New Teacher Mentoring Programs

Presented by:Shannon Butler, Suzanne Brown, Brandy Day, Giovanni Hines,

Scott Holland and Ann Marie NelinEPPL 643

Spring 2008

Just the Facts!

Here is how you play! Read through all four statements. Select the one that is a fib. Make your selection by going to that

corner of the room. Discuss why you selected that answer

with the other people in that group.

Which is the fib?

A. Nearly 1,000 teachers leave the field of teaching every school day.

B. In 2005, 57% of the 275,000 teachers who left the profession did so either to pursue other careers or because of dissatisfaction with the profession.

C. In June 2007, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future reported that almost ½ of all new teachers leave the profession within the first 3 years.

D. The NCTAF survey states that teacher turnover and attrition costs the nation’s school districts about $7 billion annually for recruiting, hiring, and training of new teachers.

Which is the fib?

A. More than 80% of new teachers participate in some kind of mentoring program, up from 40% in 1990-91.

B. As many as one million teachers will enter the teaching profession within the next decade and uncounted experienced teachers will assume new assignments.

C. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics reports 88% of new teachers who work with their mentors at least once a week believe that it helped them increase their instructional skills.

D. There is a lack of a formal mentoring program at most universities of higher education and many new professors are left to seek any help and/or advice on their own.

So the fact…

The lack of support for new teachers is a contributing factor to teacher attrition!

Mentoring programs are essential retaining quality teachers to the profession while helping them grow into quality educators.

Key Components

Systematic Approach Mentor Selection & Matching Training Administrative Support Time Compensation

Systematic Approach

Factors Needed:• Systematic Plan for Implementation• Evaluation Component

Systematic Approach

Begins with clear and realistic expectations including roles

Induction to the building Relationship building Constant evaluation*** For a mentoring program to be

successful, it MUST continue for at least two years!!!

Mentor Selection & Matching

A Mentor MUST:

1. Be dedicated to their role.

2. Be effective classroom teachers.

3. Have good self-efficacy.

Mentor Selection & Matching

Mentors and mentees MUST be effectively paired!

• Time – similar planning periods or schedules

• Content – similar teaching assignments, subjects and grade levels

• Location – same building and in proximity so that they can easily meet formally and informally

Training

Mentors need training on how to deal with the issues that new teachers will face.

Communication and collaboration skills are two areas of training that are often ignored but very important.

Administrative Support

Administrators need training along with mentors.

Administrators should be involved in the planning process for mentor programs.

Administrators need to make sure that the evaluation of new teachers come from them and NOT the mentor.

Administrators should provide the mentors and mentees with resources – release time, reduced workloads, etc.

Time

Relationships take time and effort to develop. Release time Reduced workloads Class coverage Observations of master teachers Free of “duties” Constant Communication

Compensation

Money Release time Reduction of extra responsibilities – hall

duty, bus duty, coaching, study hall, etc. Reduced class load Recognition Increased involvement in decision making

Process the research…

Now that we have talked about some critical components to quality teacher mentor programs, meet with a group to:1. Select which component your group feels is most critical to the success of a mentoring program. Why?

2. Based on your experience, which component do you feel is most lacking in

K-12 division mentoring programs today. Why?

“The single most important indicator in determining

student academic performance is the quality of instruction

provided by teachers.” Shakrani, 2008, p.2

Challenges to Mentoring Programs

Increase in dedication of the mentor Time Differentiation for different needs of

new teachers at different levels Professional Development Money

Mentoring in Higher Education

Most higher education institutions avoid spending resources on formal mentoring programs.

However…Most could benefit from some form of new faculty induction.

Mentoring Programs Could Benefit Higher Education By:

Introducing new faculty to department heads, committee chairs, governing board members, etc.

Understanding the emphasis on research versus instruction

Understanding department expectations ( & politics)

Setting up a personal plan for tenure

Mentoring Programs Could Benefit Higher Education By: Integrating into the surrounding

community Knowing where to obtain needed

resources Developing sound working

relationships with various departments Developing an understanding of the

differing student body and differing levels of maturity

Why is formal mentoring not done at many universities???

Competition !!!

COMPETITION!!!

Our study – Part 1

We interviewed the four administrators in charge of the division mentoring programs for the following divisions:

1) Hampton

2) Surry

3) Williamsburg/JCC

4) York County

Teacher Mentoring Program Rubric

Unpacking the Findings

Our study – Part 2

We sent surveys to teachers who had just completed their first year of teaching in their new positions. Of those returned, five surveys from each school division were randomly selected and the results were tabulated.

Unpacking the Findings

•80% of new teachers surveyed thought that they were effectively matched with their mentor.•88% understood the purpose of the mentoring program.•92% said that their mentor was consistently available.•84% believed that they developed a constructive professional relationship with their mentor.•72% believed that their mentor helped them connect with others in the school.•76% said that their mentor provided adequate support to them as a new teacher in the school.

Unpacking the Findings

•68% said their mentor observed them teach and provided them with helpful feedback.•68% thought their mentor helped them identify challenges.•68% thought their mentor helped them recognize personal strengths as a teacher.•72% said their mentor helped them reflect and improve upon their teaching.•76% had a building administrator that supported all of the elements of the mentoring program.•76% believed the overall quality of the mentoring experience was excellent, and•68% think they are a more effective teacher for having worked with their mentor.

Favorable Indicators

Hampton City Public Schools: 85% Surry County Public Schools: 79% Williamsburg-James City County

Public Schools: 79% York County Public Schools: 58%

ARE YOU SMART ENOUGH ABOUT MENTORING?

Cubing

Draw a person card from the pile Roll the dice and follow the directions for that

topic Discuss with the members of your group a

way in which this person is important to this component OR this component is important to this person

Systematic Approach

Time & Resources Compensation

Administrative Support

Training Mentor Selection & Matching