I35.
.1. A

1 u . .
a?“

x a.

[Mn—mm.) . . .

.......m._quuw.u .
9.3%....» 5-

.“ IShwfiufiaunaifi
{$3. 4

 

.9... ~
.13}... 1...

in? .5 .. 1

I. .5... . x4535:

. .. 4

In! .2...
11!!! 31.5%- (Ii-.111“,
.1? 1.. I31! :5.
it. ttdo...

9. E.
1.3.." ..i
It] 11.5.4. find.
($5.37?” .4. .i
J. Lha’irhhiftt n”.
l I .y
.1; 55¢ .

5? 2r. {.5

a... u. ...
. J.

.. . remain? afiuieirsgizg.Svflhfilff..

 

THESIS

’2
100]

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Principals Supporting Role
in New Teacher Induction

presented by

Cynthia Louise Carver

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PH.D. degreein Curriculum,

 

 

Teaching and Educational Policy

13% W

Major professor

Date Dec. 13, 2002

 

MS U i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/C|RC/DateDue.p65.p.15

 

PRINCIPALS’ SUPPORTING ROLE
IN NEW TEACHER INDUCTION

By

Cynthia Louise Carver

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Educational Policy

2002

ABSTRACT
PRINCIPALS’ SUPPORTING ROLE IN NEW TEACHER INDUCTION
By
Cynthia Louise Carver

Little attention has been paid to understanding the principal’s role in new teacher
induction. Recommendations are limited to the support of mentors and beginning of the
year orientations (Brock & Grady, 2001 ). Existing studies are small in scope, limited to
implementation, and there is little mention of principals’ role (Brock & Grady, I996;
Caruso, 1990; Cole, 1993; Ganser, Feiberg & Zbikowski, 1993). Although the literature
encourages principal support of new teachers, it similarly paints a portrait of induction as
happening “around” the principal (Scott, 2001). This should not surprise us, given that
principals have not traditionally been considered part of the induction process (Zeichner
& Gore, 1990). Even if they were, few principals would have a clear image of how to
promote novice development (Leithwood, 1992). This study asks: In the presence of well-
trained mentors, what role should principals play in new teacher induction?

Using an instrumental case study design (Stake, 1995), this study examines the
thinking of four elementary principals in one California district long associated with a
well-regarded Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) project. Notably, this
study explores what is possible once thoughtful and ambitious induction programs take
hold in ordinary settings. Using intentional sampling, the four participants were selected
to represent difference in gender, ethnicity and years of experience. Primary data
collection comes from a series of interviews conducted over three years. Secondary data

sources include interviews with mentor/novice pairs, including novice evaluation records.

Data was analyzed using techniques of grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1998),
drawing heavily on the theoretical frames of distributed leadership (Spillane, Halverson
& Diamond, 2001) and professional theories of practice (Argyris & Schon, 1974).

Study findings suggest that principals’ attentiveness to new teachers’ learning is
significantly shaped by their knowledge and skill. Principals who have a sustained
experience with mentoring can draw on this knowledge-base to more effectively support
novice teachers. Importantly, the presence of a well-defined instructional mission and
stable school context makes it more likely that principals will be able to focus their fullest
attention on issues of teacher development.

The study also found that principals and mentors are willing to break the “rule of
confidence ” (Shulman, 1987) to better support new teachers when three guiding
principles are met: 1) a trustworthy and professional relationship between mentor and
principal is established; 2) both share an understanding of good teaching; 3) both are
committed to combining assistance with assessment. This suggests that principals and
mentors, under the right set of circumstances, can complement and enhance one another’s
responsibility for new teacher support, development and assessment.

Ultimately, the presence of well-supported and trained mentors helps to focus
principals’ attention on new teachers and their learning needs in a meaningful way.
However, if induction programs wish to actively engage principals in new teacher
support and development, they will need to articulate clear understandings about
principal and mentor roles and assist both as they learn new skills, adopt new

perspectives, and negotiate new roles.

You climb a long ladder until you can see over the roof, or over
the clouds. You are writing a book. You watch your shod feed
step on each round rung, one at a time; you do not hurry and do
not rest. Your feet feel the steep ladder’s balance; the long
muscles in your thighs check its sway. You climb steadily,
doing your job in the dark. When you reach the end, there is
nothing more to climb. The sun hits you. The bright wideness
surprises you; you had forgotten there was an end. You look
back at the ladder’s two feet on the distant grass, astonished.

Annie Dillard
The Writing Life, 1989

iv

For Keith.

You encouraged me to dream and
then stood by as the dream unfolded,
always supporting my best effort.

Acknowledgements

There are many people to thank as this important phase draws to a close.
Although the work is mine, I could not have done it without the help of family and
friends, teachers and colleagues over the years. Special thanks to...

The LDT EC mentors at Minnesota State University at Mankato (the other
MSU); for believing that I could do this and for planting the seeds of this research.

The gifted Michigan State faculty members who pushed me intellectually in
ways I could not have imagined. Particular thanks to the members of my committee:
Gary, Sharon, Tom and Cheryl. You set the bar high, and then were there to support and
encourage me in my efforts.

Sharon, you are 100% responsible for transforming me into the scholar I
have become. You took me seriously as a learner, always encouraging me to reach
beyond my comfort zone. More practically, thank you for welcoming me — very much a
novice — onto your induction research team and for the many, many hours you spent
mentoring me. This study would not have happened without that opportunity.

Gary, you always believed I could do it, even when I had doubts. Special
thanks for helping to fund this study and for enabling me to finish in a timely way — and
for reminding me, through your example, to put things into their proper perspective.

Many special colleagues and friends, for laughing and crying with me
through the ups and downs of graduate study, for pushing me to think harder, and for
occasionally taking the girls so I could read, write or be in class.

My family, who often questioned why I needed to work so hard, but never

stopped supporting my desire to plod forward. Special thanks to Keith, for long ago

vi

asking me what my dream was, then walking alongside me on that path. And to Louise
and Christine, who give both urgency and meaning to my work in schools and with
teachers. I love you!

My new colleagues at Western Michigan University who showed an early
interest in my work and understood the importance of bringing it to completion. Thanks
for giving me space to think and write.

Finally, to Maria, James, Karen and Ramon, for allowing me into your lives
and work. In doing so, you took a risk of unknown dimension; one that most of us would
not do easily. I am eternally grateful for your willingness to embark on this journey with

me.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................ xii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCING THE PROBLEM
Chapter overview ................................................................... 1
Why principals? My personal journey ........................................... 1
Matching research questions with a setting ..................................... 4
Grounding the research problem .................................................. 8
Theoretical frame: New paths to intuition ..................................... l2
Assumptions underlying this research .......................................... 15
Introducing the support triad ..................................................... 18
Telling the story, question by question ......................................... 19
CHAPTER 2
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD
Chapter Overview ................................................................. 21
Pilot study leads to new questions, one site .................................... 21
Research questions: Answering the what, why and how ..................... 24
Definitions ................................................................. 25
Research design: Using a case study approach ................................ 26
Limitations ................................................................ 27
Selecting a site and participants ........................................ 29
Data collection ..................................................................... 30
Transforming the data ............................................................ 34
Site and participants .................................................... 37
Introducing the principals ......................................................... 44
Maria ....................................................................... 46
James ....................................................................... 46
Karen ....................................................................... 47
Ramon ...................................................................... 47
Shared commitments .............................................................. 48
Career choice: Motivated to make a difference ...................... 49
Extended teaching experience .......................................... 50
Gradual transition from teaching to leading .......................... 50
Experience as former mentors .......................................... 52
CHAPTER 3

PRINCIPAL BELIEFS ABOUT NEW TEACHER SUPPORT,
DEVELOPMENT AND ASSESSMENT
Chapter Overview ............................................................... 54
The role of belief in guiding principal’s work .............................. 54

viii

Proposed framework of belief ........................................ 54

1 The case of Maria: Protecting new teachers as learners ..................... 60
Beliefs about beginning teachers .................................... 62
Beliefs about induction and mentoring ............................. 66
' Beliefs about school leadership ....................................... 69
, Summary on Maria ...................................................... 72
The case of James: Building support structures around the novice 72
Beliefs about beginning teachers ..................................... 74
Beliefs about induction and mentoring .............................. 77
Beliefs about school leadership ...................................... 80
Summary on James .................................................... 82
The case of Karen: Caring with a purpose .................................... 82
Beliefs about beginning teachers .................................... 84
Beliefs about induction and mentoring ............................. 86
Beliefs about school leadership ...................................... 89
Summary on Karen .................................................... 91
The case of Ramon: Learning to support new teachers .................... 91
Beliefs about beginning teachers .................................... 94
Beliefs about induction and mentoring ............................. 96
Beliefs about school leadership ...................................... 98
Summary on Ramon ................................................. 100
Cross-case discussion: What stands out? .................................... 100
Common background, shared commitment ........................ 10]
Explaining principal action or inaction .............................. 103
Closing thoughts ................................................................ 108
CHAPTER 4
PRINCIPALS’ SUPPORTING NEW TEACHERS
Chapter Overview .................................................................. l 10
Introducing a principal support framework .................................... 111
New teacher recruitment, hiring and placement ...................... 113
Site orientation and resource assistance ............................... 114
Managing the environment .............................................. 115
Relationship building ..................................................... l 16
Instructional development and supervision ............................ 116
New teacher evaluation ................................................... l 18
Facilitating and sustaining a supportive school context .............. 119
Additional considerations ................................................ 121
The case of Maria: A teacher’s principal ........................................ 122
New teacher recruitment, hiring and placement ........................ 123
Resource assistance and managing the environment .................. 125
Instructional development and evaluation .............................. 126
Building relationships and a supportive professional culture. . . . . ....132
The case of James: Doing the job ................................................. 136
New teacher recruitment, hiring and placement ........................ 137
Resource assistance and managing the environment... .' .............. 138

ix

i Instructional development and evaluation .............................. 140

1 Building relationships and a supportive professional culture ........ 144
‘ The case of Karen: Principal and mentor to the novice ........................ 148
1 New teacher recruitment, hiring and placement ....................... 149
Resource assistance and managing the environment .................. 150

Instructional development and evaluation .............................. 150

Building relationships and a supportive professional culture ........ 154

The case of Ramon: Blinded by competing demands ........................... 156

New teacher recruitment, hiring and placement ....................... 157
Resource assistance and managing the environment ................... 158

Instructional development and evaluation ............................... 159

Building relationships and a supportive professional culture ......... 162

Cross-case discussion: Principal responsibility for new teacher support. 165

Principal involvement varies: The little things add up ................. 166

Minimize orientation, maximize relationships .......................... 167

Evaluation as a learning opportunity ..................................... 168

Instructional leadership: Knowing when to step aside ................. 170

Closing thoughts ..................................................................... 171

CHAPTER 5

PRINCIPALS’ WORKING WITH MENTORS
Chapter Overview ..................................................................

172

New roles, new possibilities .......................................................... 172
Looking to the literature for clues ................................................... 175
The value-added nature of support ......................................... 179

Maria and Kathryn: Accelerating development .................................... 180
James and Anne: Teaming to be pillars of support ................................ 185
Karen and Jennifer: The power of a trusting relationship ........................ 188
Ramon and Rebecca: Coaching in instructional leadership ...................... 191
Cross-case analysis: Principal and mentors working in common ............... 194
Value-added nature of working collaboratively ........................... 195
Guiding principles ............................................................ 197
Principals complement and enhance mentors role ................................. 199

CHAPTER 6
BRINGING THE SUPPORT TRIAD TOGETHER

Chapter Overview ..................................................................... 202
Introduction ............................................................................ 202
Two models of the support triad ...................................................... 205
Maria and James: Coordinating assistance ................................ 206

Karen: Overlapping assistance .............................................. 208
Learning from Ramon: ...................................................... 210
Identifying effectiveness: The situated nature of principal support. . .. 211
Cross—case findings: Reinforcing the triad .......................................... 212
Principal knowledge and skill help frame principal attention ............ 213
Mentors focus principals attention on new teacher ........................ 214

Mentoring as an apprenticeship in instructional leadership ............ 215

Importance of the setting .................................................... 216

Parting thoughts: The big ideas within .............................................. 217

Mentor as colleague and coach ............................................. 218

Mentor as catalyst for teacher learning and development ............... 220

Principal role in facilitating supportive working conditions ............ 221
APPENDICES .................................................................................. 223
Appendix I: Literature review ....................................................... 224
Appendix 11: Interview protocols .................................................... 261
Appendix III: NUD*IST tree index ................................................. 280
REFERENCES .................................................................................. 282

xi

 

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Principal Interview Schedule .......................... 32
Table 2: Principal Profiles ....................................... 48
Table 3: Principals Supporting New Teachers ................ 120

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: The Support Triad ................................... 19
Figure 2: Continuum of Support Tasks ..................... 113
Figure 3: Model #1: Coordinated Assistance ............... 208
Figure 4: Model #2: Overlapping Assistance ............... 209

xiii

Chapter 1:
Introducing the Research Problem

If new teachers only knew how much hope and how much responsibility that

administrators invest in them, they would be even more overwhelmed by their

first year experiences.

~ Middle School Principal (Donaldson & Poon, 1999 p. 68)
Chapter Overview

In this chapter I introduce the question at the heart of this study: What role should
principals play in new teacher induction? In addition to presenting my research questions
and a rationale for this study, I outline the key argument with support from the literature,
arguing that this study has both practical and theoretical implications. In closing, I
explain my conception of a principal/novice/mentor “support triad” — the set of essential
relationships around which this study is organized. But first, I begin with my own interest
in the topic.

Why Principals? My Personal Journey

Like all qualitative researchers, my assumptions and beliefs are grounded in
personal experience. Over the years my professional background has been marked by a
series of boundary crossings: classroom teaching to program administration; full-time
teacher to short—term substitute; paid employee to school volunteer; school to university;
rural America to the developing world. How have these experiences shaped my
understanding of principals’ role and work?

As a beginning teacher I looked to my principal as an ally and colleague. In three

placements over seven years my principals provided support and reassurance, as well as

tangible help. They oriented me to the position, directed me toward helpful resources,

explained things I didn’t understand, defended my actions in front of parents, and
answered endless questions. I needed all the advice, wisdom and guidance my principals
could offer. As a new teacher with no formal mentor, I came to appreciate my principals’
small, but genuine efforts.

Years later, in the roles of student teacher supervisor and new teacher mentor
coordinator, I had the opportunity to see things from a different side of the desk. Not
every novice I worked with had an easy time of it. Kyle was an elementary physical
education candidate who failed to understand the developmental needs of his five-year
olds and thought it acceptable to miss a day of school if his car needed the oil changed.
Krista came to teaching with high academic honors and majors in history, economics and
religion. Unfortunately, Krista lacked an understanding of adolescent needs and interests.
It took only three weeks of student teaching for the phone calls to come rolling into the
principal’s office. Kevin graduated with a teaching credential, but weak
recommendations. A middle school picked him up as having potential; plus, he could
coach swimming. For an entire year Kevin had a well-trained and supported mentor
working with him and still, he was never able to control the thirty sixth graders under his
care. In each of these cases, as an off-site supervisor, I leaned heavily on principals’
observation and insight for guidance. In the end, I learned from principals what it would
mean to have student learning and teacher professionalism as the bottom line.

