented but Eliminated Five states--Georgia, Kansas, South Dakota, Virgin ia, and Wisconsin--implemented but later eliminated their beginning teacher programs. Georgia's statewide beginning teacher program, operational from 1980-1990, determined cer tification. This program was discontinued
18 of 22in 1991 due to lack of funding and the implementati on of a new teacher evaluation system. Kansas piloted a beginning teacher program during 1 987-88 and 1988-89, but the legislature did not approve funding for the Kansas Internship Progr am for 1989-90. The program was discontinued. South Dakota repealed its induction p rogram for teachers in 1989 and no longer provides state funds for its operation. Virginia im plemented a comprehensive Beginning Teacher Assistance program in 1985 that was rescinded in 19 91. State agency personnel also reported political reasons for recession of these programs. During 19851988, Wisconsin piloted eight beginning teacher programs but funding has not been provided for implementation since 1988. Local Programs Two states--Alaska and Hawaii--reported informatio n on locally implemented beginning teacher programs. The Alaska Staff Development Netw ork, in collaboration with the University of Alaska at Anchorage and the Anchorage School Dis trict, has developed the Alaska Mentor Teacher Program. This program provides a three-memb er team to assist the beginning teacher. Hawaii reported that the Honolulu School District h as developed the Teacher Assist Program (TAP). TAP provides a three member team to assist t he beginning teacher. Appendix C Annotated Bibliography State Publications and Materials on Beginning Teach er Programs (Note: *These documents contain structured programs that include handbooks for mentors.) *Alabama State Department of Education. (1990). Ala bama's beginning teacher assistance program training manual. Montgomery, AL: State Depa rtment of Education. A guide and training tool for local school districts. Handouts, transpar encies, and activities are included. *Barrow, G. M. The new teacher, the mentor and the lesson cycle. Houston, TX: Houston Independent School District. Contains methods for t he mentor to help the beginning teacher increase proficiency of the lesson cycle, a model o f teaching. Billings, J. A., Winter, D. E., & Andrews, T. E. (1 991). The 1989-90 teacher assistance program (TAP). Olympia, WA: State Superintendent of Public Instruction. An annual report of the Teacher Assistance Program, including statistical r eports and personal comments of the TAP participants.Bureau of School Improvement. (1990). Mississippi t eacher assessment instruments. Jackson, MS: Mississippi State Department of Education. Give s the specific indicators for each competency for three assessment instruments: Teachi ng Plans and Materials, Positions Skills, and Interpersonal Skills.Bureau of School Improvement. (1987). Mississippi t eacher assessment instruments. Jackson, MS: Mississippi State Department of Education. Cont ains the teaching competencies and assessment instruments for the beginning teacher.*California Department of Education. (1991). New te acher success: You can make a difference. Sacramento, CA: State of California. Contains pract ical information on developing beginning teacher programs and descriptions of 37 pilot progr ams in California.
