1) Teacher effectiveness increases significantly in the first few years of teaching, yet 40-50% of teachers leave within the first 5 years. 2) Less than half of states fund teacher induction programs, and most induction is organized at the school level without consistent standards. 3) Having an in-field mentor reduces new teacher attrition by 30%, yet comprehensive induction programs did not show better results than typical district programs.

1. New Teacher Induction

3. Less than ½ of the states fund an induction program (Hightower, 2010) Most induction is organized at the site level (Guyton, Vanderschee, Collier, n.d.) Trends

4. “ Mentorship” is often used interchangeably with “induction” (Smith and Ingersoll, 2004) Although it is key to induction, but is considered an unnatural process (Lewis, et al. (1999); Feiman-Nemser, 1998) Trends

5. 95% of preservice teachers said that pleasing the mentor is a primary concern (Moore, 2003) Mentors are frequently unsure of their leadership role and do not see themselves as teacher educators and lack the knowledge and skills to observe and talk with teachers about teaching (Feiman-Nemser, 1998) Feimer-Nemser (2003) suggests that induction programs include initial and on-going training geared toward moving mentors to “teachers of teaching” as opposed to “buddies or local guides” (p.28). Trends

6. Collaboration decreases turnover by 43%. The BRIDGE program in Georgia and the College Community District in Iowa use technology, including discussion boards, to increase collaboration. Ramirez (2002) suggests that participants are less inhibited in online discussions and have deeper discussions.

7. Jacobsen (1992), in her study of the partnership between the University of Northern Colorado and the surrounding school districts, found that regular visits and observations from university supporters were reported by 71% of new teachers, as opposed to 33% receiving adequate support from site mentors and 43% believed they were supported appropriately by principals. Release time may be a factor, as approximately 70% of meetings between mentors and beginning teachers occurred during lunch or after school Trends

8. Having an in-field mentor reduced attrition by 30% (Smith and Ingersoll, 2004). A study of state-funded programs revealed that those who had funding had 42% less chance of having an in-field mentor. (Smith, 2007) Trends

9. Comprehensive induction programs (ETS and NTC) that included assigned mentors who met frequently with the teaches, did not reveal results beyond those of the district program in retention, impact on practices, and test scores (Glazerman, et al., 2008). Mentors met with teachers frequently yet carried a case-load of 12 teachers.

10. In a study of teachers on mentors, teachers did not identify their “assigned” mentor as a mentor, but rather whoever took an interest and supported them (Gehrke and Kay, 1984)

11. Integrated professional cultures encourage “ongoing professional exchange across experience levels and sustained support and development for all teachers” (Johnson & Kardos, 2002, p. 15) and have the most enduring effect on retention. The authors concluded that school-based professional development guided by expert colleagues is needed.

12. Model program that included heavy mentor support (release time, training) and facilitated contact between mentor and teacher had a 82% retention rate after 10 years (out of 210 teachers) (Gilles, Davis, McGlamery, 2009) Trends

13. Missouri model the mentors attend classes ( as desired) with their students who are earning masters. The university, mentor, and teacher grew from the process. (Gilles and Wilson 2004) Trends

14. University of Boulder: Highly trained mentor, university support, full release time resulted in 94% retention rate after years. Trends

15. Odell and Ferraro analyzed from a cognitive development perspective. Day-to-day functions were the concerns of lower stage teachers. Teaching style, tolerance, flexibility, and efficacy are the concerns of those at higher stages. Full time mentor served as a liaison between the school and university. Attrition was 4% as opposed to the 45% state average.)