For the year I spent working toward an administrative credential, I studied the
qualities and traits of effective school leaders. I debated the merits of various approaches

to leadership: instructional, servant, transformational. In the end, I concluded that the

enormous task of school-site leadership was more than I was willing to assume. My
admiration for effective leaders grew.

How do these disjointed experiences, accumulated over a career, add up? Why do
I continue to be drawn to the principalship? In my mind, it is rather simple. When it
comes to supporting teachers, the principal matters. Ineffective principals make the job of
teaching harder than it needs to be. Effective principals remove what can otherwise be
stumbling blocks: they reduce paperwork and increase the utility of meetings; they make
decisions consistent with a shared vision; they facilitate a shared language that values
teaching and learning; they turn routine processes, like teacher evaluation, into learning
opportunities; and they facilitate the work of skillful mentors. I have been fortunate to
work with a number of highly skilled school administrators. I know many of my peers
have not. Through their action and inaction, many principals are guilty of not caring
enough, knowing enough, influencing enough. While still acknowledging the problem
that exists, this dissertation seeks to highlight the positive and effective actions exerted by
principals on behalf of new teachers and their mentors. What is it that thoughtful
principals do to support, develop and assess new teachers, and what can we learn from
those who are trying?

The timing for this study is right. New teacher mentoring practices are growing in
sophistication (Schwille & Wolf, 1995; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2002; Yusko, 2001)
and still, little is known about the principal’s role in new teacher induction (Scott,
Hendrick, Mitchell, & Mitchell, 1999; Scott, 2001). At the same time, today’s induction
programs, most of which rely on mentoring as a central strategy of support, are more

formal and structured, and more likely to be integrated into the larger educational system

(Portner, 2001). Ganser (2001) speaks of this as the “second generation” of mentoring,
characterized by required novice participation, often extending into the second or third
year of teaching; the matching of novices with multiple mentors; and greater attention to
the systemic issues that influence new teacher effectiveness, such as clearly written
agreements. In this new era, I ask: Given the presence of strong mentors, what role
should principals play in beginning teacher induction?
Matching Research Questions with a Setting

For two years I collected data in a large rural California district as part of a
national study of new teacher induction policies, programs and practices'. During this
time I shadowed and interviewed mentor teachers, observed and interviewed new
teachers, attended new teacher seminars and weekly mentor meetings, as well as
interviewed principals about their work with new teachers and mentors. What did I learn
from these various groups about principal support of beginning teachers in the presence
of mentors?

New teachers spoke of their principal with a combination of fear and respect.

Because site administrators were responsible for evaluating their overall

performance, meeting principal expectation was a legitimate concern. Mostly,

though, new teachers were deeply appreciative of any support they received -

even when it came from the principal.

Mentor teachers spoke of the principal as an important player in the induction

process — someone who could make their job as a support provider a little bit

easier or a lot more difficult. Mentors wanted principals who understood that their

work with beginning teachers was confidential. Principals who acknowledged and

respected this unwritten rule were seen as trusted allies.

Principals spoke unanimously about the need to support new teachers. At the

same time, they lamented not having enough time to do so adequately. Principals’

own self—reported efforts to be supportive varied from one to another. All agreed
that mentors provided an invaluable service and that information about mentors’
work with novices was strictly off—limits. Most, but not all, reported being able to
enact this belief in practice.

From these encounters, I surmised that all three players had a fairly clear sense of
what they wanted from one another. Less certain was how they communicated their
expectations to one another and the ways in which they did or did not work together.
Over time I began to wonder: Were roles and responsibilities clearly articulated and
understood among the three players? Was there guidance for how each was to work with
the other? To what extent did they share a common purpose or vision for the work?

To investigate these broad questions I needed to make some critical early
decisions. First, I decided to focus my fullest attention on principals, aware that principals
are only one piece of a three-part equation. I based this decision on the fact that very little
attention has been accorded to principals in the mentoring and induction literature (Scott,
2001). Early in this project it seemed to me that a better understanding of principals’ role
in new teacher support and development needed to precede any inquiry into how the triad

of principal/mentor/novice works. Thus, the study I designed must address both facets of

 

' The study, Beginning Teacher Induction: Promising Policies, Programs and Practices. was funded by
the National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching (NPEAT) and the Walter F.
Johnson Foundation. Dr. Sharon Feiman-Nemser served as principal investigator.

the problem. How do principals support, develop and assess new teachers and what does
that mean for their work with mentors? Moreover, what are the implications for
principals’ role in induction more broadly? Ideally, future research would amplify the
voices of mentor and beginning teachers.

Second, the notion of a principal/mentor/novice triad is new. Previous research
has tended to focus exclusively on principals and new teachers with little regard for their
mentors. To investigate the nature of this set of relationships I would need to find sites
where induction and mentoring were an accepted part of the educational landscape.
Moreover, it would be preferable to find sites where induction was not only well-
established, but equally well-regarded. If the practice of induction continues to grow in
popularity and sophistication, careful descriptions of “cutting edge” practice are needed if
we are to anticipate pitfalls, recognize tensions, and see possibilities inherent to this
work.

Both considerations brought me back to California where the questions first
presented themselves. Here was an opportunity to deepen tentative understandings that
had emerged from the larger study I was involved in. At this point a third criteria
emerged, that of sample size. I was most interested in knowing more about how the
principals I had spoken with earlier understood these issues. Perhaps because the few
studies available on this issue were conducted during the early years of program
implementation, they tended to identify, rather than explore underlying problems and
tensions (Brock & Grady, 1996; Brock & Grady, 1998; Caruso, 1990; Cole, 1993;
Ganser, Feiberg, & Zbikowski, 1993; Scott, 2001). I wanted this study to make an

important conceptual and empirical contribution to the field. My opinion was that a

smaller, fine—grained study would be of greater value than a global survey. Long missing

in the literature are reports of how and why principals act as they do. The qualitative

nature of the questions posed, coupled with the natural fit of case study methodology,

guided the final design of this study.

In the end, I extended an invitation to four elementary principals in California to

participate in the study. All four accepted and so the journey began. Over the next two

school years I made three trips to California to interview these principals, as well as a

select mentor/novice pair for each. In addition, phone calls and e-mails kept the lines of

communication open as data collection ended and analysis began. What follows are their

stories as told by me, an outsider looking in. Five research questions guided this work:

 

 

GUIDING RESEARCH QUESTIONS. . .

1.

How do principals understand and enact their roles and responsibilities
with respect to new teacher support, development and assessment?

What underlying assumptions about beginning teaching guide and shape
principals’ work with new teachers and their mentors?

Where do the ideas and beliefs that underlie and shape principal thinking
and reported practice vis a vis new teachers come front?

What contextual factors enable or constrain the work of new teacher
support, development and assessment?

Does principals ’ work with new teachers and their mentors change or alter
how they understand and enact their work with teachers more broadly?

 

The premise of my argument is simple. While I support induction and mentoring

as a critical intervention during the early years of teaching, I also believe that new teacher

support, broadly construed to include new teacher development and assessment, deserves

attention by all school personnel in order to realize its fullest potential. I fear that in our
haste to shift novice support from principals to mentors, and from the school site to
formal induction programs, we fail to recognize the key role principals and schools will
always play in new teacher support and development. By uniquely highlighting
principals’ role, this study aims to accomplish just that.
Grounding the Research Problem

Although well—meaning advice abounds in policy documents and practitioner-
focused guidebooks, there is little evidence to guide beginning teacher induction and
mentoring program design and implementation. The lack of empirical warrant has long
been noted in the field (Fideler & Haselkom, 1999; Little, 1990; Zeichner, 1982).
Researchers concerned about the current state of affairs direct their critique in multiple
directions. Increasingly, concern is being voiced about the need to better understand the
link between efforts to improve teacher quality and their resulting affect on student
achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1999). Scholars also question the conceptual grounds
on which many new teacher induction programs currently rest. Mentoring is often limited
to emotional support as too few programs see induction as part of an ongoing teacher
development continuum that supports a rigorous view of teacher learning (Feiman-
Nemser, 2000). Finally, we are periodically reminded that no amount of good mentoring
can counteract the influence of schools that are not organized in support of teacher
learning and working conditions that challenge even the most expert teacher (Huling-
Austin, 1990; Schlecty & Whitford, 1989; Zeichner, 1982; Kardos, Johnson, Peske,

Kauffman & Liu, 2001).

Even less attention has been paid to understanding the principal’s role in
induction and mentoring. Although policy reports and advice columns have routinely
encouraged principal support through the years, these same reports paint a portrait of
induction as happening “around” the principal as opposed to having the principal as the
focal point (Scott, 2001). Rather than active participants, principals are expected to act as
advocates, facilitators, cheerleaders and the like. Durbin’s (1991) review of induction
programs acknowledges that the principal plays a small but important role in novice
development. Still, the same review concludes that mentors are consistently viewed by
new teachers as the most positive aspect of induction — while principals do not fare nearly
as well. This should not surprise us, given that principals have not traditionally been
considered part of the induction process (Zeichner & Gore, 1990). Even if they did, it is
argued that few principals would have a clear image of how to encourage and promote
new teacher development (Leithwood, 1992).

There are encouraging exceptions. Policy documents, like the California
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program standards, are becoming
more explicit about the role they wish principals to play. One of thirteen BTSA program
standards is devoted exclusively to the roles and responsibilities of site administrators.
All principals are encouraged to attend the state-sponsored “BTSA Training for School
Principals and Site Administrators”. The program’s philosophy toward principal
involvement is clearly articulated:

The knowledge, attitudes and actions of site administrators are critical in setting

the stage for beginning teacher success. Site administrators are instrumental in

providing the structure for intensive support and assessment activities, and in
creating a positive climate for these activities ( C TC/CDE, l997b, p. I I).

In addition, publishing houses are responding with an increasing number of titles
devoted to new teacher induction and mentoring. Among these are publications
specifically targeting an administrator audience. Brock and Grady’s (200]) popular book,
From F irst-Year to F irst-Rate: Principals Guiding Beginning Teachers, is now in second
edition. Others, like Hal Portners’s (2001) Training Mentors is Not Enough: Everything
Else Schools and Districts Need To Do, reminds principals that exemplary mentoring
programs are thoughtfully integrated into the school system. While these documents do
not carve new roles for principals, they do illuminate the importance of site
administrators to the success of new teacher induction and mentoring — a necessary first
step.2

Still, too many of these publications are guided more by good ideas than empirical
understanding. For example, a recent article in Principal Magazine states: “Knowing the
principal ’s expectations for instructional practices, grading, and student achievement
seem to be more important to novice teachers than any advice given by a mentor
teacher” (Colley, 2002). While this article offers helpful tips for principals’ role in
stemming new teacher attrition (e.g. focus new teacher observations on a limited number
of skills), this particular comment, favoring principal expectations over mentor advice,
represents a dangerous overgeneralization based on nothing more than the author’s own
observation. Lack of understanding can mistakenly lead well-intended program
developers down a path toward unanticipated results. Money, material resources and even

more importantly, time may be lost in search of a better beginning for new teachers.

 

2 I find it disheartening to note that the vast majority of induction and mentoring promotional literature fails
to address the principal role. For example, Susan Villani’s (2002) recent book, Mentoring Programs for
New Teachers: Models of Induction and Support, devotes only 3 paragraphs to the role of administrators.

10

Weak conceptions of the work will never lead to a solid foundation from which a
program might build.

This dissertation explores an increasingly talked about but largely unexamined
issue: principals’ role in formal induction and mentoring programming. The premise of
this study is that principals’ will create a role for themselves in the absence of a formally
defined one (Carver, 2001). Therefore induction programs would be wise to define the
territory, even boundaries, however permeable, of principal’s work in new teacher
support, development and evaluation. This issue is equally important at the program and
individual levels.

Recent scholarship suggests that clearer role definition is good for programs,
principals and the mentors they work with, as well as the new teachers they serve. For
example, in her literature review of principal’s role in new teacher induction, Scott
(2001) notes that while recent reports suggest a more defined role for the principal, these
references continue to be limited and scattered across the literature. When principals are
mentioned, it is typically in reference to new teacher evaluation, mentor selection or
program advocacy. She concludes that insulating principals from the induction process
can only impair a program’s success. Her recommendation is for greater — not less —
principal cooperation and participation in induction programming.

A truly successful program requires close cooperation and mutual understanding

of all those at the school site — the principal and other administrators, the

mentors, the more experienced faculty members, the support stafi‘ and the new

teachers (p. 25).

Scott goes on to assert that principals want to be involved as they have a stake in

new teacher success. She encourages principals to use standards of professional practice

to guide this increased involvement, arguing further that site administrators receive

11

training in order to a) uphold an expanded responsibility for program advocacy and b)
facilitate the establishment of school sites that are nurturing and supportive of the new
teacher.

Novices and their mentors also have a stake, albeit a different one, vis a vis
principals’ role. New teachers consistently report wanting to know how they are being
perceived by the administrator in charge. Many novices feel a strong need for
administrator acknowledgement and approval before year-end evaluations are completed
(Peterson, 1990; Chester, 1992). Early in the year they want to know what the principal’s
vision is for the school, as well as standard operating policies and procedures, like
grading (Brock & Grady, 1996). Analysis of data from the federal Schools and Staffing
Survey suggests that among teachers who leave their jobs, one fifth do so because of
“lackluster administrative support” (Ingersoll, 2001b). Given this need, it makes sense
for principals to be connected to induction as both a sign of support and as a conduit of
critical information about the school context. Similarly, mentors need administrator
support in order to accomplish their work with and on behalf of new teachers. Principal
leadership has been shown to be a factor in influencing mentor’s work, along with other
organizational conditions, such as the role of teacher unions (Youngs, 2001).

Theoretical Frame: New Paths to Intuition

The task of supporting, developing and assessing new teachers is too big to fall on
the shoulders of a single mentor; yet, that is precisely what we do when we equate
mentoring with induction. This research argues in favor of a broader, system-wide

perspective on induction, one that includes the principal. But in doing so, we need an

12

answer to the question: What role should the principal play in supporting, developing and
assessing new teachers?

The notion of distributing leadership for instruction across relevant stakeholders is
gaining currency among researchers and practitioners (Spillane, Halverson & Diamond,
2001; Gronn, 2000; Neuman & Simmons, 2000; Elmore, 2000). Still, we know next to
nothing about how distributed forms of instructional leadership play out in real settings.
As Spillane and colleagues (2001) note,

While there is an expansive literature about what school structures, programs,

and processes are necessary for instructional change, we know less about how

these changes are undertaken or enacted by school leaders in their daily work...

An in-depth analysis of the practice of school leaders is necessary to render an

account of how school leadership works (p 23 ).

In response, this study — through the lens of new teacher support and development
- looks intentionally at how building principals, as school leaders, foster improved
instruction. Several assumptions guide this work. First, principals’ understandings of new
teacher support are likely to be intuitive or tacit (Polanyi, 1969). While a typical
administrative credential program will cover many things, from budgets and policy to
teacher supervision, few principals are ever asked to reflect on the special learning needs
of new teachers. This was certainly true of the principals in this study. Moreover, the
actions of competent professionals to everyday encounters with practice are often
cumulative and unformulated rather than explict and known (Argyris & Schon, 1974).
That principals’ need help thinking about what they do on behalf of new teachers and

their mentors, and why they do it, is not surprising. Additionally, if our goal is to promote

effective models of teacher support, then we must understand how it is that principals

13

come to do this important work. As much as we need to uncover reasons for action, we
need to make known beliefs and values, motivations and commitments.