19 of 22Connecticut State Department of Education. (1989). Feedback report for beginning teachers. Hartford, CT: Secretary of the State of Connecticut Contains information on the contents of the Connecticut Competency Instrument and a draft for t he Beginning Educator Support and Training Program.Division of Teacher Education Services. (1990). Nor th Carolina initial certification program. Raleigh, NC: State Department of Public Instruction Includes guidelines, procedures, and forms for the initial certification program.*Division of Teacher Education Services. (1986). No rth Carolina mentor/support team training program. Raleigh, NC: State Department of Public In struction. Includes materials and literature for the mentor/support team.Georgia Department of Education. (1989). Evaluation manual. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Education. Outlines the steps in the teacher eva luation process and includes the evaluation instruments.Georgia Department of Education. (1980). Teacher pe rformance assessment instruments. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Department of Education. Provides the b asis for the statewide assessment of beginning teachers that Georgia requires for teache r certification. Gorton, S. P. (1990). Assisting the entry-year teac her: A leadership resource. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Education. Contains a rationale for assisting the beginning teacher, identifies the skills and knowledge for mentoring, and provide s a framework for a program; includes examples of programs in Ohio and examples of needs assessment instruments used with mentors and beginning teachers .Honolulu District Office. (1991). Teacher assist pr ogram. Honolulu, HI: Department of Education, State of Hawaii. Provides an overview of the Teacher Assist Program and includes a profile of an effective teacher, teacher assessment forms, and tips for beginning teachers. Kansas State Department of Education. (1989). Inter nship program. Topeka, KS: Kansas State Department of Education. Certification, Teacher Edu cation, and Accreditation Section.Discusses the 1988-89 pilot of the Kansas Internship Program that the legislature did not fund subsequently. Four sets of materials provide detailed program inf ormation. *Kentucky Department of Education. (1990). Kentucky teacher internship program (TIP). Frankfort, KY: Department of Education. Contains ha ndbook for teacher interns and the teacher internship committees.Lind, K., &, T. (n.d.) Wisconsin's teaching incenti ves pilot program. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Provides an overv iew of the effectiveness of Wisconsin's incentives programs. The programs were designed to enhance the quality of teaching and attractiveness of the profession.Maryland State Department of Education. (1987). A m anual for classroom observers: Maryland teaching. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Department of Education. Contains the Maryland Teacher Competencies and the Maryland Competency Ob servation Instrument. Minnesota Board of Teaching. (1992). A report on te acher preparation and licensing. St. Paul, MN: State of Minnesota. Contains a proposal for res tructuring the teacher preparation and licensing system.
20 of 22New Jersey State Department of Education. (1991). P rovisional teacher program implementation guidelines. Trenton, NJ: State Department of Educat ion. Provides state guidelines for local districts to develop their own beginning teacher pr ogram. New Jersey State Department of Education. (1991). T he provisional teacher program sixth year report. Trenton, NJ: State Department of Education. Reports New Jersey's alternative route to certification.New York State Education Department (1990). 1989-90 report on the New York state teacher and computer training centers, New York state mento r teacher-internship program, the fund for innovation. Albany, NY: State Education Department. Provides information on Mentor Teacher-Internship Program.Northeast Regional Laboratory. (1992). Mentoring: A resource and training guide for educators, Draft Copy. Andover, MA: The Regional Laboratory fo r Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands. Contains a comprehensive man ual on mentoring developed in conjunction with northeastern state departments of education.Pennsylvania Department of Education. (n.d.) Guidel ines for developing and implementing teacher induction programs. Harrisburg, PA: Pennsyl vania Department of Education.Includes guidelines and state criteria for developing and im plementing a local teacher induction program. Research for Better Schools, Inc. (1987). Perspecti ves on teacher induction: A review of the literature and promising program models. Baltimore, MD: Maryland State Department of Education. Provides information on current teacher induction programs. State Department of Education. (1992). Entry-year a ssistance program packet 1992. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma State Department of Education. C ontains a detailed framework, timeline, and forms for the Entry-Year Assistance Program.Virginia Department of Education. (1985). Assisting the beginning teacher. