Carol A. Bartell ; foreword by Linda Darling-Hammond.
Language of Document:
א. מתוך : פורטל מס"ע
התמחותבהוראה(induction) הוא שם כולל לתכניות התמיכה, ההנחיה וההכוונה של מורים מתחילים בכניסתם לתפקיד ההוראה הראשון ובקליטתם בבית הספר. הרציונל עליו מושתתת תכנית ההתמחות בהוראה נובע מן הצורך להקל על המעבר ממעמד של סטודנט להוראה למעמד של מורה בבית הספר, שהנו בדרך כלל פתאומי ולא הדרגתי. במעבר החד ממעמד של סטודנט למעמד של מורה המתפקד באופן עצמאי, עובר המורה החדש תהליך של סוציאליזציה בשני מישורים במקביל: למקצוע ההוראה ולבית הספר בו הוא נקלט שהוא ארגון בעל תרבות ייחודית. למעשה הוא מתנסה בשני תהליכים בו-זמנית של "להיות מורה" (becoming a teacher) בבית הספר המסוים ושל "ללמוד ללמד" (learning to teach) באופן כללי (Vonk, 1995). בתקופה זו, נדרש המתמחה לקבל על עצמו את כל תחומי האחריות של מורה בעת ובעונה אחת ומצפים ממנו למלא את תפקידו בדומה למורה מנוסה וותיק. אכן, קשיי ההתמודדות וההישרדות בשנה הראשונה הם מהגורמים העיקריים לכך שמורים נושרים מן המקצוע בשנות עבודתם הראשונות (כפיר, פרסקו וארנון, 1992 Johnson, 2004; Wong, 2004;).
הספרותהעוסקתבנושא מעידה על כך שמתן תמיכה ועידוד למורים עם כניסתם להוראה עשוי למנוע את נשירתם ולסייע בתהליך הסוציאליזציה שלהם לתוך המקצוע. מכאן נובע הצורך בהתערבות מקצועית, שתסייע בידי המורה המתחיל לשרוד את שנת העבודה הראשונה, שתאיץ את תהליכי התובנה המקצועית שלו ותמנע את נשירתו מן המקצוע בשלב הכניסה להוראה. תכניות ההתמחות התומכות בכניסה להוראה קיימות במקומות שונים בעולם בצורות שונות ומיועדות לתת מענה לצרכים אלה (DeBolt, 1992; Feiman-Nemser, Carver, Schwille & Yusko, 2000; Johnson, 2004).
http://portal.macam.ac.il/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1253&referer=useJsHistoryBack מתוך פורטל מס"ע
מחבר: Bess Keller
Education Week. Washington:Vol.26, Iss. 10
היקף הנשירה הגבוהה של מורים מתחילים בארה"ב הניע גורמים שונים בארה"ב לפתח תוכניות התמחות למורים שנועדו לענות על הבעיה. במאמר נסקרות כמה תוכניות מוצלחות שמופעלות מזה חמש שנים בארה"ב על מנת לייצור מסלולי התמחות רב-שנתיים למורים מתחילים. אחת מתוכניות ההתמחות היא תכנית Boston Teacher Residency שמקימיה קשורים מבחינה פדגוגית ומבחינת החזון לפרופסור Linda Darling-Hammond מאוניברסיטת סטנפורד.
התכנית נועדה ליצור מסלול התמחות בהוראה לבוגרי מכללות לתקופה של שלוש שנים בתום לימודיהם. במשך כל שלושת שנות ההתמחות בהוראה בכיתות ביה"ס זוכים המורים המתחילים לחונכות מלאה של צוות מורים ותיקים המלווים אותם כל שלוש השנים ותומכים בהם. בנוסף לכך מקבלים המורים המתחילים מענקים כספיים מוגדלים בין 10,000 $ ל- 30,000 $ .