Drawing on the work of Argris and Schon (Argyris & Schon, 1974) and Schon
(Schon, 1983; Schon, 1987), I explore in this study four principals’ espoused beliefs
about new teacher support, development and assessment. In other words, I describe what
these principals say they believe and do vis a vis new teachers and their mentors. In
addition, I speculate on their theory in use by offering an explanation for why these four
individuals believe and report acting as they do. In concluding, I look across the reported
action of all four principals’ for common themes in order to outline a tentative theory of
action or professional practice for the support of new teachers and their mentors by all
principals. Quoting Spillane, Halverson & Diamond (2001),

To gain insight on leadership practice, we need to understand a task as it unfolds

from the perspective and through the ‘theories in use’ of the practitioner. And we
need to understand the knowledge, expertise, and skills that the leaders bring to

the execution of the task (p. 25).

Explicating principals’ theory of action vis a vis new teachers and their mentors
provides a lens for understanding and recording the values and commitments, strategies
and insights of principals who take new teachers seriously as learners, a necessary first
step toward enabling effective principal support more broadly. A theory of action can
also help us to identify where principals may encounter difficulty. This is important if we
want to predict where problems may arise and (un)learning may be needed.

This research has a secondary purpose: to inform the ongoing professional
preparation of school leaders. As Argyris and Schon (1974) claim, a central task of

professional education is “to formulate what we already know, that is, to capture in

explicit form the insights, values and strategies of action that competent practitioners

l4

bring to situations they encounter in practice (p. xix). ” By making the work of principals
engaged in new teacher support known and visible, we are adding to the cumulative
knowledge base upon which sound instructional leadership ultimately rests. Professions
without a dynamic theory of professional practice are more likely to stagnate as they
become rule-bound, uniform and standardized, with sharp and inflexible role definitions
(Argyris & Schon, 1974).

Ultimately, it is hoped that this exploratory work can stimulate more and better
thinking about the inner work or “sensemaking ” of school leaders as they strive to
improve teaching and learning (Weick, 1995). By giving voice to tacit understandings,
and meaning to routine leadership tasks, we are able to see the problem of beginning
teacher support in new light. As Polanyi (1969) suggests, “The formalization of tacit
knowing immensely expands the powers of the mind, by creating a machinery of precise
thought, but it also opens up new paths to intuition (p. 156). ”

Assumptions Underlying this Research

The premise of my overall argument — that principals’ can play a significant role
in supporting new teachers and their mentors — rests on four propositions. New teachers
need support, and induction that includes mentoring holds promise as a support strategy.
However, new teacher support is not multi-dimensional. In other words, mentors are not
the only means through which new teachers receive encouragement and guidance as they
develop their practice. Lest we forget, principals also play a key support role.

Moreover, beginning teachers need focused and intensive support if they are to
develop as thoughtful and effective educators. No matter how good one’s preservice

training and experience is, there is no substitute for the kinds of professional learning that

15

will and need to occur on the spot, in the moment — only possible once a position has
been secured and a classroom prepared (Bartell, 1995). Finally, repeated studies have
shown that teaching is hard, complex work and that the process of learning to teach is
ongoing (Feiman-Nemser, 1983; Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996). New teachers
benefit from guidance and assistance that go beyond emotional support if they are to
effectively teach diverse students according to established standards (AFT, 2001; Odell &
Huling, 2000).

Faced with an impending teacher shortage, high rates of attrition, and demands for
professional accountability, new teacher induction programs are viewed by educational
policymakers and school leaders as a promising approach to beginning teacher support
(Fideler & Haselkom, 1999; NCTAF, 1996; Villani, 2002). Increasingly delivered via a
“program of support”, often featuring the one-to-one tutelage of a trained mentor,
induction offers a set of specialized support practices that have previously been
unavailable within the field. Over time, the age-old “sink or swim” approach to learning
to teach is being replaced by a more gradual and guided entry to the profession. While
evidence of impact is limited to anecdotal self-report and a growing body of retention
studies (see CTC/CDE, 1992; Strong & St. John, 2001), policymakers operate today from
an intuitive belief that induction and mentoring are worthwhile practices.

But while induction programming, typically demonstrated through a one-to-one
mentoring relationship, is growing — there is reason to pause. New teachers do not teach
in controlled settings, but in real schools. Common sense reminds us that support does
not have to come in only one form. Over-reliance on mentored support is likely to leave

unnecessary gaps in the beginning teachers’ experience. Other facets of the new teachers’

16

experience are also important, including the nature of their classroom and student
placements, the availability of adequate instructional resources, and assistance from
grade/department level colleagues in co-planning around a set of designated curricular
standards (see Grossman, Thompson, & Valencia, 2001; Johnson & Kardos, 2002;
Rosenholtz, 1989). These aspects of the new teachers’ experience lay outside the realm of
most mentoring relationships.

As the designated school head, principals are responsible for factors that directly
and indirectly influence the new teachers’ experience (Brock & Grady, 2001). Although
not capable of the types of intensive support mentors offer due to limits in time and
expertise, as well as role expectations, principals do play an important peripheral role in
novice support, particularly when induction programming is external to the school site. In
this case, principals play an especially pivotal role as they help to integrate the work of
induction with the school site (Portner, 2001). Furthermore, principals are experiencing
new working relationships with veteran teachers — now placed in the role of new teacher
mentors —- which in turn creates new opportunities for novice support.

Ultimately, the emergence of well-trained mentors prompts questions about the
possibilities and limits of principal instructional leadership in new teacher support. When
should principals lead, and when should they follow? And under what conditions, or by
what principles, are such decisions made? By examining what they “do ” we are better
poised to normatively judge what they “should do.” By examining the practice of four
elementary principals, in a site where new teachers are taken seriously and where mentors

are well-trained and well-supported, this study contributes to a greater understanding of

17

principals’ work in relationship to new teachers and their mentors. In addition, this study
seeks to identify the various factors that support their learning to do such work.
Introducing the Support Triad

To quote the school administrator cited at the beginning of the chapter, “If new
teachers only knew.... ” Beginning teachers are watched closely by principals, fellow
teachers and staff, including mentors, parents and students, each with their own set of
expectations, hopes and dreams for what the novice will know and be able to do. Within
this larger framework, two individuals emerge as key figures in the new teacher’s
eventual success or failure: the principal and mentor. In a traditional system, the principal
has control over classroom placements, access to needed resources, professional culture
and the final decision as to whether or not the novice receives a continuing contract. The
new teacher mentor — should they be lucky enough to have one — is there to encourage,
guide, and teach the novice in the ways of the school, district and profession. In the midst
of all this, new teachers are typically on their own to figure out what is expected of them
and by whom.

Because of the centrality of both the principal and mentor to the new teacher’s
experience, I look to the principal/mentor/novice relationship as the unit of analysis in
this study. I refer to this mini social system as the support triad.3 Whereas in the early
stages of this work I tended to focus on the principal/mentor or principal/novice
relationship as separate entities, it has become increasingly clear to me that the

relationship among all three was the enduring element upon which all else hinged. I have

 

3 Throughout the text I will use the term “support” generically to encompass the work principals’ do on

behalf of new teachers, including efforts to assist, guide, teach, develop and evaluate novices. I do so for
the sake of simplicity. It is not meant to detract from my belief that we must go “beyond support” to also
develop and assess beginning teachers (Feiman-Nemser. Carver, Schwille, & Yusko, 1999).

18

since come to see the support triad as an essential piece of understanding in examining

principals’ supporting role in new teacher induction.

 

 

Figure I:
THE SUPPORT TRIAD
Principal
Mentor New Teacher

This research is premised on the belief that there is potential within the support
triad for coordinating, thereby enhancing the work of new teacher support, development
and assessment. In the words of one of the principals in this study, “What we’ve tried to
do is set up sort of a triad between myself, the advisor and the new teacher, so that the
work that I do with evaluation and the work they do with new teacher support are
coordinated” (James, 3/99). As we see in this statement, the term triad evokes a set of
roles within a larger and encompassing system, where coordination is the key to linking
various functions within the system.

Telling the Story, Question by Question

This dissertation tells the story of new teacher support in South Country School
District as reported by four elementary principals: Maria, James, Karen and Ramon.
Although the perspectives of new teachers and mentors were gathered to lend support to
study findings, this is really an account of four individuals. Using the research questions

listed above as my guide, I unfold their stories one chapter at a time, believing that each

19

step provides a foundational clue for sustaining aspects of this work across broader
segments of the population.

Chapter 2: Research Design and Methodology elaborates on the research
questions and subsequent design. In addition, the site and participants are introduced in
this chapter.

Chapter 3: Principal Beliefs about New Teacher Support, Development and
Evaluation uncovers the underlying assumptions that fuel principals’ work in new
teacher support, development and assessment.

Chapter 5: Principals Supporting New Teachers describes the big and small,
visible and invisible things principals do to support their new teachers.

Chapter 6: Principals Working with Mentors describes the ways in which
principals and mentors work cooperatively and collaboratively to meet the individual
needs of new teachers.

Chapter 7: Bringing the Support Triad Together, reflects on the various legs of
the triad in order to speculate on the meaning of effective professional practice by
principals on behalf of new teachers and their mentors. The chapter concludes with
summary findings and implications.

In addition, a select literature review, found in Appendix A, lays a conceptual
foundation for this study by reviewing literature across three stands of thought: new
teacher learning, mentoring/induction and principal leadership. Earlier studies of

principals’ role in induction are also reviewed.

20

Chapter 2:
Research Design and Methodology

The worst thing that contemporary qualitative research can imply is that, in this

post-modem age, anything goes. The trick is to produce intelligent, disciplined

work on the very edge of the abyss (Silverman, 1993, p. 21 1).

Chapter Overview

In this chapter I highlight findings from an earlier pilot study that informed this
work, elaborate on my research questions as they will be presented in later chapters and
then outline the research design and methodology — including limitations — around which
this study is based. In doing so, I argue for the significance of this work, as well as my
choice of design and method. I conclude by introducing the site and participants.

Pilot Study Leads to New Questions, One Site

As part of the larger study from which this work is based, three years ago I had
the opportunity to interview a cohort of K-12 principals affiliated with Cincinnati’s Peer
Assistance and Evaluation Program and the Santa Cruz New Teacher Project regarding
their understandings of new teacher induction (Carver, 2001). Because these two sites
represented well-regarded and long—established induction programs, I believed they
would offer a glimpse at how principals’ see their role with new teachers in the context of
induction. In both cases, the sample of ten to twelve principals was equally divided
between those nominated by program directors and those randomly selected. Using a
semi—structured interview protocol, adjusted to fit the unique features of each site, I asked
principals to describe their role vis a vis new teacher and their mentors. Analysis of these
responses within and across sites led to two key findings: principals in both sites embrace

their responsibility for new teacher support; however, while their reported practice is

21

quite similar, they differ by site in their stated preference regarding new teacher support
and evaluation.

Importantly, Cincinnati and Santa Cruz area principals embrace their
responsibility for new teacher support. They do so in absence of a formally defined role,
knowing that qualified mentors are actively engaged with novice support in their
building. This is significant, as the presence of mentors could easily legitimate principals’
attention on other pressing matters. However, this is not the case in these two sites. In
Cincinnati, where building administrators are not responsible for conducting the new
teacher evaluation process, principals describe themselves as coaches to the beginning
teachers. Although the amount of time spent in formal observation varies from building
to building, principals are continually watchful of the novice’s progress, which in turn
shapes the types of support they give, e. g. assigning buddy teachers, releasing teachers to
attend a workshop, sharing teaching tips. Further, by establishing a professional culture
that values instructional improvement and collegiality, principals believe they are
ensuring that needed support structures are in place for all teachers.

In contrast, Santa Cruz area principals play a traditional role in teacher evaluation.
Fear of breaking confidentiality between the mentor and novice, compounded by their
conflicting role as assessor, limits the depth and range of their reported involvement with
new teachers. However, when asked what they do as building administrators to support
novices, principals describe a variety of direct and indirect efforts, e. g. reducing
committee assignments, accessing needed resources, asking teachers to “watch out for the
novice”. Like Cincinnati principals, establishing school contexts where collaborative

inquiry and reflection is valued work for all faculty, new and veteran, is a top priority.

22

Nonetheless, principals in each site differed in their thoughts on the need to
separate support from evaluation. In Cincinnati, principals see their role as supporting
new teachers and their mentors. They become a second set of eyes and ears that confirm
or question the mentor’s assessment. Neither mentors nor principals reported conflict
with sharing critical information about the novice with one another, justifying this on the
grounds of improved student learning and commitment to professional practice. In Santa
Cruz, however, principals were vocal about the need to separate mentor support from
principal assessment. Shared conversations between the mentor and principal were
considered suspect. Still, their self-reported practice hinted at something more complex.
When student learning and professional practice were at stake, they each found ways to
talk across this self-imposed boundary.

Based on this preliminary work, a logical next step was to get a clearer picture of
principals’ beliefs about new teachers and mentors, where these ideas come from and
what implications they may have for novice development - answers missing from the
existing literature.4 I was particularly drawn to the California site where reported beliefs
and practices seemed to be in conflict with one another. What was the source of this
tension and how can that understanding inform the work of new teacher support? Given
this narrowing of interests, my preference for working on a small scale with a few
participants in one site, rather than surveying responses from a large sample, crystalized.
In the text that follows I elaborate on my research questions, as well as outline the

research design and methodology that shape this work.

 

4 For a more elaborate treatment of the literature, including a summary of related studies, the reader is
referred to Appendix I: A Select Review of the Literature.

23

Research Questions: Answering the “What”, “Why” and “How”

Given the need for practical guidance on this issue, the opportunity presented by
the California site, plus the nature of existing research, five core research questions were
developed. These questions have guided the study throughout its entirety and can be
found in chapter one. However, to aid the reader as data is reported in subsequent
chapters, 1 have deliberately re-ordered the research questions to reflect my own
deepened understanding of how they influence and shape one another. Re-worked and
elaborated slightly to represent a shift in order and emphasis, they are as follows.

How do principals understand their roles and responsibilities with respect to
new teacher support, development and evaluation?

V What underlying assumptions about beginning teaching guide and shape
principals’ work with new teachers?

V Where do the ideas and beliefs that underlie and shape principal thinking and
reported practice vis a vis new teachers come from?

V What contextual factors shape principals’ reported understandings?

V What are the implications for new teacher learning, induction programming
and principal practice?

How do principals report enacting their roles and responsibilities vis a vis

new teachers?

V What do principals report doing with and on behalf of new teachers?

V What personal and contextual factors enable and/or constrain this work?

V What are the implications for new teacher learning, induction programming
and principals ’ practice?

How do principals report enacting their roles and responsibilities vis a vis

new teacher mentors?

V What do principals report doing with and on behalf of new teacher mentors?

24

V What personal and contextual factors enable and/or constrain this work?

V What are the implicationsfor new teacher learning, induction programming

and principal practice?