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Education. Contains an in-de pth discussion of the 14 competencies used in the Virginia Beginning Teacher Assistance Progra m. *Virginia Department of Education. (1986). Beginnin g teacher assistance program. Richmond, VA: Virginia Department of Education. Includes ques tions and answers about the assessment and assistance components of the Virginia Beginning Tea cher Assistance Program. Wildman, T. M. (n.d.) The colleague teacher's suppl ement to the beginning teacher's handbook. Blacksburg, VA: College of Education. Provides Virg inia's experienced teachers with a framework for inducting beginning teachers into the profession. *Wildman, T. M., & Borko, H. (1985). Beginning teac her's handbook Blacksburg, VA: College of Education. Provides information to guide firstand second-year beginning teachers. *Wildman, T. R., et al. (1989). Teachers learning f rom teachers: Mentor's guide for supporting beginning teachers. Richmond, VA: Department of Edu cation.Provides research-based guide to support mentor training.Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (1988). Report of the state superintendent's advisory committee on beginning teacher assistance programs. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Contains recommendations for es tablishing a beginning teacher assistance
21 of 22 program in Wisconsin.About the AuthorCarol B. Furtwengler email@example.com Associate ProfessorBox 142Wichita State UniversityPh.D., George Peabody College of Vanderbilt Univers ity Carol Furtwengler is a former teacher and administr ator. She served as Assistant Commissioner for Research and Development and Assis tant Commissioner of Career Ladder Program for Tennessee Department of Education and t hen as educational aide for Governor Lamar Alexander. Her academic and research interest s include personnel evaluation, applied inquiry, and school choice. Dr. Furtwengler's other published work includes articles on teacher observation and evaluation, (Educational Leadership Phi Delta Kappan, Education Policy Analysis Archives); career ladder programs, (Educat ional Leadership), book chapter on cooperative learning in higher education (NEA), adm inistration preparation (Journal of School Leadership)Copyright 1995 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesEPAA can be accessed either by visiting one of its seve ral archived forms or by subscribing to the LISTSERV known as EPAA at LISTSERV@asu.edu. (To sub scribe, send an email letter to LISTSERV@asu.edu whose sole contents are SUB EPAA y our-name.) As articles are published by the Archives they are sent immediately to the EPAA subscribers and simultaneously archived in three forms. Articles are archived on EPAA as individual files under the name of the author a nd the Volume and article number. For example, the article by Stephen Kemmis in Volume 1, Number 1 of the Archives can be retrieved by sending an e-mail letter to LISTSERV@a su.edu and making the single line in the letter rea d GET KEMMIS V1N1 F=MAIL. For a table of contents of the entire ARCHIVES, send the following e-mail message to LISTSERV@asu.edu: INDEX EPAA F=MAIL, tha t is, send an e-mail letter and make its single line read INDEX EPAA F=MAIL.The World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/epaaEducation Policy Analysis Archives are "gophered" at olam.ed.asu.edu To receive a publication guide for submitting artic les, see the EPAA World Wide Web site or send an e-mail letter to LISTSERV@asu.edu and include the single l ine GET EPAA PUBGUIDE F=MAIL. It will be sent to you by return e-mail. General questions about ap propriateness of topics or particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, Glass@asu.ed u or reach him at College of Education, Arizona Sta te University, Tempe, AZ 85287-2411. (602-965-2692)Editorial Board
22 of 22John Covaleskiejcovales@nmu.edu Andrew Coulson firstname.lastname@example.org Alan Davis email@example.com Mark E. Fetlermfetler@ctc.ca.gov Thomas F. Greentfgreen@mailbox.syr.edu Alison I. Griffithagriffith@edu.yorku.ca Arlen Gullickson firstname.lastname@example.org Ernest R. Houseernie.email@example.com Aimee Howleyess016@marshall.wvnet.edu Craig B. Howley firstname.lastname@example.org William Hunterhunter@acs.ucalgary.ca Richard M. Jaeger email@example.com Benjamin Levinlevin@ccu.umanitoba.ca Thomas Mauhs-Pughthomas.firstname.lastname@example.org Dewayne Matthewsdm@wiche.edu Mary P. McKeowniadmpm@asuvm.inre.asu.edu Les McLeanlmclean@oise.on.ca Susan Bobbitt Nolensunolen@u.washington.edu Anne L. Pembertonapembert@pen.k12.va.us Hugh G. Petrieprohugh@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu Richard C. Richardsonrichard.email@example.com Anthony G. Rud Jr.firstname.lastname@example.org Dennis Sayersdmsayers@ucdavis.edu Jay Scribnerjayscrib@tenet.edu Robert Stonehillrstonehi@inet.ed.gov Robert T. Stoutstout@asu.edu
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19959999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00032
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 3, no. 3 (February 15, 1995).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c February 15, 1995
Beginning teachers programs : analysis of state actions during the reform era / Carol B. Furtwengler.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)