מלבד העיר בוסטון מונהגות תוכניות דומות גם בעיר שיקאגו ודנבר. יצוין כי המורים המתחילים מוכשרים בעיקר ללמד בסביבות הוראה של בתי ספר עירוניים המטפלים באוכלוסיות עניות. הערכות ראשונות מלמדות כי תוכניות ההתמחות הרב-שנתיות בבוסטון ובשיקאגו הצליחו לצמצם באופן משמעות את היקף נשירת המורים המתחילים ולתת להם כלים להתמודדות עם בעיות בהוראה וניהול כיתה. מחוזות החינוך בערים הרלבנטיות שסובלים שנים מנשירת מורים חריפה מקדמים בברכה את תוכניות ההתמחות הרב-שנתיות העצמאיות הנ"ל ובחלק מן המקרים אף תומכות בהן מבחינה כספית.
http://portal.macam.ac.il/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1192&referer=useJsHistoryBack ב. מתוך מאגרי מידע בינלאומיים
Helping New Teachers Enter and Stay in the Profession
The Clearing House 78 no4 158-63 Mr/Ap 2005
My own introduction to the teaching profession can be kindly described as an "alternate route." In the sixth grade, by some adult manipulation I never quite understood involving my classroom teacher, the school principal, and my mother, I became a tutor to a struggling reader in the second grade. I looked forward to each week's sessions not just because this was a paid position, quite unusual for an eleven-year-old, but also because I found I enjoyed the challenge of solving the puzzle of why reading was so difficult for this child. Not only was I sure that I could lead him to success, I also was blissfully unaware of how daunting this might be even to highly qualified professionals. I did solve this particular reading conundrum, however: After about two weeks, I requested that his parents have his vision checked. One eye exam and a pair of glasses later I lost my first teaching job.
For good or ill, this set me on the teaching path, however unconventionally. After my undergraduate studies in geography and American literature, I joined the Peace Corps, accepting a teaching assignment in newly independent Uganda. I never questioned whether sixteen weeks of language and pedagogical training at Columbia Teachers' College would ready me for teaching in rural Africa (okay, I did realize that New York City was not a geographical equivalent). As ill prepared as I was for teaching eleventh- and twelfth-grade English, geography, and history in a school with neither books nor sufficient classrooms (mud and wattle could go up pretty quickly, but otherwise a chalkboard in the sun would do, except for seventh period, when it rained), I "discovered" that a strong undergraduate education, keen observation of others, and learning from one's own mistakes were the basic building blocks for success in the classroom. Lacking materials, I relied on my interactions with my students to pace and guide their academic progress. And we were successful together. Most of them graduated from high school, and about a quarter went on to further education.
I stayed to teach in Africa for nine years, moving on to different schools and teaching contexts. My very next school was in its first year of racial and ethnic integration, having been formally reserved for whites during the colonial era. Here, the faculty came from England, Scotland, New Zealand, South Africa, Lesotho, India, Malawi, Canada, Mexico, the United States, Uganda, and Kenya, with Kenyans in the majority. We were challenged to build a school culture in every respect, as none of us had been at the school in its previous incarnation. This experience of working with adults and students of such diverse cultural and educational backgrounds and with differing understandings of the purpose and meaning of schooling led to my early understanding of how relationship and purpose can drive or diminish a school.
I never did take a formal course in teacher preparation, focusing in graduate school on structural issues and on the role of formal education in developing countries. I obtained a teaching credential in California only recently by passing the tests for subject matter knowledge and by taking the Peace Corps exemption. Although my story might suggest that I believe that anyone with a bachelor's degree can teach or that if you can teach in Africa you can teach in Los Angeles or Pittsburgh, that is not my intent. In fact, I often have wondered if the motivation for hiring a child tutor was to save money or whether tripling the number of high schools in a single year was a wise move by the Ugandan government when the economy offered few prospects for employment for the majority of graduates. Quick solutions to a labor shortage among teachers--employ the underqualified--are in fact very much with us today.
Thankfully, the field of teachereducation has recognized not just the importance of preservice education but also the role of induction as a critical phase in the career trajectory of teachers--or at the very least one that deserves intense interest and attention. Induction can be broadly characterized as professional education and development tailored for teachers in their first and second years of teaching. Although the breadth and depth of induction programs vary widely both in the United States and abroad, certain hallmarks prevail. They can be summarized as follows:
* Individualized teacher support. This term most frequently means mentoring but also can include individualized activities such as observations and classroom visitations, reflective journals, formative assessments, and the like.
* Professional development activities. These most frequently refer to employer-sponsored events but also may include collaborative networking with other teachers, university coursework, or conferences.
* Employer-sponsored programs. Most of these programs are resourced and sponsored by local school districts, which may in turn receive financial support from other agencies. Employment-oriented sessions, including new employee workshops, health and safety training, and procedural meetings may be considered part of the process.