Together, these research questions help to illuminate what effective principals do
vis a vis new teachers and their mentors, as well as the factors and conditions that enable
such efforts. While the principal literature is full of prescriptive notions of best practice,
much less attention has been given to how principals come to think and act as they do
(Spillane et al., 2001). These questions integrate the “what” with the “why” and “how” of
principal leadership in the context of new teacher support, development and evaluation.

I conclude the study by reflecting on a final overarching question: Does
principals’ work with new teachers and their mentors change or alter how they
understand and enact their work with teachers more broadly? In other words, does the
experience of working with new teachers and their mentors create learning opportunities
for principals that force the re-examination of their beliefs and expectations for all
teachers as learners? If a ripple effect of this sort is possible, it has relevant policy
implications when we view induction as a deliberate reform strategy.

Definitions

For definitional clarification, in this study beginning teachers are defined as those
new to teaching. While this may include new or beginning teachers who enter on
emergency or provisional permits, the vast majority of these novices continue to be
certified graduates of teacher preparation programs. I acknowledge this difference where
necessary. Mentors are experienced teachers who are formally assigned responsibility for

working with novices over time. In this site, new teacher mentors — also called support

25

providers or advisors — are released full-time from the classroom for two or more years.
As a mentor, these former teachers receive ongoing training and support relevant to their
new tasks. I use the term principal inclusively to include any site administrators who
have formal responsibility for the well-being of beginning teachers in a school building.
The term support also deserves mention, as it reoccurs frequently in this text. I use this
term broadly to encompass the interdependent functions of new teacher assistance,
development and assessment — all of which are critical to new teacher learning and
development (Feiman-Nemser et a1, 1999).

Research Design: Using a Case Study Approach

Case studies permit us to look closely at naturally occurring phenomenon; to
explore why and how people act as they do. As authentic but abstracted examples of real
life - case studies permit us access to settings that we are not likely to encounter on our
own (Yin, 1994). Moreover, reading and studying others’ reports help us to expand our
repertoire of possible interpretations for what we can see from our own limited
perspectives (Donmoyer, 1990). With the potential to go beyond description, case studies
give us grounds for highlighting complexity, refining theory, and testing the limits of
generalizability (Stake, 1995).

Using a case study approach (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994), this inquiry
explores up-close how four elementary principals’ in one California district — Maria,
James, Karen and Ramon — think about and puzzle over their work with new teachers and
their mentors. As a case study researcher, I am looking for the extraordinary within the
ordinary. What is unique, special, interesting about the work of these individuals? My

first goal is to uncover the storied lives of these four individuals (Clandinin & Connelly,

26

2000), then explain what accounts for this. In doing so, I catch a glimpse of the things
effective principals do in service of new teachers and the conditions that enable and/or
constrain this support. Thus, these four self-reports of practice become a means for
thinking harder about the phenomenon of new teacher support, development and
assessment by principals. As an “instrumental case the actual site and participants
become secondary to what they can teach us about the principal’s role in supporting new
teachers and their mentors (Stake, 1995).5

Although I begin by exploring principals’ relationship with new teachers and
mentors separately, I intentionally bring them back together in the final analysis, using
the “support triad” of principal/novice/mentor as the penultimate unit of analysis.
Because I expose multiple layers of the system, including program, district, and
mentor/novice pairs, for four distinct individuals, in one context, this study follows an
embedded case design. I do so convinced that “multiple cases ofler the researcher a
deeper understanding of the processes and outcomes of cases, the chance to test (not just
develop) hypotheses, and a good picture of locally grounded causality” (Miles &
Huberrnan, 1994, p. 26).
Limitations

As in all approaches to doing research, there are limitations to the inquiry
conducted here. Obviously, the small sample size prevents generalizing to a larger
principal population. Four principals can hardly be considered representative. Further,
because I am arguing for a case study within what might be considered an exemplary site,

I further limit my ability to describe and explain typical practices. Few sites offer the

 

5 Yin (1994) would likely categorize this study as an “exploratory case” where the emphasis is on
exploring a poorly understood phenomenon.

27

degree of sophistication in mentor practices as this one. However, by focusing on that
which is particular to one site, I hope to open the “black box” that has come to typify
induction policy and practice. My goal is to first identify ordinary and extraordinary
practices, then to understand what promotes and sustains them over time. Beginning with
the careful study of four principals in one district, I am confident that this study can lay
the groundwork for further testing and theory-building across a larger section of
individual and sites. As an instrumental (Stake, 1995) or exploratory (Yin, 1994) case, this
sampling is justified.

I am equally cautious in believing that through a set of five or six focused
interviews I will know my subjects’ commitments, beliefs and motivations toward new
teachers in their full complexity. Interviews are not only situated accounts (Mischler,
1991) reflecting the time and place in which they occur, they are also censored accounts
(Silverman, 1993) where participants control what gets shared and when. As the
researcher, my job is to listen carefully and record wisely that which I see and hear. It is
also my job to make my thinking and struggles with the data as apparent as possible.

Furthermore, because my access to observational data is limited in this study,
principal self-report — verified to the extent possible through select new teacher and
mentor accounts -- will have to suffice. Again, as a researcher, my task is to make clear
what is reported from what is real; what is observed from what is inferred. Two analytic
strategies enhance the internal validity of my data: triangulation of principal self-report
with mentor and novice accounts, plus member-checking through principal review of

early case drafts (Denzin, 1984).

28

Finally, I am limited in the data I can collect given my distance from the site and
participants. Previous work in the district and the choice to conduct an interview-based
study that makes use of existing data are ways I am able to compensate for this
constraint. The addition of novice and mentor interviews, select artifacts of practice and
use of phone and email communication are other ways I have reduced this problem of
distance. Certainly there are other exemplary sites in which I might locate this study;
however, my solid working understanding of the district, developed over the past three
years, enables me to successfully complete the study outlined here.

Selecting a Site and Participants

Believing case studies are less a methodology than a choice of what one studies
(Stake, 1995), I looked first to a site where induction programming was well established
and mentoring practice well developed. I then sought participants similar enough to
address the topic; yet diverse enough to show an interesting range of responses. The four
principals for this study were selected from a California district long-associated with the
area Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) project. To reduce the number
of variables possible, I intentionally limited my focus to one district, South County.

California makes a good context for this study because it has aggressively sought
to support and guide new teacher development around a set of ambitious content and
teaching standards. The BTSA program of this study has long been recognized as a leader
in the practice of new teacher support. From the district perspective, South County is
typical of California schools in many respects, e. g. demographics, including numbers of
English Language Learners and students living in poverty, a high percentage of teachers

without a teaching credential, and limited financial resources.

29

South County also stands out as unique in three important ways. First, the district
was an early participant in the local BTSA program, thus principals have had extensive
experience in/with a highly regarded induction program. Secondly, the district is
committed to an innovative growth-oriented teacher evaluation process that encourages
dialogue between principals and new teachers around learning goals identified at the
onset of each school year. Finally, the district encourages the use of the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession in guiding both new teacher assistance and
assessment — a stance supported by the local BTSA program.

As an original BTSA pilot site that has a long tradition of taking new teachers and
their learning seriously, the South County School District makes for a good case study.
Because principals in this district are actively immersed in doing what induction
advocates propose, it is worthwhile to learn what we can from their work with new
teachers and mentors. I elaborate on the site and participants at the conclusion of this
chapter.

Data Collection

While this study draws primarily on principal interview data, three additional
sources of supplementary or secondary data were collected: interviews with select
mentor/novice pairs, interviews with program personnel, and relevant artifacts of
practice.

Principal Interviews

The primary data on which this study rests is a series of three semi—structured

interviews conducted with the four principals in the study.6 These interviews — roughly

based on Seidman’s ( 1991) approach to phenomenological interviewing — were designed

30

to capture personal background, biography and context, as well as understandings about
new teachers and their mentors, the processes of beginning teaching and mentoring, and
the functions of new teacher support and evaluation. All interviews were conducted on
separate occasions over a four-month period of time. Two of the interviews were on-site
and one was by phone, all averaging an hour in length. Periodic e-mail correspondence
was also used as an ongoing data source over the course of study; however, this form of
communication did not work very well. Participant replies were short and often delayed
and in some cases my questions went unanswered.

In addition to this highly focused set of three interviews conducted during spring
and summer 2001, I presented descriptive mini-cases to each principal during spring
2002 to read, after which we talked on—site about their impressions. Less structured than
the other interviews, I used this occasion to fill in gaps, confirm hunches, test hypotheses.
Over all, participants agreed with my portrayal of them. Although they were not always
comfortable with my account of their actions, they were unanimous in feeling that the
written case was accurate and true to their experience. Additional data included
introductory interviews (1-2 per participant) collected prior to the initiation of this
project, as part of the larger induction study from which this research evolved. As a
result, interviews were collected across three separate school years, unintentionally
yielding a data set with longitudinal characteristics. The interview schedule is

summarized in Table 1.

K

6 . . . -
Intervrew protocols are included tn Appendix B.

31

Table 1:
Principal Interview Schedule

 

Event

Date

Purpose of the Interview

 

Program Study
Interview #1

March, 1999

Exploratory interview with select group of
principals for purpose of understanding principal
role in induction program.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Program Study December, 1999 Program—based interview (based on earlier

Interviews version) with random group of principals. Follow-

#1 and #2 up interviews with earlier respondents for the
purpose of filling in gaps and clarifying emerging
issues.

Dissertation April, 2001 This interview focused on principal’s professional

Interview #1 background and experience as teachers and
administrators.

Dissertation May, 2001 This interview targeted principal’s beliefs and

Interview #2 reported practice with new teachers and their
mentors.

Dissertation June, 2001 This interview asked principal’s to reflect on their

Interview #3 beliefs about school culture and leadership.
Vignettes were used to prompt principal thinking
on the tension between assistance and assessment.

Case-based May, 2002 Principals were given a descriptive mini-case to

Interview read and respond to. This interview was less

 

 

structured than earlier ones. The purpose was to
fill in gaps, confirm hunches, test hypotheses.

 

32

 

During data analyses I drew equally on all interviews and in fact, found the
contrast across three school years to provide an interesting perspective on what it means
to learn how to support new teachers, particularly when you are a new principal, as two
were. The primary advantage of using a semi-structured protocol was that the questions
asked were consistent across the participants and fit the conceptual framework and
research questions guiding the study. A distinct disadvantage, however, was that my
questions at times put boundaries around the conversation. The formality of being in the
“principal’s office,” under time restraints, during the workday made this even more
pronounced.

Mentor and Novice Interviews, including Evaluation Records

Separate semi-structured interviews were also conducted with a mentor and
novice for each participating principal. In three instances the mentors and novices were
participants in the larger study as part of a longitudinal look at new teacher development.
In the fourth case, previous data has been collected for the mentor, but not the new
teacher. Additionally, each novice provided two years of evaluation records completed by
the principal and on file in the district office. These data points were used as
supplementary data sources to confirm/disconfirm preliminary findings and extend
understandings of principals’ work.

District and Program Personnel Interviews

To better understand the shaping influence of the district and program on these
principals, short focused interviews were conducted with key informants. These included
the induction program director and associate director, and a personnel director at the

district office. Each of these interviews was designed to serve a dual purpose. One, to

33

address the issues raised in this study and two, to provide background information for the
larger program study.
Select Artifacts of Practice

Finally, a variety of print documents and artifacts were collected to add color and
context to the stories told. Principals were asked to provide print materials that helped put
their work in context. Documents provided included parent newsletters and staff
handbooks, as well as copies of grant proposals and performance appraisals.
Transforming the Data: Description, Analysis and Interpretation

My approach to working with the data mirrors the three interrelated tasks
proposed by Wolcott (1995) when transforming data: description, analysis and
interpretation. Initial attempts to work with the data were heavily weighted toward
description and beginning analysis. As much as possible, efforts to interpret the data were
held at bay until analysis was nearing completion. Throughout, I relied on the techniques
of grounded theory to identify, develop and test study findings (Strauss & Corbin, 1994;
Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Although my early conceptual work (see Carver, 2000) provided
a needed framework, I was equally mindful of stepping back from the data periodically to
see new insights emerge. Over time, the iterative process of going back and forth between
the literature and the data helped to strengthen descriptions, as well as surface surprises
and tensions between the literature and the data. While this process was far from neat and
tidy, my journey followed a predictable path.

In early analysis my goal was to describe, with sufficient detail, what I knew
about each principal, including background, training, and experience. The principal

interview protocols served as outlines for these initial data reports. I used these early

reports to develop and refine questions for each successive round of interviews. In
addition to developing descriptive accounts of each individual, I used early cuts through
the data to identify broad patterns and themes that cut across the four cases. For example,
after each set of interviews the audiotapes were summarized and themes identified both
within and across individual cases. Most of the time these matched with my original
framing of the research problem, e. g. the reported tension between assistance and
assessment. Occasionally they did not, so new categories were added, e. g. when mentor
experience emerged as a relevant aspect of one’s professional background. Sometimes
emergent themes resulted from a pattern; other times from a break in the pattern. From
the beginning, I was writing memos to myself about what I saw in the data, thoughts on
the strength of the evidence, findings to test.

As time passed and the interviews were completed and transcribed, my efforts to
understand the data became less descriptive and more analytic, as well as more focused.
Using my research questions as a rough guide, I wrote memos to myself which
highlighted emergent ideas and questions, e. g. the different ways that principals talked
with mentors about the novice; the role of teaching experience and personal commitments
in principal thinking about new teacher support. At the same time, I examined the new
teacher and mentor interviews and evaluation records for confirming and disconfirming
evidence, always looking for patterns. Although this collection of memos varied in
length, quality and ultimate utility, collectively they helped me to identify the ways in
which the four principals were similar and different from one another. To push my

thinking even further, graphic displays of the data were created to accompany these

35

memos (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This strategy was particularly helpful in allowing me
to see connections between otherwise distinct ideas.

Notably, it was in this phase of mid—analysis that I decided to separate principals’
work with new teachers from their work with mentors. My original research question
looked at these two tasks as one, yet as the analyses unfolded it became clear that
principals’ work with new teachers was very different from their work with mentors, both
in nature and intent. As a result, different analytic frameworks were needed for each
question. This prompted me to go back to the literature, reading and re—reading on
emergent themes. Gradually, the memos began to integrate literature and data.

As I entered final data analysis, a more systematic approach to data reduction was
needed. Drawing on the literature, interview protocols and growing list of emergent
themes, I identified eight categories of data that were critical to answering my research
questions. They included 1) leadership background; 2) teaching background; 3) school
description; 4) new teacher support tasks; 5) other considerations related to new teacher
support; 6) working with mentors; 7) understanding of new teacher learning needs; 8)
underlying conceptions. Using techniques of grounded theory, I coded each principal
interview, one line at a time, according to these eight categories, further sub-dividing text
as needed (see Appendix C). New descriptors were added as they emerged, e. g.
separating school mission from principal vision. The coded data was then transferred into
NUD*IST, a qualitative data management software program that enabled me to easily
compare and contrast codes within and across individual data sets — a significant

advantage given the quantity of data in my care.

