The Importance of Context in Evaluating Induction & Mentoring Programs

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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Funded Induction Programs • Initial 10 sites (2007) • 30 additional sites (2008) • 2009 RFP brought the total up to 67 sites

5. Goals of the Induction & Mentoring Legislation • Assist new teachers in developing skills and strategies necessary for instructional excellence • Retain new teachers

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Selection Criteria • Purposeful sampling • Urban/rural differences • Small districts in economically distressed areas • Regional Offices of Education (ROE) Partnerships

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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 ?

13. 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 non-funded programs at the Annual Conference and among funded programs at the Regional Meetings.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. Recommendations 1-3 • Further clarify and articulate the role of the building principal in the ideal induction and mentoring program. • Specify the expectations of mentors. • Address accountability issues, including those for teachers with after-school duties.

18. 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.

19. 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