Make no mistake: Focusing on induction is a good thing, but we by no means have it all figured out. Although today's problems may not be as complex as those we would have faced years ago if the Peace Corps and the Ugandan government had tried to ease me into the teaching profession and support my growth, conflicts still arise for those charged with designing and implementing induction programs--largely due to the organizational and legal characteristics of the education sector in the United States. Of course, this article reflects my opinions, an eclectic set arising from personal observations garnered over the past decade while working in various capacities in induction programs. However, based on these experiences, I will begin this article by briefly discussing some basic notions of induction. Then I will elaborate on some of the structural issues that have emerged in California as the state has worked to develop and implement induction programs for new teachers. I will then end with some thoughts for those charged with the induction of beginning teachers into a noble, if often misunderstood, profession.
Readers must understand that my early experiences with teaching have influenced how I came to understand teaching as a profession. Good intentions and modest success aside, my beginning teaching experiences probably do not reflect the kind of preparation a society ought to demand of its teachers, charged much as I was back then with helping young people learn to participate in all layers of their societies. Nonetheless, I suggest that some of the lessons I learned then--the need to observe carefully, to learn from mistakes, to be collaborative with colleagues--have a wider application as we build this new branch of the education field we have begun to call induction. I believe it is essential at the outset of a teaching career to consider both what teaching means and the structures that undergird its practice.
During the decade I worked as an administrator of a local induction program in California's Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program, as a staff member in a state agency guiding development of a statewide system and as a program manager of the statewide system, I had the opportunity to shape its character and to focus it on essential principles. First, teachers' thinking matters, and during induction, beginning teachers' thoughts about their practice and profession should be fostered and respected. Second, induction is as much about schools and school cultures as it is about supporting individual teachers. Working conditions and school climate matter, especially to beginners. Third, diverse understandings of practice, coupled with clear agreements on underlying purposes and principles, are essential to long-term sustainability of both teachers and programs.
Individuals come into the profession with diverse backgrounds and understandings of what it means to teach; effective induction builds from this circumstance by embracing an array of complex professional activities that grow communities of practice among teachers (Smith and Ingersoll 2004). Induction likely includes, but is not, mentoring. Induction requires the many who work far from the classroom to reconsider what it means to learn to teach and to continue to teach, as well as individualized support for beginning teachers. It is this last proposition that I will elaborate.
Ten years ago, I likely would have described the attributes of intensive, effective induction programs; however, today, strong professional publications on this subject abound (Bartell 2004). Induction and mentoring are now widespread (Wong, Britton, and Ganser 2005), and one finds an equally wide array of program designs. Recent research indicates that strong induction programs diminish both teacher migration within and departure from the profession in the initial three years of employment (Smith and Ingersoll 2004; Tushnet et al. 2002). Although little empirical evidence exists about which specific aspects of induction are essential to achieve these effects, it is important to consider how to preserve and sustain strong programs where they exist and to enhance the likelihood of either creating or expanding them where they are minimal or absent, even as quantitative and qualitative studies on specific impacts of induction continue. And certainly, the first goal of induction is to stabilize the workforce, particularly as we face anticipated shortages in the near future (CFTL 2004).
Straddling Organizational Boundaries To build strong induction programs for all beginning teachers, structural questions regarding the relationships between educational sectors must be addressed; unfortunately, these questions are less frequently addressed than those of need, kind, and effects. Yet, these questions have caused induction programs to founder. What essential attributes of university and K-12 systems mitigate collaboration on the education of beginners? How do understandings of employment rights and educational goals influence program governance, organization, and content? And as a corollary to the last question, what is the nexus between formative assessment for professional growth and evaluation for employment? As a boundary-spanning activity, induction treads on traditional assumptions in each arena.
Although it seems axiomatic that a learning-to-teach continuum of professional growth from preservice to induction to ongoing professional development would be a joint university-school endeavor, most frequently it is not. This can be somewhat accounted for by history, specialization, and a proliferation of pathways and vendors. With multiple routes leading into teaching and a myriad of programs, preservice pathways abound, as do state and federal requirements. But diversity of offerings is not an obstacle in itself. University-school cooperative partnerships, rather than collaborative organizational structures, predominate because of underlying structural differences in the two systems.
A primary concern is the distribution and use of resources. Compensation for professional time is fixed in the K-12 setting and variable in the higher education sector. Contracted teachers have negotiated compensation rates for instructional and noninstructional time. In the university setting, noninstructional time is individually negotiated. Although participation in advisory and planning boards may be a part of faculty service to the community, most faculty must seek compensation for long-term commitments to school-based work outside their own institutions. For induction, this means that funds must come from school districts and flow into universities, or that universities must charge teachers directly through fees or tuition. As a result, partnership agreements most often consist of services provided through specialized roles, such as program evaluator, trainer, or subject-matter expert, or the transfer of primary responsibilities and resources from one agency to the other. Joint governance, joint service delivery, and joint responsibility for budget are the exceptions.