36

I was now ready to draft text for each principal that would be both descriptive and
analytic in nature. Using my newly revised and expanded research questions as an
outline, I wrote mini—cases for each principal that drew upon the newly coded data. For
example, to address the question of principals’ efforts to support new teachers through
recruitment, hiring and placement, I was able to draw on just the data addressing that
issue. This systematic process allowed me to be comprehensive in my description and
more analytic in my explanation, as it helped me to compare and contrast the data within
and across cases. In addition, it helped to illuminate areas of strength, as well as notable
gaps in the evidence. I presented these cases to the principals in May, 2002.

In final analysis I looked across these separate analyses to test findings and see
relationships in new ways. Always, attempts at answering the “so what” question were
bold and yet tentative in my work. Is this really what I am seeing? What are the
theoretical implications of this work? Like Wolcott (1994), my goal was to “open things
up ” rather than “seal them ofif. ”

Site and Participants: Typical/Ordinary or Atypical/Extraordinary?

Case study design allows us to examine a phenomenon in its natural setting —
phenomenon that can range from the typical and ordinary to that which lies at the
“leading edge of change ” (Schofield, 1990). Notably, this case study explores what is
possible once thoughtful, serious and ambitious induction and mentoring programs take
hold in ordinary settings. Though at times these four principals appear exceptional, within
their home settings they are acting as expected. One goal of this analysis is to make
visible and explicit the typical/atypical; ordinary/extraordinary things these four

principals’ do on behalf of beginning teachers and their mentors. In the section that

37

follows I highlight key aspects of induction policy in California and in the South County
School District — home to the four elementary principals of this study. I conclude by
introducing each of these principals and identifying some interesting commonalities
among them.
Induction Policy in California
California has long been looked to for its efforts to craft policy that support
teacher learning and development.7 Through the Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment (BTSA) program, “an intensive induction experience consisting of formative
assessment, individual support, advanced study, and frequent reflection on the practice of
teaching” (CTC/CDE, 1998, p. 3), all new teachers in the state are guaranteed two years
of mentored support.8 As stated in the original legislation,
Teaching is a complex, demanding profession that is learned over the course of
several years of study, consultation and reflective practice... the Legislature finds
and declares that the performance of students and beginning teachers improves
substantially as a result of training that is appropriate for novices, intensive
assistance by mentors who are carefully selected and trained, and accurate

assessments of new teachers’ professional practices (Chapter 1245, Statutes of
1992, Section 15b, reprinted in Bartell & Ownby, 1994, p. 1).

From the beginning, emphasis was placed on developing a standards-based
program to complement the teacher credential system, thereby joining the functions of
new teacher support and assessment. To this end, the Standards of Quality and
Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Programs (CTC/CDE.

1997b), a set of thirteen program standards, were developed alongside the California

 

7 Efforts in addition to BTSA include the California Mentor Teacher Project. more recently replaced by the
Peer Assistance and Review program, legislation mandating class-size reduction in the primary grades, as
well as ongoing efforts to implement an accountability system based on standards for both student

academic achievement and teacher performance.

8 BTSA legislation grew out of the successful pilot work of the California New Teacher Project, first
authorized in 1988. Through the years the BTSA program has gradually expended to reach greater numbers '

38

Standards for the Teaching Profession (CTC/CDE, 1997a). The latter is to be used in
conjunction with new teacher formative assessment, a required component of BTSA
programs. Both were written to provide local districts with a common vision and
language for induction.

More recently, the state adopted a two-tier credential system that requires teacher
candidates to earn a baccalaureate degree, demonstrate competence in subject matter
knowledge and basic skills, and complete an approved professional preparation program
before receiving a preliminary certificate. Following employment, new teachers are then
required to participate in an induction program, be formally assessed and develop an
individual growth plan before a “clear” or continuing professional credential is granted.
Technically, all new teachers in California who participate in BTSA meet these
requirements.

Califomia’s proactive stance toward new teacher support and development is
critical. In the last decade California schools have legitimately earned their reputation as
being resource poor. Due to a rapidly growing student population, coupled with the after
effects of class size reduction, the state now employs 40% more teachers than it did just
ten years ago. This trend is expected to continue as roughly half of the state’s teachers are
45 years or older (Shields, Esch, Humphrey, Young, Gaston & Hunt, 1999). California
schools now hire close to 30,000 teachers annually, a figure that is expected to increase to
36,000 for the year 2007 (Shields et al., 1999). Given these numbers, should it be
surprising to find that 10% of Califomia’s new hires work on emergency permit? Add to

this an attrition rate of 30-50% during the early years and the magnitude of the problem

 

of districts and thus new teachers. In 1990, newly elected Governor Gray Davis sponsored landmark
legislation making BTSA available to all new teachers in California by 2002.

39

becomes clear. California schools are forced to absorb an overwhelming number of new
teachers each year, of which many are under-qualified.
Unique Features of the Local BTSA Program

The local BTSA collaborative referenced in this study dates back to 1988 as an
original pilot site with the California New Teacher Project.9 In the years since it has
become a state and national leader in the research and development of induction
programming. Arguably, their success and longevity are changing how local teachers and
administrators think about teaching and learning (Carver & Feiman-Nemser, 2000).
Funded through a combination of state and local contributions, the program operates on a
budget of $5,300 per new teacher.'0 This allows for mentors to be full-time released from
classroom duties for two or more years; it also supports an administrative staff devoted to
the development of mentor training, mentoring strategies, new teacher seminars, and
overall program development. At the heart of their efforts lies an elaborate set of
formative assessment strategies for use by mentors with novices that address state and
district content standards, as well as the California teaching standards (Feiman-Nemser,
2001). Although state guidelines prevent mentors from engaging in summative
evaluation, they are expected to conduct ongoing formative assessment with the novice.

Because the local BTSA operates independent of the state and participating
districts, it has a good deal of autonomy in its work. Ultimately, this arrangement allows
the program to sidestep other pressing matters in order to concentrate solely on

promoting new teacher development appropriate to local needs (Carver & Feiman-

 

9 In order to better protect the identity of these principals, I intentionally avoid disclosing information that
might identify the local BTSA program. I do so believing that this study is less about the local BTSA, as it
is the possibilities open to all BTSA programs given the nature of state policy as it pertains to induction and
mentoring.

40

Nemser, 2000). However, this may also explain the lack of attention given to the role of
the site administrator, for principals’ fall within district domain. Although principals are
expected to support the program and be available for periodic conferencing with the
mentor, including articulate school goals, mission and needs, the program literature does
not spell out a formal role for principals’ efforts vis a vis new teachers and their mentors.

It is also important to note that the local BTSA has strong ties to the nearby
University of California campus. Although the local BTSA was from the beginning a
collaborative venture connecting area districts with the university and county office of
education, the leadership driving its early development came directly from the local UC
system. As a result, there is a seamless quality between preservice education and
induction in many area schools. This is particularly true of the South County Schools.
South County School District

South County District is a large, sprawling rural district on the edge of
Califomia’s central valley. The challenges faced by South County mirror those around
the state. The district enrolls 19,902 students, divided among 1,079 teachers and 29
schools.ll Within the four schools of this study, 88% of students are Hispanic/Latino,
76% have limited English proficiency, 78% qualify for free or reduced lunch rates, and
40% are classified as migrant. The two schools in this sample with the highest numbers
of non-English speaking children are struggling to meet state targets on the Academic
Performance Index (API), which is based on standardized test scores in English. To meet
these challenges, South County — with the help of the area University of California

campus — has made a long-standing commitment to teacher professional development.

 

’0 This amount is based on 2000/01 figures.
” Figures are based on the 1999/2000 school year.

41

We see this in their conunitment to new teacher support, their use of professional
teaching standards, and their development of a growth-oriented teacher evaluation
process.
Commitment to New Teacher Induction

South County is an original partner in the local Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment (BTSA) consortium, now in its fourteenth year. All new teachers in the
district receive two years of integrated support and formative assessment from support
providers or mentors who are full-time released. These mentors receive rigorous training
and ongoing support while in the mentor role. Key to their work is a series of formative
assessment tasks, guided by Individual Learning Plans designed around the California
teaching standards. Much of the pilot work around formative assessment took place in the
South County schools with the assistance of district teachers released to work as BTSA
mentors.
Growth—Oriented Teacher Evaluation

Nearly a decade ago, South County revamped its teacher evaluation process to
promote ongoing inquiry, data gathering and reflection among all teachers. New teachers
are required to complete three formal principal observations with pre and post
conferencing. These observations are assessed according to learning goals developed
jointly between the novice and principal using the California teaching standards. Each
fall, BTSA mentors play a central role in helping their novices develop these standards-
based Individual Learning Plans, which in turn form the basis of their principal

observations during the year. As the year proceeds, mentors are expected to review

42

progress toward stated goals with the novice. Notably, these “internal reviews” are timed
to coincide with the dates of principals’ formal evaluation cycle.
Use of Professional Teaching Standards

Linking the functions of new teacher support and evaluation are the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession. These six standards, based on the effective
teaching literature, include: 1) engaging and supporting all students in learning; 2)
creating and maintaining effective environments for student learning; 3) understanding
and organizing subject matter for student learning; 4) planning instruction and designing
learning experiences for all students; 5) assessing student learning; 6) developing as a
professional educator. Viewed collectively, the standards provide a common language for
discussions about good teaching. As mentioned previously, these standards are central to
the ongoing work of BTSA mentors in this district, as well as guide the principal
evaluation process.

South County has been innovative, responsive, and visionary in their district level
response to the need for beginning teacher support. Although funds are tight, they
willingly contribute $2,100 per new teacher, straight from district coffers.‘2 When it
comes time to release bright veteran teachers to assume the role of mentor, district
administrators do so willingly. Equally important, South County shares with the local
BTSA program a commitment to new teacher development through intensive mentoring
and growth—oriented evaluation. Additionally, they share a common set of professional
teaching standards, used to guide and inform ongoing formative and summative

assessments.

 

'2 Figures are based on the 2000/01 school year.

43

As for the four elementary schools in this study — Shining Star, Unity, Arts and
Valley — each is quite similar to the other. The student populations are roughly equal in
size and demographics. In addition to the principal, each school has an assistant principal
whose duties vary according to school need. In two schools the assistant principal
doubles as an instructional specialist. However, in all four schools the principal is
presumed the school head and considered responsible for issues of new teacher support
and evaluation. In addition, all four schools are connected to one or more local teacher
preparation institutions, thus host preservice candidates at various stages of readiness.
Finally, all schools are involved in at least one district-based initiative that focuses the
school mission. Valley Elementary is working with the state and district on an under-
perforrning schools grant. Arts Elementary is a district pilot school for the Baldridge
model, a client-centered school improvement strategy adopted from the business world.
Unity Elementary is a dual-immersion charter school through the district. Shining Star
partnered with the local university to become a professional development school site with
a socio-cultural focus.
Introducing the Principals

The study was intentionally limited to a small cohort of elementary principals in
one district. I proposed looking at elementary only, as the demands of the job are
arguably different at the secondary level and likely to influence how roles are understood.
My goal was to keep the sample as homogenous as possible without losing perspective on
the relevant variation among participants. Gender, ethnicity and years of experience in
administration were distinguishing characteristics used to narrow the list of possible

participants, as was their reputation with the local induction program. Early in the study, I

44

assumed that experience working with new teachers, involvement with the local BTSA
collaborative, and teaching experience would all emerge as important variables. Because
I was already studying the site and had established a relationship with a small cohort of
principals, it made sense to begin looking there. Using intentional sampling, I selected
four individuals from an original pool of eleven. I was particularly careful to select
participants that varied in terms of teaching and administrative background, experience
working with new teachers, knowledge of the local BTSA program, as well as gender and
ethnicity. Without hesitation, all four principals agreed to participate. Each was offered a
two hundred dollar stipend as an incentive for participating.

As for the principals in this study, each would appear to an outsider as quite
ordinary. They anive early, leave late, give their best, care deeply and still have some
time left over to enjoy grandkids, surfing, camping, traveling. Still, because these
principals a) pay attention to their new teachers, b) work with skilled and knowledgeable
mentors, and c) operate within a supportive state and district context, they stand out as
atypical, even extraordinary. Collectively, they defy the stereotypical image of an
unhelpful, uncaring, unknowing principal. While we know principals like Maria, James,
Karen and Ramon exist in large and small, elementary and secondary schools around the
country, we have little understanding of what atypical, extraordinary principals do vis a
vis new teachers and their mentors.

Among the four participants, two are female (Maria, Karen) and two are male
(James, Ramon), two are Latino (Maria, Ramon) and two are White (James, Karen), two
are experienced (Maria, James) and two are new to the job (Karen, Ramon). All four

graduated from a state teacher preparation programs during the late 1970’s or early 1980’s,

45

each with bilingual certification. All four have at least seven years of classroom
experience in the district. Each has been a mentor to new teachers and now is a strong
advocate for mentoring. All, motivated by the desire to make a difference in the lives of
Latino kids, made a gradual transition from teacher to teacher leader to principal.
Notably, not one of these principals began their career thinking they might “grow up” to
be building administrators. Each actively promotes teacher collaboration in their building
and has a bottom line of improving student achievement. I introduce each briefly in the
text that follows (see also Table 2).

Maria

 

At the time the study began, Maria was in her fifth year as principal of Shining
Star Elementary, a Professional Development School associated with a local University
of California campus. She considers herself both an instructional leader and a “teacher’s
principal. ” She was a bilingual classroom teacher in the district for eleven years and also
worked extensively as a university-based teacher educator prior to joining Shining Star.
She frequently travels the state to make presentations on behalf of the school, particularly
around issues of diversity and equity. By the time the study was completed, Maria had
earned her Ph.D. in Educational Leadership. Maria is a former BTSA mentor.
lam

James was finishing his eleventh year as principal of Unity Elementary School
when the study began. Unlike other elementary schools in the district, Unity is under a
charter agreement to better meet the curricular needs of its large Spanish-speakin g
population. James was a classroom teacher in the district for seven years, as well as a

combined resource/head teacher before assuming administrator status. James received his

46

 

administrative credential and served briefly as an assistant principal in one of the district
middle schools prior to joining Unity. James provided leadership to the development of
the new teacher evaluation process for the district and has been a long-standing supporter
of the local BTSA program.
Karen

Karen, beginning her first year as principal at Arts Elementary when the study
began, spent four years as a BTSA mentor prior to assuming administrative work. Of the
four principals, Karen taught the longest, having logged sixteen years in the classroom.
As a first year principal, Karen received one-to—one coaching from a veteran
administrator in the area. At that time, she shared that one of the most difficult aspects of
being an administrator was learning to be more direct with teachers about their
performance. According to Karen, her principal mentor saw her as too much of a
“coach”, a role she attributed learning from her experience with BTSA.
Ema

Ramon, also new to administration, has deep roots in the community. He attended
Valley Elementary — the school he now leads — as a child. After receiving his teacher
certification he returned as an upper grades teacher. For the next ten years he was actively
involved with migrant children and their families as a classroom teacher. Ramon was
ending his first year as principal at Valley Elementary when the study began. Notably, he
was replacing a principal who was widely regarded as a strong instructional leader, at a
time when the school was under fire from the state and district to raise student test scores.
Further complicating matters, he inherited a staff where one-third were new to teaching.

Like many novices, he was admittedly overwhelmed by the job. He credits BTSA

47

mentors for providing critical assistance to the ten beginning teachers in his building and

for giving him valuable feedback on their experiences in the school.

