This document has been formatted for printing from your browser from the Web site of the Illinois Association of School Boards.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- This document is © copyrighted by the Illinois Association of School Boards. IASB hereby grants to school districts and other Internet users the right to download, print and reproduce this document provided that (a) the Illinois Association of School Boards is noted as publisher and copyright holder of the document and (b) any reproductions of this document are disseminated without charge and not used for any commercial purpose.

Illinois School Board Journal
July/August 2001

It starts and ends with boards:
Retaining new teachers

By Georgiann McKenna

It is no news to anyone that new teachers are leaving the classroom in great numbers. Especially disheartening is the fact that studies show the most promising teachers leave the profession in the early years. (Harris & Collay, 1990; Schlechty & Vance, 1983)

Between 1999 and 2000 in Illinois, about 11 percent of teachers quit after the first year. Nationwide, despite good intentions, 40 to 50 percent of new teachers will drop out within the first seven years, mostly within the first two years. Of those who survive, many have such negative initial experiences that they may never reach their full potential as educators, according to a 1989 study by Romatowski, Dorminey and Voorhees.

Others concur that "if the environmental difficulties and specific needs of beginning teachers are not addressed, negative emotional, physical, attitudinal and behavioral problems may result." (Cameron, 1994; Dussault et.al., 1997; Schmidt and Knowles, 1994)

Some speculate that today's new-teacher problems exist because of the quality of those entering the profession or with the preparation programs. However, the literature indicates many difficulties beginning teachers experience are environmental in nature.

A 1983 study of first-year teachers by W.H. Kurtz found that the most common complaint of novice teachers is that they never knew what to expect. Other environmental difficulties suggested are:

• New teachers are often given the most time-consuming and least rewarding assignments. (Kurtz, 1983)
• Beginning teachers often find their classrooms lack instructional and resource materials. (Gratch, 1998) Classroom raiding for equipment is an unwelcome reality. On the second day of the fall 2000 teacher institute, I was asked by a first-year teacher, "Do you think I could have a chair for my desk?"
• Social and emotional isolation for beginning teachers is well documented. Some new teachers even contribute to their own isolation by hesitating to ask for help because it might appear to be an admission of failure or incompetence. Some even go to great lengths to cover up serious problems. (Newberry, 1978)
• "'Reality shock' is the collapse of missionary ideals formed during teacher training by the harsh and rude reality of classroom life." (Veenman, 1984)
• "Transition shock" can lead to a state of paralysis that makes beginning teachers unable to transfer skills learned during teacher preparation to the classroom. (Corcoran, 1981)

Teacher induction efforts, of which mentoring is only one component, address ways that significantly help reduce these difficulties. In 1987, Huling-Austin & Murphy, conducting research in eight states, found that the assignment of a support teacher may well be the most powerful and cost effective practice available to those developing teacher induction programs.

Illinois State Superintendent Glenn W. "Max" McGee says this situation calls for "aggressive leadership" in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers. But maybe we just need leadership: Boards with a vision and those with missionary zeal to creatively implement a few guidelines directed at turning the above situation around for teachers as well as students, who only get one chance in a particular grade!

If leadership is needed, what does it look like in terms of retaining qualified teachers? It starts with boards recognizing three basic premises:

• First-year teachers are not veteran teachers and cannot be treated as such.
• It is unrealistic to expect novice teachers to do all that's expected of veteran teachers.
• Student achievement is contingent on the quality of experiences that the novice teacher has during that first year.

If those premises are in place, where is a board to start when developing a teacher mentoring program?

First, it must believe in the vision that no one should just survive a first year of teaching -- that supports can be put in place to increase the possibility that the first year can be a quality year for the novice teacher and students in the classroom.

Next, the board should appoint a teacher induction steering committee. This committee could easily be part of an existing district staff development council. However the team is begun, it must include people who are concerned about the problems of first year teachers: a board member; superintendent (or designee); a principal; a teacher from each building; teachers' association leadership; and, if possible, someone from a university involved in teacher education.

The committee functions as a "guidelines group" to select and design the components to be included in the district's program. Then, one or two coordinators can take the guidelines and give the steering committee's decisions form and spirit. The committee should meet three times during the year: first to select the components of the program; then to check for progress; and finally to evaluate its success.