Second, what and how to teach beginning teachers founders on the shoals of expectation and purpose. Even where there is general agreement about what constitutes good teaching, as in California's California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) for all teachers and Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs) for preservice candidates, faculty and district personnel interpret their responsibilities very differently. In an era of state and federal accountability, should induction programs, job-embedded by nature, be most concerned with concentrating on professional skills tightly focused on teaching success as defined by standardized test results? Or should they foster deeper professional knowledge through reflective dialogue that may not overtly be connected with adopted textbooks and standards? How much of induction is employment training and how much professional knowledge? Or emotional support? Faculty is likely to be focused on inquiry, reflection, and independent thinking in the tradition of academic freedom. Principals seeking to meet accountability targets face strong interventions in their schools, and districts seeking to implement high-intensity curricula often have a different notion of expectations and purpose than the teachers who will be responsible for it.
Recently a dissertation candidate received permission to conduct a study of a BTSA program in an urban school district in the Los Angeles basin. At a school board meeting not long afterward, he had the opportunity to share with the superintendent that his study would explore how effective the program was in supporting teachers' constructivist thinking and practice. The superintendent's immediate response was that he was not sure he was interested in seeing either of those in his district. In another large district, state induction funds were diverted to support an intensive effort in reading; site-based reading coaches replaced mentors to individual teachers.
How do institutional purposes confound endeavors of mutual interest and concern? What we have seen in California, where induction funding flows by law from the state to local public schools, is a proliferation of paper-only partnerships--a lot of service contracts and few collaboratives. In the strongest example of this, a consortium of two universities and five counties has worked for fifteen years to forge a joint governance system with specifically defined roles for each sector--one university focuses on evaluation and research, the other on training and professional development, while the counties work with local districts to identify and provide program services to teachers (University of California, Riverside 2005). With induction now the main pathway to a professional credential, new struggles emerge. In a state where induction money by law goes to districts, how can universities viably offer induction programs? If they sponsor alternative programs for those who have no access to BTSA--private school teachers, isolated teachers in remote areas, unemployed teachers--should these programs meet the same state approval standards as those that receive state funds? In a statutory environment, what does a level playing field for candidates look like? California, like most states, is unlikely to be able to afford a summative exit assessment such as the one in use in Connecticut (State of Connecticut Department of Education 2004).
For those of us who work in states where labor relations are defined by statute and contractual agreements and governed by a state personnel board, collaboration also means working with organizations that represent teachers. In California, where state funding reaches in excess of $80 million annually, and over twenty thousand first-and second-year teachers participate, BTSA is big business (CCTC 2004). While school boards, district personnel, teachers, and their representatives alike express unwavering support for new teachers, allocation of time and resources to the program brings to the fore political realities that belie the rhetoric.
In September 2001, California adopted professional standards of program quality and effectiveness for induction as a part of its policy shift to include program participation for two years as the primary pathway to the professional credential (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing 2001). A month later, the adoption was rescinded, as policymakers and constituents struggled over interpretations of language in the standards. At issue were legal definitions of the words "collaborate" and "coordinate." In the originally adopted version of the standards, collaboration across education sectors was emphasized, with an entire standard on collaboration, as well as references to collaboration in other standards. This was interpreted as a commitment to equal partnership with teachers' organizations, which understood better than some policymakers that the Public Employee Relations Board, a quasi-judicial administrative body charged with administering collective bargaining agreements in the state, had previously interpreted the word collaboration to include joint governance of a program and its resources.
The policy impasse lasted six months. If collaboration remained in the standards, teacher organizations could demand majority representation on local governance boards, based on precedents from other state-funded professional-development programs. How would quality be affected if teacher organizations themselves ran the program? If the implementation of each program was subject to local bargaining agreements, would a level playing field for credential candidates emerge statewide? Could programs be delayed if contract negotiations stalled? If districts took on the responsibility of recommending for the professional credential, should they not retain control of their own programs? This dispute eventually was resolved by the replacement of the word "collaboration" with "coordination and communication," along with softer language that asked for communication with a variety of stakeholder groups, none of which is a compulsory partner (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing 2002). Temporarily defeated, the largest teachers' organization has, in the years since, annually sponsored legislation aimed at modifying the induction provisions of the education code (for example, State of California 2004a, 2004b). Lacking trust and focusing on turf, teachers, administrators, and state government representatives resolved this dispute by reinstating the status quo, allowing induction to move forward while breaking no new ground.