Table 2:

Principal Profiles (for 2001/2002)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Principal School Mission Administrative Teaching Mentoring
Background Background Experience
Maria Shining Star 6 years, all at 1 1 years in Kinder 1 year as BTSA
Elementary, 3 Shining Star. and I" grades, all mentor, 3 years as
Professional Former teacher/ in district. teacher educator at
Development staff development local U of CA
School with the coordinator at campus.
local U of CA Shining Star.
campus
James Unity 13 years total in 7 years in 4m and Former CMTP
Elementary, a the district, 1 l at 5’h grades, 3 years mentor.
dual immersion Unity. as resource/head
charter school teacher, all in
district.
Karen Arts Elementary 3 years total in the 16 years total, 14 4 years as part-
district, 2 years at in district. time BTSA
Arts. mentor. Host to
student teachers.
Ramon Valley 4 years total in the 10 years in 4‘h and Former CMTP
Elementary district, 2 years at 5‘“ grades, all in mentor. Host to
Valley. district. student teachers.
ABBREVIATION NOTES:

 

BTSA: Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program
CMTP: California Mentor Teacher Project

Shared Commitments

Although noticeably different from one another in gender, ethnicity and years of

administrative experience, each of these principals share some important things in

common: the desire to make a difference in the lives of “these” kids; a commitment to

classroom teaching; a gradual transition to formal leadership; and the experience of being

a new teacher mentor -- aspects that will be explored more completely in subsequent

chapters.

48

 

C_areer Choice: Motivated to Make a Difference

Each of these principals was motivated by a desire to make a difference early in
their career. All four speak Spanish fluently and are driven by a desire to promote social
justice through academic learning for bilingual children. Although each has taken a
unique path toward the principalship, there are remarkable similarities in their choices.
First, all four principals -- roughly the same age, each a baby boomer — are products of an
era. Each grew up during a turbulent and political time in our nation’s history. As a
Latina woman, Maria was active in organizing central coast migrant farm workers along
side Ceasar Chavez. James was encouraged by a high school teacher to make a difference
in his life by serving others — a call to service he took to heart. Ramon began his
professional career assisting school children of migrant farm workers in the area. Karen,
a European immigrant, knew first hand what it was like to move to a place where the
language and culture were different.

Second, their degree and subsequent career choices reflect a commitment to
service and education. This was not a time of known teacher shortage in California,
although the need for bilingual teachers in rural districts like South County was
presumably strong. All graduated from the university with teaching credentials in the late
70’s or early 80’s: two with degrees in education, the other two with degrees in sociology
to which they quickly added teaching credentials. Three received teaching credentials
from the local University of California campus known for its liberal-leaning teacher

preparation program.

49

 

Extended Teaching Experience

A second commonality among the principals was their long commitment to
classroom teaching. The least amount of accrued time goes to James, who taught fourth
and fifth grade for seven years, then spent three more years as a combined bilingual
resource teacher and head teacher — a total of ten years closely connected to the
classroom. Next in line is Maria, who accumulated eleven years of classroom time. She
also taught for a number of years in an early childhood program before completing her
teaching credential and moving in to the K-12 system. Her classroom experience was in
Kindergarten and first grade. Similarly, Ramon totals eleven classroom years in a series
of district schools, all in the fourth and fifth grades. In these positions he took an active
interest in advocating for the needs of migrant children and their families. Finally, Karen
stands out for a grand total of sixteen years, including one year as a resource teacher.

Together, these principals accrued forty-seven years of teaching wisdom, for an
average of nearly twelve years each. This long-standing commitment to the practice of
teaching is particularly important given that these are a) experienced bilingual teachers;
b) who showed a commitment to teaching in an under-served region. As important, these
principals are “home grown” products of the system that first socialized them into the
teaching profession.
9135111111 Transition from Teaching to Leading

None of these four individuals began teaching with the dream that they would one
day become principals. Gradually, each assumed greater leadership responsibility. Over

time this led to others encouragement to pursue administrative work and a personal

50

acknowledgement that being a principal was another way of enacting their “teaching”
commitment to Spanish-speaking kids.

After only seven years in the classroom, James was selected to served as
combined bilingual resource and head teacher — a position that he looks back on now as a
cheap version of a principal. It was during these years that he pursued an administrative
credential. Maria left teaching initially to work with teacher candidates at the local
University of California campus. Through this connection she became part of a
collaborative working group that designed a Professional Development School between
South County and the university. After a short stint as teacher and professional
development coordinator at this site, she assumed full-time duties as principal — a
position she holds today. Ramon also comes to administration in a gradual way. It took
the encouragement of peers and a successful seven-year run as head teacher of a migrant
summer school program for him to seriously consider an administrative position. In fact,
after his first assistant principal position ,which he held for only one year, he actually
returned to the classroom, only to find he missed administrative work. Karen, who taught
the longest, also took the most gradual entry to administration. It wasn’t until four years
of involvement with the local BTSA program — during which she opted to maintain part-
time teaching responsibilities — that she even considered the possibility of the
principalship.

Interestingly, these four individuals differ in their approach to formal education.
Ramon has a master’s degree above and beyond coursework leading to an administrative
credential and Maria was working on a doctorate in educational leadership and

administration at the time of data collection. That said, all four attended different

51

institutions to get their administrative credential. The motivation for their respective
choices seemed to be largely convenience. Who was offering extended campus, on-site
certification programs at the times they needed them? Whose program was the most
affordable? Whose expectations seemed most reasonable? In each case, principals
reported coursework toward the administrative credential as more perfunctory than
meaningful.
Experience as Former Mentors

Most surprising in the profile was the revelation that each of these principals
assumed the formal role of mentor as some prior date. James and Ramon were both
mentors under the original California Mentor Teacher Project, which has now been
replaced by BTSA. In addition, Ramon has supervised student teachers for two local
colleges. Maria and Karen had more recent appointments in the local BTSA program
where both served as new teacher mentors. At the same time she served as a mentor,
Maria worked as a clinical instructor in the local University of California teacher
preparation program. The experience of being a new teacher mentor is likely to have
drawn their attention to the developmental needs of new teachers and given them a sense
of perspective and respect for the work of mentors. Even without formal training or
compensation, like Ramon and James, this experience conceivably shaped the lens
through which they think about and practice new teacher support and evaluation.

In addition, Karen and Ramon, as new principals, are being mentored through the
administrative mentoring program offered by the local BTSA program to all new

principals. Each meets regularly with their new principal mentor to discuss ongoing

52

problems, concerns and issues. The experience of being mentored likely adds new depth
to their framing of the issue.

In the pages that follow, I trace for the reader my thinking and understanding as it
evolved during the course of this study. I do so intentionally. Presenting the data in a
logical and orderly fashion aids the reader, and it gives natural structure to a complex set
of story lines. Perhaps more importantly, it allows the story to tell itself. The data
reported here challenges conventional wisdom and stated policy. Rather than keeping
their distance, these four principals find ways of working with new teachers and their
mentors, arguing that it is good for the novice and imperative for students.

Although the sample size is too small for generalizing to larger populations, and
the date is naturally limited by what can be learned through self-report, there is still much
we can Ieam about the nature of this work from the thinking of four principals who take

the task of new teacher support seriously.

53

 

Chapter 3:
Beliefs about New Teacher Support, Development and Evaluation

When a practitioner reflects in and on his practice, the possible objects of his

reflection are as varied as the kinds of phenomena before him and the systems of

knowing-in-practice which he brings to them. He may reflect on the tacit norms

and appreciations which underlie a judgment, or on the strategies and theories

implicit in a pattern of behavior. He may reflect on the feeling for a situation

which has led him to adopt a particular course of action, on the way in which he

has framed the problem he is trying to solve, or on the role he has constructed for

himself within a larger institutional context (Schon, 1983, p. 62).

Chapter Overview

This chapter is framed by two questions: 1) What underlying assumptions about
beginning teaching, mentoring and instructional leadership guide and shape principals’
work with new teachers? 2) Where do the ideas and beliefs that underlie and shape
principal thinking and reported practice vis a vis new teachers come from? Proceeding
one case at a time, I examine the underlying assumptions, ideas and beliefs about
beginning teaching, mentoring and instructional leadership that guide and shape how
Maria and James, Karen and Ramon work with new teachers and their mentors. A
summary of each individual’s background, including teaching experience and
administrative preparation, reveals the similar commitments and motivations each brings
to the work. Nonetheless, three significant differences emerge from the data: the role
played by school context, principals’ understanding of new teacher learning needs, and
principals’ preferences and skill as instructional leaders.

The Role of Belief in Guiding Principals’ Work

How do principals make decisions in the fast-paced world of school

administration? On what basis do they make judgements regarding the use of time,

54

money and personnel, particularly as it impacts new teachers? This chapter presumes that
what principals do is influenced and shaped by their beliefs and assumptions, motivations
and commitments. To that end, this chapter has two goals. First, to make explicit the
underlying conceptions of beginning teaching, mentoring and school leadership that
guide the work Maria and James, Karen and Ramon describe engaging in with new
teachers and their mentors. Second, to explore where the ideas and beliefs that undergird
and shape principal thinking and reported practice vis a vis new teachers come from.

The terms assumption, conception and belief are used interchangeably to describe
the set of ideas, many of which are tacit, that give warrant for concrete behavior. While
participant responses are essentially descriptive, by comparing and contrasting study data
to the relevant literature I am able to make normative claims that are suggestive of more
or less effective practices. For example, we may find that a principal who sees her new
teachers as beginners, distinct from more experienced staff, also adjusts her performance
expectations accordingly during the evaluation process. This same principal may also
express a desire to use evaluation as a growth tool as opposed to a gate-keeping
mechanism. Since we can reasonably argue that performance evaluation oriented toward
learning and developmentally appropriate in expectation is more likely to promote
improved practice, it then suggests that an understanding of new teachers as Ieamers and
beginners is foundational to effective principal practice.

One benefit of a belief framework is that it allows us to map both forward and
backward, from belief to action and from action to belief. So while understanding that
new teachers are Ieamers and beginners is likely to lead to more effective responses, what

we consider to be best practice is just as likely to be influenced and/or shaped by

55

corresponding beliefs about beginning teaching and mentoring. In this chapter I draw
almost entirely upon principal interviews. When possible, I will look to observation and
print artifacts, as well as mentor and novice interviews, for instantiation of these beliefs
in the principal’s described practice.

Theoretically, this research draws on the work of Schon (1983; 1990) and
(Argyris & Schon, 1974) to explicate a tentative theory of professional practice with
respect to new teacher support, development and assessment by principals. To that end,
this chapter specifically probes the values and insights, beliefs and commitments of four
individuals who aspire to take new teachers seriously.

Proposed Framework of Beliefs

For this analysis I have grouped principal beliefs into three categories, which
corresponds with the three strands of literature upon which this study is based. These
include: 1) beliefs about new teachers; including new teachers as Ieamers, beginners and
members of a faculty; 2) beliefs about mentoring; including mentoring as a practice and
the tension between assistance and assessment; and 3) beliefs about school leadership,
including principals’ understanding of instructional leadership and teacher professional
community.

Beliefs aLbout New Teachers

The first category of belief looks at the perceptions principals have of new
teachers as beginners, Ieamers and members of a faculty. It begins by examining what
principals expect new teachers to know and be able to do. From there it explores what
principals believe new teachers most need to learn, including how they best learn that and

who they consider most responsible for facilitating that learning.

56

Although novices are new to the profession they are frequently expected to
assume full membership at the site level. For example, new teachers are often tapped to
be committee members, to advise grade level groups, or to coach an athletic team -
assignments that are frequently made in the principal’s office. These out-of-the-
classroom responsibilities serve as a means of professional socialization. This section of
the belief framework looks specifically at the working and learning conditions that
principals consider necessary for new teachers to be successful and to what extent they
see themselves responsible for this. It asks: What working (or learning) conditions do
principals feel are necessary for new teachers to be successful? And, in what ways do
principals see their work with new teachers as similar to and/or different from that of

veteran teachers?

 

Beliefs about New Teachers

As Members ofa Faculty...
V What do principals expect new teachers to know and be able to do?

As Learners...

V What do principals believe new teachers most need to Ieam?

V How do principals believe new teachers learn that?

V Who do principals consider responsible for facilitating that learning?

As Beginners...

V What working (or learning) conditions do principals feel are necessary for new
teachers to be successful?

V In what ways do principals see their work with new teachers as similar to and/or
different from that of veteran teachers?

 

 

Beliefs about Inductiorgnd Mentoring
Similar to their work with new teachers, principals approach their work with

mentors based on a set of guiding assumptions. Broadly speaking, this category uncovers

57

the conceptions principals have about mentors’ work with new teachers and school
leaders. Included is how principals think about induction. Is it a formal program, a phase
in a teacher’s career, and/or a process of socialization? Further, what role do principals
see themselves playing in induction?

This section of the framework also examines principals’ understanding of the
tension between offering assistance to their newest recruits and holding them accountable
for good work — an area of potential conflict between mentors who traditionally assist and
principals who traditionally assess. One of the most commonly recognized tensions in the
mentoring literature and, to a somewhat lesser extent the teacher evaluation literature, it
is commonly thought that principals who consider themselves instructional leaders are
particularly prone to feeling this tension when fulfilling their role as an evaluator. This
inquiry tests this assumption. How do principals manage the role conflict between being

an instructional leader and a formal assessor?

 

Beliefs about Induction and Mentoring

Perspectives on Induction...

V How do principals understand and define induction, e.g. as a formal program,
phase of time in a teacher’s career, process of socialization?

V What do principals see as their role in induction?

Understandings of Mentors’ Work...
V How do principals understand mentors’ work with new teachers?
V How do principals understand mentors’ work with principals?

Balancing between Assistance and Assessment...
V How do principals manage the tension between being an instructional leader
and a formal assessor?

 

 

58

Beliefs about School Leadership

Finally, principals’ work is likely shaped by how they see themselves as school—
based leaders. For example, do they see themselves as instructional leaders and if so,
what kind of instructional leader? The literature has long promoted instructional
leadership as an ideal, yet one study after another has found this notion to be flawed.
Presumably, principals who show an interest in the needs of beginning teachers are likely
to take their role in teacher instructional development seriously. Does this assumption
hold true with these data? Additionally, this section explores principals’ beliefs about
teacher community and school culture. It asks: What beliefs about school and faculty

community/culture do principals hold?

 

Beliefs about School Leadership

Beliefs about Instructional Leadership...
V How do principals see themselves as school leaders?
V How do principals see themselves as instructional leaders?

Beliefs about Professional Community and Culture...
V What beliefs about school and faculty community/culture do principals hold?

 

 

Framework Summ_a_ry

In summary, this chapter seeks to understand the complexity of principal thinking
around three categories of belief that are foundational to the work of new teacher support,
development and assessment. Because of the prominence of the principal role in schools
and the rise of formal induction programming with mentoring as a core component, it is

important that we begin to sort through this maze. Although the study is small in scope, it

59

provides a unique opportunity to probe principal thinking in ways that have not
previously been explored empirically.

Each case begins with a summary of the individual’s background, including
teaching experience and administrative preparation, relevant details about their school
context and their relationship to the district and induction program. A reporting of beliefs
about beginning teaching, mentoring and school leadership follows. Finally, the
individual cases conclude with reflective comments on what each considers good or
effective teaching, as well as the importance of mentored support for new teachers.

