Transcript Slide 1

Illinois Education Research Council
The Importance of Context in Evaluating
Induction & Mentoring Programs
Kathleen Sullivan Brown, Ph.D.
Brenda Klostermann, Ph.D.
Illinois Education Research Council
ierc.siue.edu
Illinois Induction & Mentoring Conference
February 23, 2010
IERC
• Established in 2000 at
Southern Illinois University and housed at
SIU Edwardsville now
• Goal:
Provide Illinois with education research to
support P-20 education policy making and
program development
2
Overview: Evaluation Process
• Three levels of evaluation for the Induction
& Mentoring Program
– EXTERNAL
• SRI statewide evaluation through survey data and
site visits
– INTERNAL
• INTC Data collection & analysis
• IERC formative assessment, to understand and
improve what is going on
3
Funded Induction Programs
• Initial 10 sites (2007)
• 30 additional sites (2008)
• 2009 RFP brought the total up
to 67 sites
4
Goals of the Induction &
Mentoring Legislation
• Assist new teachers in developing skills
and strategies necessary for instructional
excellence
• Retain new teachers
5
Program Requirements
• Assigns a mentor teacher to each new teacher for a period of at least
two years
• Aligns with the IL Professional Teaching Standards, content area
standards, and local school improvement and professional development
plans
• Includes the following elements:
– Mentoring and support of the new teacher
– Professional development specifically designed to ensure the growth of the
new teacher’s knowledge and skills
– Formative assessment designed to ensure feedback and reflection, which
must not be used in any evaluation of the new teacher
• Describes the role of mentor teachers, the criteria and process for their
selection, and how they will be trained, provided that each mentor
teacher must demonstrate the best practices in teaching his/her
respective field of practice
6
Importance of Context
• Evaluation cannot be “one size fits all.”
• Induction & Mentoring of new teachers will
look different in:
– Urban and rural districts
– Districts in small towns
– Growing, expanding communities
– Mature partnerships
– Beginning collaborations
– Those with University partners
7
Typology
• Program Name
• Region of state
• Consortia, ROE or University Partnership
• Locale Type & Population
• Years funded by state
• Teacher and mentors #
• Principal Training Provided
• School Level & Enrollment Size
8
Selection Criteria
• Purposeful sampling
• Urban/rural differences
• Small districts in economically distressed
areas
• Regional Offices of Education (ROE)
Partnerships
9
Site Visit Locations
• St. Clair ROE: Cahokia, East St. Louis
• Monroe ROE: Columbia, Red Bud, Waterloo
• Calhoun ROE: Carlinville
• CEC: Carbondale, Anna, Giant City
• Belleville High School
• Plainfield
• Springfield
• Des Plaines
• Quincy
10
Field Visits
• Arranged to do site visits
• Conducted a “windshield survey” of communities and
buildings
• Set up meetings with the program coordinator
• Met with building administrators
• Observed mentor training
• Observed principal training
• Semi-structured survey questions
• Recorded interviews
• Transcribed interviews and did member check
11
Research Questions
• How is the project functioning?
• Consider key impact groups or constituencies:
– New teachers, Mentors, Administrators
• What is the role and level of engagement of various
administrators?
– Building level
– School district
– ROE
• Describe the partnership dimensions. What is the
connection to teachers’ unions, ROEs, CEC? What is
their role and level of involvement ?
12
Spread of Innovations
• One purpose for funding selected programs is to
support innovation and then spread innovation
through INTC and the Regional Meetings.
• Ideas were shared among funded and nonfunded programs at the Annual Conference and
among funded programs at the Regional
Meetings.
13
Where do funds go?
• In light of the goals of the statewide
program, how are funds being used in
various programs to reach those goals?
– Most of funds were dedicated to stipends for
mentors, ranging from $200-$800.
– Funding was also allocated for professional
development.
14
Conclusions
• Every program reported that they could not
sustain this level of induction & mentoring
activities without state funding.
• Mentoring is being used to help new teachers
accelerate their learning.
• Indirectly, the program is an effective form of
professional development for veteran teachers.
15
Conclusions (cont’d)
• Principals are not always engaged.
• Partnerships with unions, ROEs, and CEC
increased buy-in and provided additional
resources.
• ROE-led consortia often needed to “sell” their
services because participation in professional
development was not mandatory.
16
Recommendations 1-3
1. Further clarify and articulate the role of
the building principal in the ideal induction
and mentoring program.
2. Specify the expectations of mentors.
3. Address accountability issues, including
those for teachers with after-school
duties.
17
Recommendations 4 - 5
4. Experiment with professional development
memberships to provide flexibility to find
induction topics that meet individual needs.
5. State guidelines are now needed for the
program to improve.
– Provide recognition for those districts that are
successfully promoting the accelerated
learning and acculturation of new teachers
through an award for induction and mentoring.
18
IL Funded Induction Programs
• 67 funded programs
• 323 districts
• 1,538 schools
• 3,018 1st year teachers
• 1,169 2nd year teachers
• 2,761 mentors
Source: INTC website
intc.education.illinois.edu/programs
19