For individual teachers, the stakes are equally compelling. Employers ask beginning teachers to participate in their district induction programs rather than seek out others. While not a legal component of an offer, what new employee would question this? Because funding is based on an individual teacher formula, loss of beginning teachers to another program means a revenue drain. For universities that had combined clear credentials with master's programs, this can mean a de facto end to their programs and a diminishing of an established learning-to-teach paradigm.
In addition, performance reviews by principals are critical to job retention. How to support the program and interact to foster effective practice with novice staff while respecting the confidentiality of the novice and mentor relationship is a complex and often contradictory challenge for principals. This is especially so when mentors are centrally assigned and may be unfamiliar with the beginning teacher. A young principal who had experienced the program himself as both beginning teacher and mentor expressed this frustration to me. On the other hand, I have shadowed full-time released mentors as they work, and while they can provide the intense, in-classroom support others cannot, it also is true that their site connections may be tenuous. In one instance, a mentor shared that the main reason she felt the principals were welcoming was because she helped them solve time-consuming problems with teachers. While these anecdotes may point to program design and implementation flaws, they more strongly suggest that establishing trust and mutual agreement on roles and responsibilities across labor divisions is much more than program language. If the first policy goal of induction is workforce stabilization and retention, how do we grow high performance while protecting employee rights? How do novices fare when school success is based on test scores? How are they to be treated in a merit pay system? How does one assess their performance? Are job performance and teacher quality the same? Could a teacher be terminated and recommended for a credential at the same time? Could he or she also be highly qualified?
Competing definitions of teacher quality continue to proliferate. There are core propositions from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), core standards from the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC), Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) standards, the Pathwise framework, subject matter-specific standards from the professional organizations, and state and local teaching standards and criteria. We also wrestle now with the definition of "highly qualified teachers," which currently means subject-matter proficiency as demonstrated on examinations for new teachers. Although overlapping notions of teaching are evidenced in all of these, their purposes and uses are not always clear to teachers.
Beginning teachers may be in a preparation program focused on one of these sets of standards, be evaluated for job performance on locally adopted criteria, participate in an induction program that uses yet another set of standards, and look forward to national board certification on a fourth independent set of criteria. In recent years, California practice has coalesced around the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP), but this is by no means uniform. In 2001, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC), an agency that sponsored the development of the CSTP and approved them in 1998, introduced a new set of criteria for preservice candidates, the Teaching Performance Expectations (TPEs), only nominally aligned with the CSTP and more behaviorist in orientation.
One can argue that revalidation of standards at five-year intervals is solid practice, but to the beginning teacher, this means little. That teacher wants to know what is expected and how to demonstrate meeting those expectations. In addition to sorting out what the performance criteria are, novices must learn to distinguish the processes and outcomes associated with evaluation from those associated with professional growth. The more seamless these processes become, the more clearly the potential results must be defined. Some induction practitioners evade the challenge of formatively assessing teachers to provide them with valid information about their performance and guidance for individualized professional development by focusing exclusively on employment orientation, emotional support, and mentoring. This practice neatly avoids difficult conversations and tough talk about effective teaching and leads to confusions of purpose.
Research has shown (CCTC 1992; Smith and Ingersoll 2004; Thompson et al. 2004) that more effective induction programs include standards-based formative assessments. Yet, these assessments invoke a range of self-serving responses:
"Negatives are bad. One must not use the word 'not' in talking about new teacher performance. There is no such thing as 'not evident.'"
"If there is information about a member of my staffs teaching performance, as the supervisor, I have a right to that information."
"We'll do this just to play along. When you come to my classroom, I'll show you how I do it."
Each of these statements emanates from a static understanding of roles and relationships within the workforce. Formative assessments challenge normative assumptions about the nature of working in schools--teachers do not evaluate each other; principals run the school; teaching practice is essentially individual. The power of formative assessment lies in its ability to provide specific information about practice in a teacher-to-teacher collaborative environment. When teachers are accountable to each other, communities of practice flourish and beginners do not struggle--or succeed--in isolation. Absent these understandings, assessment becomes either an empty routine or is simply ignored.