The Case of Maria: Protecting New Teachers as Learners

Maria came to Shining Star Elementary from the local University of California
campus where she had been supervising student teachers as a member of the clinical
faculty. When plans were drawn to make Shining Star a professional development school
site, Maria knew she wanted to be part of it. In the fall of 1997, just five years into her
tenure at Shining Star, Maria assumed the role of principal. As she tells the story,

I had been working on my administrative credential and after the third principal

left [in three or four years], I felt, all of us felt that this school needed some

stability. I knew that I could step in and do it. So I kind of stepped in. We had
done so much good work. I knew that if we went through another principal and

had to start over again the work would just be ground zero. So at that point I

made the decision to step into the position. I applied and I got the job (3/01).

Maria’s first assignment at Shining Star was as a first grade teacher. In this role she
worked side by side with a number of her former university students. Three years later
she became the school’s Professional Development Coordinator where she again
supervised local student teachers and served as a new teacher mentor for the local

Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) program. Maria continues to guard

and protect this non-classroom position, now held by Kathryn, convinced that on-site

6O

professional development and mentoring for all teachers is critical to the school’s

success.

I wish every school could have an on-site support office. I mean, it ’s a teaching

support office for anyone, whether you’re one or you ’re twenty [ years experience]

And it ’s that informal support. I also say it ’s that “got a minute ” of informal

support that can push your practice (4/99).

As a school leader, Maria’s mission is to focus the school around socio-cultural
theory and culturally responsive pedagogy. In her words, “We ’re trying to build a model
professional development school around socio-cultural theory... You know, anti-bias,
anti-racist issues in education. ” Maria takes this task of creating a school based on
principles of equity seriously and it permeates all aspects of her work, from her
conversations with new teachers about maintaining high student expectations, to
negotiating work time so the custodian can play basketball after school with certified
staff.

Maria’s deep commitment to social justice and equal educational opportunity is
rooted in her own history as a Latina woman. She describes looking at the faces of her
students and thinking, “they ’re like my nieces and nephews... And when the parents walk
in, I see my brothers and my family. ” She continues,

As a member of the community these kids come from, I can ’t let it go. It is my

obligation to give them the best teachers. Maybe it ’s an issue of my background,

my race and culture. I know the urgency and I won ’t compromise my kids. They

are too far behind (6/01).

Although Maria’s preference is to teach at the university, until recently she did

61

not feel that was a viable option for her, a former classroom teacher.'3 Maria deliberately
chose administrative work because it provided her with an opportunity to make a
difference in the lives of more students.
The principalship is an opportunity to have more influence. The sphere of
influence is widened rather than just one classroom. At the university I felt that
working with preservice was very rewarding, but you don’t have the same impact
as you do on a school site, where you impact thirty teachers and all the kids in

each classroom. I felt that it was, and I don ’t mean that in a grandiose way, I
mean that in an opportunity to... directly impact the classroom and the kids

(3/01).

Maria received her administrative credential prior to assuming the principalship.
When asked about her formal preparation as an administrator, Maria’s response is
typical: “I don ’t think it was that great. But, I don ’t know that any are. ” Rather, Maria
credits her doctoral work in organizational and educational leadership, which was highly
situated in her work as principal, for influencing her practice as an administrator. “All of
the work that I’ve had there, every semester has been very applicable. ” Formal
preparation aside, Maria considers her many years in the classroom as the best
preparation of all for administrative work.

In five years, Maria has gained a reputation for her leadership skill and
collaborative spirit. We might credit some of this to her stance as a leader/learner. “One
of our beliefs is that we are a community of Ieamers and leaders. So everyone is a leader
and everyone is a learner and I try to model that. ”

Beliefs about Beginning Teaching
In the section that follows, we look specifically at Maria’s beliefs about beginning

teaching. Here we get a glimpse of how Maria sees her new teachers as beginners and

 

'3 Maria received her Ph.D. in Educational Leadership spring of 2002. Soon thereafter she was recruited by
a local university for a faculty position in educational administration. She resigned as principal of Shining

62

learners. Although Maria expects them to come as well—started novices, she also
understands that much of their learning is only just beginning. To optimize that learning
she is a champion of on-site, “got a minute ” support. She relies heavily on Kathryn,
Shining Star’s staff developer, to provide that kind of assistance. Maria’s primary role, as
principal, is to ensure that new teachers’ time and attention are protected so that they can
truly learn and grow as a teacher.
Expectations of New Teachers

In the hiring process, Maria looks for newcomers who know and understand basic
instructional strategies appropriate for culturally and linguistically diverse students. This
is on top of having a teaching credential and a congenial personality. She also looks for
new hires who will be committed to learning and practicing culturally relevant pedagogy.
Still, Maria does not view her newest teachers as finished products, ready to practice on
their own. “No matter how good preservice is, I beginning teachers] need a second set of
eyes and ears that first year to help them see what they see. ”
New Teacher Learning Needs

When asked what new teachers most need to learn, Maria’s three-part response
reflects the depth of her thinking. She begins by suggesting that beginners’ need to
literally break down and dissect discrete teaching skills,

Sometimes they have a global picture of teaching, but they don’t have the micro

skills. So, for instance, we 've been working a lot with them on classroom

management...they have a kind of global feeling about how to organize a

classroom for learning, both physically and socially... But they won’t have the

little nitty-gritty things like transition and momentum... It’s breaking down
teaching skills that are so important...so we fill in the gaps here with them (3799).

\

Star as the 2001-2002 school year closed.

63

 

She later adds the importance of situating this learning in real classrooms, with real
children. Maria understands that even when preservice candidates come well-prepared,
they are not able to “optimize” student learning until they have more experience. She
observes, “A veteran teacher doesn’t lose time. A veteran knows how to take advantage of
every second in that classroom. ”

Maria’s purpose for helping new teachers “articulate good teaching and
articulate what is happening at that precise moment that they are imparting knowledge”
is to ensure that they develop good habits. “I think it is critical that we help them before
their habits are entrenched and they revert back to the way they were taught. ” When she
is not able to do this herself, she looks to Kathryn, Shining Star’s on-site staff developer
and new teacher mentor, for help.

Instructional skill is not all that Maria wants her new teachers to learn. She is also
expecting emotional maturity to develop, although she is not certain she can accelerate
that process. She leans toward believing that one’s ability to roll with the punches and put
things into bigger perspective develops over time on its own accord.

I ’m wondering if that is just developmental, the maturity. Sometimes I feel like

I ’ve got this little elite group of prima donnas who can really teach. And they

should be cocky. You know, good teachers are cocky, I think. But I wonder if we

can ’t push that maturity level. I’m not sure we can (3/99).

A third area of development, leadership capacity, puzzles Maria. While she very
much wants to plant seeds of leadership in the beginning years, she does not want to

Compromise novices’ learning. We see just how seriously she takes new teachers and
their development in the following excerpt:

This past year I ’ve kind of thought privately about leadership capacity-building.

Is it appropriate? I ’m thinking, we have all these beginning teachers that we are
building leadership with. Which is fine and well, but shouldn ’t our priority be to

64

build up their subject matter knowledge? To build up their teaching repertoire?

When do we do that? The same time we build leadership? Part of me thinks,

sometimes, yes. Part of me thinks, no! I want you to be the best classroom teacher

and really show me that you know how to teach children at grade level. Then

we ’11 work on leadership. But I don ’t know. It’s still not resolved (5/02).

Clearly, Maria does not leave new teacher learning to chance. As will be
illustrated more fully in the next chapter, she and Kathryn take an active role in
supporting and developing their new teachers. Guiding this work are two core beliefs.
First, that learning has to be situated in context, “in individual teachers’ classrooms. ”
Second, that responsive support meets the varied needs of each individual. “So the
mentor may support one teacher one way, and another teacher another way. ”

New Teachers as Beginners

Maria understands that her new teachers are very much Ieamers. Though they
may be excellent beginning teachers, “there are still missed teaching and learning
opportunities.” They have learning needs that are different from their more experienced
peers; they need help to “see what they see.” When asked how long she thinks it takes for
someone to become a master teacher, Maria responds, “a minimum of four to five years,
and that ’s with strong support... [ without strong support] I would say five to seven. ” She
then adds,

That’s a lot of years when you ’ve got kids. I mean, how many teachers is that?

How many kids does that teacher see in seven years that it is not optimum

teaching? I don ’t think we can afford that anymore ( 5/01 ).

Maria sees her newest recruits as beginners and Ieamers. As newcomers they are

Very much a part of the existing faculty. As novices, they still have much to learn, as no

amount of preservice training can fully prepare them for the classroom. Once on the job,

wh at they need to learn is threefold: 1) culturally relevant pedagogy, appropriate for

65

second language learners; 2) emotional maturity; and 3) leadership skill. Of these three,
developing instructional skill is perhaps the easiest to support, as well as the most
pressing. Maria is grateful that Kathryn, through an on-site support office, is available to
assist as problems arise. Maria trusts that, given the right combination of mentored
support and experience, new teacher maturity and leadership skill will develop over time.
Beliefs about Induction and Mentoring

This next section looks specifically at Maria’s understandings of induction and
mentoring. Again, we see the importance Maria places on mentored support. We also
begin to appreciate her role in making sure the program is accountable to the novice, and
the novice is accountable to the students.
Perspectives on Induction

For Maria, induction means doing whatever it takes to accelerate new teacher
development. This can mean accessing more resources for the classroom, ensuring that
the novice gets more of Kathryn’s time, protecting new teachers’ time, even investing her
own time to assist. That she puts herself in this position is not surprising given her
commitment to teacher learning and development. Ultimately, Maria sees herself as
bearing primary responsibility for ensuring that new teachers at Shining Star are properly
socialized into the profession. Why? Because she is the one held accountable for results,
not the mentor.
Understanding of Mentors’ Work

Maria is adamant about the need to provide new teachers with mentored support.

Notably, her concern goes beyond the novice to the students in the classroom.

66

We had to provide support for these teachers. There was no way we could

responsibly educate children and not offer those teachers support if we were

going to accept that large number of beginning teachers (3/99).

Maria credits the strength of mentoring offered to the fact that Shining Star has an
on-site support office, where you can get “informal, got a minute support” without
having to wait until your mentor comes at 3:00 on Wednesday. “ We can’t optimize
teacher development if they are only going to be there once a week for an hour and a
half. ” A related benefit comes in Kathryn’s ability to tie the work of mentoring to
ongoing professional development at the site. The results, according to Maria, are new
teachers whose development is markedly accelerated and students whose academic
achievement is raised. Reflecting on the most recent group of teachers she recommended
for tenure, she says,

They understand what the zone of proximal development is. They know how to

move those kids. They know how to assess. They know that teaching is assessing,

assisting, assessing, assisting. I think that happens because of the opportunities
that they have here... I think having the on-site support, the ongoing professional
development and the reflection on practice results in outstanding teachers, which

results in stronger academic achievement among kids (3/99).

Maria’s understanding of mentors’ work is surprisingly sophisticated, a likely
result of her training and experience as a mentor. She knows mentors are regularly in
classrooms, modeling lessons and demonstrating strategies. Mentors also spend time
Weekly with the beginning teacher, planning for instruction and reflecting on lessons
taught: What about this? How do you think it went? Have you tried this? Maria considers

the mentor like a counselor, available and supportive at all times, engaged in work that

goes “deeper” than what she has time for. Her own role, as principal, is more assessment-

dri ven. The two roles complement one another, much like a marriage.

67

It is a nice match. It is a nice marriage in that I can depend on them to do what

they need to do, what they do with the teachers to get them up to speed. If I need

to do something else to fill in the gap, I know that I can do that. They are a

tremendous help to me. I couldn’t do the work that I do if I didn’t have them

because they deal with the day to day, the nitty-gritty details of teaching. I don ’t

have time to do that (3/99).

Maria is quick to note that not every master teacher ought to be a mentor. In
addition to a strong understanding of teaching and learning, mentors need to know when
to nurture the novice and when to push their practice forward. In her words, “nurturing
needs to be thought out. It can ’t be just nurturing without moving teachers along. ” Maria
equally understands that a fine line exists between advocacy for the beginning teacher
and advocacy for the students. She adds,

My bottom line is different in that my bottom line has to do with kids...I have

teacher development and I have student achievement. But I think for the mentors,

their bottom line is teacher development ( 5/01 ).

Notably, Maria is the only principal in the group that had spent time shadowing a
mentor. Curious about Kathryn’s reported skill in mentoring”, Maria scheduled several
times where she could observe Kathryn at work during the first year of this study.
Maria’s opinion of what she saw? “It was amazing. You could actually see teacher
development moving before your very eyes by watching this teacher... It was just
elegant.”

Balancirlngssistance and Assessment

Implicit in Maria’s comments is an understanding of induction that combines

support and accountability. She pulls no stops in helping a new teacher develop. At the

same time, she is not afraid to speak up when superior performance has not been met.

It is our responsibility to set up the most optimal conditions for them so they can
be successful in their first year. That means resources, supporting them with

E

H Kathryn is one of the BTSA mentors we followed in the larger study.

68

resources, with our own nurturing. But having high expectations of them and

holding them to high standards. Not letting it go just because they ’re first year
(6/01).

Consistent with this stance, Maria believes there are limits to the traditional
coaching model advocated by the local BTSA program. In fact, she admits to having
“heavy disagreements” over this point with program leaders. Her own stance is
unwaivering. When a teacher fails to perform effectively, nurturing and support are not
what the teacher needs most. What they need is more direct help. Her rationale? “This is
not about making people feel good... This is about kids. ”

Beliefs about Leadership

In this final section we focus on Maria’s beliefs about leadership and teacher
community. Here we see how Maria’s firm commitment to protecting new teachers as
Ieamers corresponds with her preferred leadership style. We also see how it aligns with
her view of teaching as intellectually challenging work.

Instructional Leadership

Maria describes her leadership style in a variety of terms. To the extent that she is
there to serve students, families and teachers, she is a servant leader. To the extent that
she supports good teaching, she is an instructional leader. Maria also sees herself as a
shared leader.

I do a lot of building leaders. I want them to be leaders. I want them to

understand, to see the school through my eyes, as though it is not just their twenty

children and their classroom, and that we are here to work together as a

community to educate all of the kids in the school (6/01).

However, not just anything goes. Maria will delegate tasks to her teachers, secretaries and

custodians, but she still expects results that are consonant with the school vision. To the

69

extent it is needed, Maria will “walk” people through a task until they are able to lead

effectively on their own.

I am happy to empower and do shared leadership, but I will only do that when

I ’m assured that you will make decisions the way that I make them... I will help

you make the decisions and I ’11 help you make them through my lens... until I am

assured that you know what my thinking is like (3/01).

As an instructional leader, Maria is confident that she knows instruction as well as
any member of the staff and is eager to share what she knows with them. She explains,

My background knowledge I as a teacher educator] is my fund of knowledge. I

understand teaching. That is what I have done. It would be silly of me not to pass

that on to teachers ( 5/02 ).

Maria’s confidence gives her license to empower teachers as leaders around
matters of teaching and learning; it also ensures that she keeps sharpening the vision. She
explains, as “leader of the school and keeper of the vision, I kind of have to bring the
vision back into the spotlight periodically. " But, controlling the vision is a delicate thing,
as sharing leadership for an ambitious mission is a complicated task. We see her give
voice to this struggle as she ponders her role.

