by Luann
The results are in from the Policy Summit held a few weeks ago.
The top three priorities for most immediate funding, as reflected by the decisions made by teachers at the Symposium were:
(drum roll)…………………….
- a new mentoring system for induction of first-year teachers
- a reduction in class size for high-needs schools, and
- all-day kindergarten
I was a bit surprised at the highest-priority. According to our list, money would be appropriated for other areas as well, later in the 8-year cycle. It struck me as interesting that others felt the state's mentoring system was in need of change. We know of many studies showing that most teachers who leave the profession do so within the first 5 years. We know that a strong support system greatly increases a teacher's likelihood of finding success those crucial first years. Certainly a great professional learning community and the support of a mentor is valuable to everyone. I'm wondering what more can be done in the pre-service teacher preparation program to transition the new teacher into the classroom.
Apparently, I'm not alone with this question. At a gathering of teachers to discuss new STEM possibilities last week, a long-time instructional coach and veteran teacher had the same concern. We had both experienced working with first-year teachers fresh from the same teacher preparation program who had never actually received much instruction on science methods, although their transcripts reflected a "science teaching methods" course. Upon further investigation, we learned that this university frequently did not have enough secondary science majors to offer a separate course, so combined secondary science majors in different disciplines into one "teaching methods course." We wondered how this got past NCATE. Having been through the NCATE accreditation process at another university while teaching science methods courses there, I was appalled. Mostly, we wondered what could be done to help these new teachers transition into their roles as safety officers, lab managers, and teachers.
What should this induction program look like? How can the new program mesh with what's already provided (or not) at local universities? What do new teachers need most? Without dragging out the now-ancient syllabi from the courses I taught, I'd offer up these thoughts off the top of my head, focused around the preparation of science teachers:
- safety training
- experience in preparing solutions for student labs
- economical alternatives to expensive materials
- safety training
- equipment handling and storage
- facilitating student inquiry
- how to make do with nothing when you need to provide laboratory experiences
- equipment repair and maintenance
- safety training
- managing students in lab groups
- Internet safety and the use of Web 2.0 tools in the classroom
- safety training
- how to work cooperatively with your department members,
- and, of course, lab safety training.
What's on your list?
A true mentor does all the things on Tom’s list. Our job is to fill the gap between the University teaching and theories and that of Reality within the classroom. We need teachers with energy, knowledge, and that hope that abounds. They need our support and encouragement as they try to bridge the gap.
As an English teacher I agree with Mark’s list. But isn’t there a more effective way to prepare teachers?
How about the model they use in Kansas, where you are paid a stipend to team teach in your content area for a year, and attend class on the weekend and summer to earn your masters and teaching credentials?
Instead of sitting in a university classroom to be taught about teaching, you are paid to team teach. It’s great for the experienced teacher who gets another adult in the room. It’s great for the kids who get two adults in the room, and I think it would produce more confident, capable, experienced first-year teachers.
I, too, was surprised that mentoring was the first priority for the most money. None of the mentoring studies I read show a change in student achievement with mentoring, either. I had an unofficial mentor, but no formal induction program. My mentor was my only other department member, a 30-year veteran who took good care of me. If I needed something, I asked, and he delivered. Sometimes, he delivered without my asking, and I was smart and gracious enough to say “thank you.”
Do you think it’s possible to develop a mentoring program that does all the things you ask?
As an elementary teacher, here’s my list:
1. How to manage a classroom and still teach
2. How to find a balance between what you want to teach with what you’re being told to teach
3. How to manage the demands of job without going nuts
While I strongly support the idea of new-teacher mentoring, it surprises me that it is ranked so high. Induction programming IS very important, I credit my long-term success to a great induction mentor. However, I’ve read some studies and articles lately that suggest that the data on student achievement doesn’t change with or without induction programs for new teachers. While I know that data shouldn’t drive our priorities, it is how we sell them. I know that my induction program helped me with the mental challenges of the job, and thus has helped me last longer in the job than if I had not had that first year support. While student achievement data might not show an impact, the fact that I’m still in the profession impacting students says something, I think.
My list for incoming high school English teachers:
1. How to manage the paper load (you are not an editing service, think about learning goals!)
2. How to support reluctant readers.
3. How to support reluctant writers.
4. How to tune out the negative teachers who always complain.
5. How to actually teach writing.
6. How to actually teach reading.
7. How to ask the right questions (of your students).
8. How to ask the right questions (of your administration, dept. leaders, etc.)
9. How to achieve family/work/life balance as an English teacher.
10. How to be okay with really poor writing from teenagers and still help them develop their skills.