Because the key to finding solutions to any concern is the ability to ask pertinent and relevant questions, the following can be refined by either the steering committee or by the coordinators to help design a tailor-made teacher mentoring program for a district:

• What personal and professional characteristics should mentors have? Should they have a master's degree? How long should they have taught? How will they be selected?
• What do you want mentors to do? What are mentor responsibilities and what are mentee responsibilities? Who will create a list of things to be done before the school year starts, a week into the school year, by the first month and by the first semester?
• When will each curriculum guide be explained for content, process, assessments and pacing?
• How should mentors be trained? Who will do the training? Is a college course available for such training? Does your regional office offer such training?
• How often will mentors and mentees meet formally and informally? What will be the content of the formal meetings?
• Will peer observation be expected? What will this process look like? Who will train mentors and mentees for this process?
• Will mentors and mentees be expected to use a goal setting model or do collaborative action research? If so, who will train them for this process?
• Should mentors and mentees do reflective journaling? What format will be used for accountability?
• Will mentors and mentees have opportunities to get together in informal chat group settings, or for more serious discussions in study groups? Who will arrange this process? Should there be support groups just for mentees by themselves? Mentors by themselves? Can novice teachers be incorporated into existing veteran teacher study groups?
• Is release time an option? How can principals help free up time so that mentors and mentees have time to observe each other and other expert teachers? Will a stipend be offered for mentor services?

With all that's required, why should boards and administrators be passionate about maintaining a vision for a quality first year for every novice teacher? How does the district stand to gain?

Previous in-services on specific school improvement topics are more likely to be conveyed to the novice if a mentoring system is in place. Who would convey how your district teaches the writing process or teaches to the standards, or how you assess mathematical thinking, if not the mentor?

Novice teachers will learn the high expectations and performance standards the board has for the district.

Day-to-day concerns can be handled in a timely fashion so that molehills do not become mountains.

This is a cost-effective way to make sure all the time the board spent on strategic planning actually reaches the mind and heart of the newcomer.

There is ongoing guidance toward better teaching and reflection for increased student achievement.

Board evaluation of the program will certainly indicate that the learning has not been limited to the novice. If research is any indication, what you did for the novice teacher has just as powerful effects for the mentor.

If a board's belief system is in place and these questions are answered, what results will be more than a Mentor-Mentee Handbook. It will be a living document that is designed to create the kind of supportive environment that encourages novice teachers to stay in the profession and continue to grow into veteran teachers that all of us know as "the best." The ultimate winner is everyone!

Dussault, M., et. al. (March 1997). "Professional Isolation and Stress in Teachers" (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 384).

Cameron, I. M.R. (1994). "Beginner's Tale." Education in Rural Australia, 4 (2) pp. 15-21.

Corcoran, E. (1981). "Transition Shock: The Beginning Teacher's Paradox." Journal of Teacher Education, 32 (3), 19-23.

Gratch, A. (1998). "Growing Teaching Professionals: Lessons Taught by First Year Teachers." (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 170).

Gordon, S. and Maxey, S. (2000). How to Help Beginning Teachers Succeed, Alexandria, Virginia; Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Harris, M. and Collay, M. (1990). "Teacher Induction in Rural Schools." Journal of Staff Development, 11 (4) 44-48.

Huling-Austin, L., (1986). "What Reasonably Can and Cannot Be Expected From Teacher Induction Programs." Journal of Teacher Education, 37 (1), 2-5.

Huling-Austin, L., and Murphy, S.C. (1987). "Assessing the Impact of Teacher Induction Programs: Implications for Program Development." (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 779).

Kurtz, W.H. (1983). "Identifying Their Needs: How the Principal Can Help Beginning Teachers." NASSP Bulletin, 67 (459), 42-45.

Newberry, J. (1978). "The Barriers Between Beginning and Experienced Teacher." The Journal of Educational Administration, 161 (1), 46-56.

Romatowski, J., Dorminey, J. and Voorhees, B. (1989). "Teacher Induction Programs." (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 316 525).

Schlechty, P.C., and Vance, V. (1983). "Recruitment, Selection and Retention: The Shape of the Teaching Force." The Elementary School Journal, 83 (4) 469-487.

Schmidt, M., and Knowles, J.G. (1984). "Four Women's Stories of 'Failure' as Beginning Teachers." (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 080).

Veenman, S. (1984). "Perceived Problems of Beginning Teachers." Review of Educational Research, 54 (2), 143-178.