I am the instructional leader of this whole school and I don ’t want to give that up.

I don ’t mind sharing it and I should share it, but I also feel a responsibility, a

large part of my job is to understand teaching. It’s not my job to only be the

business manager or to be the physical plant manager. I won ’t give up the quality
for teaching. Is that too controlling (12/99)?

Importantly, Maria continues to identify herself as a teacher. She is simply a
different kind of teacher, with a different kind of student. “I am always teaching in this
job. "

Professional Community

Maria expects all teachers to work together around a shared mission: equitable

pedagogy for English language Ieamers, and she expects teachers to maintain an open

70

door policy toward fellow colleagues as well as parents and members of the community.
At Shining Star, teaching is public work. As a professional development school, they
utilize a grade level teaming structure where inquiry into student learning plays a central
role in curriculum development and instructional planning. Maria’s involvement in these
professional development activities, which span from preservice to novice and veteran, is
not immediately noticeable. Much of the work is done by Kathryn or other teacher
leaders in the building. Still, Maria’s presence is very much felt. As “keeper of the
vision,” she is always guiding, directing, influencing from behind the scenes.
In closing, it is insightful to hear Maria describe the professional community she
is hoping to create at Shining Star. She begins,
You start with social capital. You start with making teachers feel good about
themselves and what they are doing, and making them safe, making them feel that
this is a safe, risk-free environment for teaching and learning. If you set that up
and do it consciously, they are going to do the work that they are about, which is
intellectual knowledge (3/99).
In a later interview she elaborates on this idea, explaining the significance of building
from a strong intellectual base.
My number one criteria was a teacher community that was highly intellectual. I
think that the better, the smarter the teacher, the smarter the teaching. I wanted to
develop a cadre of teachers that valued intellectual capital and saw that as their
number one resource (6/01).
Repeating her earlier stance, Maria concludes,
...we invest heavily in building a community of Ieamers and leaders and I do a lot
of relation building with teachers. I try, I work very hard on establishing a

relationship with them and having them establish relationships with each other so
that we can develop an environment of trust. Then we can tackle the hard issues

(6/01).

71

Summary Thoughts on Maria

Maria’s background as a teacher educator and mentor serve her well as a
principal. She has a well-articulated understanding of what good teaching is and she is
skilled in knowing how to move people toward that goal. For Maria, good teaching
equates with instructional skill appropriate for second language Ieamers, emotional
maturity and leadership skill. Because preservice cannot by itself adequately prepare a
teacher, mentored support is needed so the novice is able “to see what [they] see. ” As
principal, it is her job to create the conditions necessary for novice teacher development
and to ensure that students’ instructional needs are being met.

The Case of James: Building Support Structures around the Novice

When Proposition 227 passed, essentially eliminating bilingual education in
California, James and his staff fought back for the sake of all kids, brown and white. Now
a charter school with the district, Unity remains steadfast in its commitment to a dual
language immersion model of education. Leading them forward is James, who was
beginning his eleventh year as principal when the study began. Considered by his staff to
be a highly effective leader, but sometimes distant in his manner, James demands nothing
but the best from his staff. Slowly rising test scores suggest that he gets it.

James began his teaching career as a combined fourth and fifth grade bilingual
teacher in the South County Schools. The year was 1979. A product of the nearby
University of California campus, James saw teaching as a mechanism for social change.
A young man bent on a vision, James’ decision to become a teacher came early in his
life, thanks to an influential high school teacher who believed “one’s role within the

1

world was to create positive and good change. ’

72

Although James did not begin teaching with thoughts of administrative work, he
gradually assumed greater leadership responsibilities, first as a bilingual resource teacher,
then as a head teacher. Wanting new kinds of challenges and intrigued by school-site
management, James began to pursue an administrative credential.

I made a transition [when] I went from being a classroom teacher after six years

to becoming a bilingual resource teacher and a head teacher... That experience

got me interested in the way that the school as a whole functions... [After
enrolling in an administrative credential program] I began my orientation
thinking that I ’d been a teacher and my interest had shifted to more of a macro
level in a school and that a principal would be the kind of challenge that I was
looking for (3/01 ).

The sense of power he feels for bringing about meaningful change at the school

level keeps him coming back each year. “It is really here at the school site where one can

affect the most change and that ’s why the role of principal is so unique. ”

In reflecting on his beginning years as principal, we see that James early on
approached his work as a manager dedicated to the primacy of teaching and learning.
This is illustrated in his response to the question: What did you need to learn in your first
years at Unity? He replies “budget and finance, ” then explains how important careful
accounting is for accomplishing instructional goals.

It’s sort of dry and not very interesting, but it’s budget and finance. If you don 't

have a handle on your money and where it ’s going, number one, you can get in a

lot of trouble and number two, you can create a whole lot of distractors that pull

you away from what you are trying to accomplish. If you don ’t understand budget
and finance to the extent that it supports what you’re doing rather than stymies

what you 're trying to do (3/01).

Looking back, James wishes his leadership training had better prepared him as an

instructional leader; someone skilled at leading a staff in the use of standards-based

instructional strategies, consonant with the school mission, so that student learning

73

improved. Now a veteran administrator, he continues to struggle with this aspect of his
work:

how you translate the mission of the school in terms of the goals you ’ve

established for the students, to the curriculum on a large level, and instructional

practice in terms of the strategies teachers are expected to be doing. Then, the
way you provide guidance to people saying, “This is the curriculum or the
standards or... the content of the different subject matters that you ’re teaching
that they are responsible to impart and these instructional strategies are the way

they are expected to do that... (3/01).

A decade plus of experience has raised his consciousness of just how complicated
and difficult the work of good instructional leadership can be. To illustrate, he shares how
challenging it has been to provide leadership to a Title VII grant program, aimed at grade
level teams, to articulate and coordinate the school’s curricular and instructional
programs through improved assessment — an effort they began more than five years ago.

Even though I think we ’ve developed a really neat model structure for doing it, it

still doesn ’t work anyway near as well as it should... It amazes me sometimes how

long it takes to build the kind of structure that connects people ’s creativity and
their professional ability within a structure that you design or you that try to put
together that works... [But] I continue to be optimistic and hopeful that the
approach we’re taking, that allows for and supports a teacher ’s own creativity
and professional ability, will yield superior results to something that looks more

like a factory model with stop watches and corrections (3/01).

In this quote we can see something else worth noting. James believes in his
teachers and sees them as knowledgeable and capable professionals.

Beliefs about Beginning Teaching

In the section that follows, we examine James’ beliefs about beginning teaching.
Consistent with Maria’s self-report, we see an experienced principal who has high
expectations for all teachers on staff, including his newest recruits. At the same time, like

Maria, he is committed to creating a school environment where teachers are fully

supported as Ieamers. His own role in that process is more indirect. Rather than engage

74

personally in the messy work of curriculum and instruction, he spends the bulk of his
time deliberately creating and maintaining organizational structures that support such
work.
Expectations of New Teachers
Like Maria, James’ expectations for the new teacher are predictable: a teaching
credential, basic repertoire of instructional strategies, Spanish language skill,
commitment to the mission, willingness to work collaboratively, flexibility and a sense of
humor. He states, “If you have those elements, I think we have the resources in place to
support people and carry them along and continue their development so that they can be
effective.” His job is to ensure that they are.
I think a new teacher coming in has to be able to perform their job. My job,
number one, is to make sure they can do it. And number two, to support them in
growing and developing as an educator. But they do have to be able to do the job

and be effective at it. Nobody belongs in a classroom, given the needs of these
students, if they can ’t meet the learning needs of these students (8/01).

New Teacher Learning Needs

What do novices need to learn as they “grow and develop as an educator? " For
teachers new to Unity, understanding how the grade level team structure works is critical,
as is a willingness to connect with families through home visits and parent participation
in the curriculum. For James, understanding Unity’s mission as a dual-immersion
program and its site-specific approach to grade level teaming is an important (and time-
consuming) learning need.

James also hopes that his novices will adopt and demonstrate professional habits
of mind. He fears that without mentored support novices will retreat into survival mode.

Mentors are a way out of that predicament.

75

M y fear is that as an individual thrown into a classroom with a bunch of kids and

having all these expectations piled on top of them that they are going to put into

place habits or systems to just survive. [That] would be counterproductive...

Being in the classroom by yourself and surviving can hurt some kids...it sends you

ofi in the wrong direction ( 4/99).

Recognizing the limits of preservice training and challenges of beginning
teaching, James explains why mentored support is so important.

The reality is that nothing yet has made us prepare a student effectively for what

they find when they land in the classroom. Preparation is important, but equally

important is that support once they ’re in their classroom. Once they are faced

with the realities and once all those very complex dynamics are experienced.

Having someone that can help orient them to develop as an educator is crucial

( 4/99).
New Teachers as Beginners

James expects new teachers to perform effectively from the very start. “My
expectation of a rookie teacher is that they’ve received eflective training at the university
and that they’ve had a set of experiences that are going to allow them to be successful
and efiective in the classroom. ” At the same time, he knows they have much yet to learn.
“Preparation is important, but equally important is that support once they are in the
classroom. ” Note the assumption of support in this statement. As beginners, James fully
expects that mentors and grade level colleagues will guide them in what they need to
know, namely Unity’s unique curriculum and philosophy behind it. Without it, he fears
that beginning teachers will fall into survival mode rather than develop the professional
habits of mind he is looking for.

Moreover, James tries to be sensitive to the needs of new teachers, understanding
“that they have tremendous challenges in front of them. ” When he gives feedback, his

aim is to be positive. “When I see something happening in [ a positive] direction, I ’ll

underline it, I’ll be appreciative or supportive or congratulatory about whatever it

76

happened to be and give positive reinforcement to it. ” He does this believing that when
new teachers are feeling overwhelmed and challenged, the last thing they want to hear is
harsh feedback of their work.

Beliefs about Induction and Mentoring

In this section, beliefs about induction and mentoring, we see James’ respect for
the work of mentors. He recognizes that, despite the new teacher’s preparation, there is
much to learn during the early years. He credits mentors with helping his newest staff
members learn and grow within the unique context of Unity Elementary. His own role is
more evaluative.

Perspectives on Induction

For James, the process of induction is a natural step on the teacher learning
continuum. Regardless of one’s preparation, “nothing yet has made us prepare a student
efiectively for what they find when they land in the classroom. ” He continues,
“preparation is important, but equally important is that support once they’re in the
classroom. ” How does James understand support?

First, he acknowledges that not all kinds of support are equal; simply helping the
novice survive is not sufficient. Rather, effective new teacher support reinforces skillful
practices and professional habits of mind that enhance student learning. Secondly, James’
understanding of new teacher support is rooted in context. Finding and keeping certified
teachers, fluent in both English and Spanish, is an ongoing challenge, as is teaching a
dual immersion curriculum that places high value on family involvement. James

understands that if new teachers at Unity are to be successful they will need active

77

assistance from grade level colleagues, in-building staff developers, BTSA mentors, as
well as the principal.

James recognizes new teacher support as encompassing both induction to the
profession and to the site. Key to accomplishing both tasks is a team-based approach
toward offering support. “It is not just me that’s responsible for inducting the teacher,
but that there is a system in place that is working to support that teacher. "
Understanding of Mentors’ Work

Unity has enjoyed a strong and enduring relationship with both the local
University of California campus and BTSA project. The school regularly hosts preservice
students and has served as a pilot site for various BTSA initiatives through the years. As
a result, there is considerable continuity between the various programs, despite
institutional differences. According to James, things “work in sync” and people “talk the
same language.” This context has unique advantages for the mentor who becomes
quickly absorbed into a collaborative environment.

James’ fairly sophisticated understanding of mentors’ work comes from a
combination of experience and watchfulness. More than just good teachers, James sees
good mentors as being skilled in explicating instructional practices for the novice.

There are good teachers who never get beyond the ability to sort of just embrace

what is going on in their classroom and the nature of the job. Other people that

are good teachers achieve a certain degree of mastery which allows them not only
to continue to be an eflective teacher in the classroom but to be able to stand back
and look at what is going on and determine why it works and to be able to

articulate that and be able to share that with somebody else ( 4/99).

Additionally, good mentors are able to advocate for the novice, while at the same

time uphold professional standards. In contrast with the principal, a traditionally powerful

aUthority figure, mentors are more likely to serve as unconditional advocates and allies to

78

the novice, as “someone to learn from, to support them and to guide them. ” Although
James hopes that mentors in his building will feel comfortable sharing critical
information about the novice with him, he does not expect that this will happen. Rather,
he respects and honors the code of confidentiality that exists between the mentor and
novice. As a result, any conversations that he has with the mentor about the novice are
conducted in a sensitive and professional manner behind closed doors.

Balancing Assistance and Assessment

Balancing between offers of assistance and assessment for the beginning teacher
is “one of the challenges of being a good administrator”, says James. Two things appear
to make the task more manageable: a district evaluation system that facilitates all
principals’ ability to manage both tasks and James own skill at managing the two tasks
when the novice struggles.

The district’s intent, describes James, an ongoing member of the district
evaluation team, is for the process to be a mechanism for teacher development. James
takes this responsibility seriously, telling teachers up-front, “the purpose of this
instrument is to help you grow professionally. ” His role, as administrator, is to be
“another set of eyes in the classroom to gather information that can be shared back”
with the novice. Still, James admits that there are lots of things that can get in the way of
this happening. Key is “the principal ’s ability to form a working relationship, and a
sense of trust and confidence, with the teacher. ”

In the event that a novice struggles to teach well, James is careful to delineate

between the two tasks. He describes this through the metaphor of wearing two hats.

I try to be as explicit as possible [with the new teacher]. As an administrator I get
to wear two hats. The only hat I really want to wear is the one where I am a

79

professional resource to you in the development of your skills and ability. But I
also have responsibility to make sure that the best teachers are in the classroom
and the most competent teachers in the classroom. At such a point that I become
concerned, then I switch hats and I put on a difierent hat and I make that very
explicit. I will tell you that and I will document... I will remove myself from that

other role (12/99).

Reflected in this self-report is the seriousness with which James approaches his
responsibility for students, teachers and the profession broadly.
Beliefs about School Leadership

In this final section, we see James as a self—described “hands-oft” instructional
leader who places a high value on professional community at Unity.
Instructional Leadership

James’ commitment as a school leader is “to realize the dream of a school that
succeeds in creating children that are bilingual and biliterate. ” His role in that process is
complicated, a combination of accountability agent and resource gatherer. A confident
leader, he alternates between working collaboratively with teachers and community
members, encouraging participation in the decision-making process, and asserting a
strong leadership presence, single-handedly guiding the school in the direction of the
school mission.

As an instructional leader, James holds teachers accountable to standards—based
practice. Further, he expects them to work hard at achieving school goals. His role is to
ensure that happens — not to teach a novice the ropes. “Their [ the new teacher]
Pr0fessional responsibility is to make sure instruction is taking place. It is not my job to
come in and show them how to teach " (8/01). Although at first this appears to be a

contradiction (e.g. how can one claim to be an instructional leader without taking

responsibility for the work of instruction?), James thinks otherwise, explaining,

80

I see myself as an instructional leader, but I don’t see myself as a master teacher.
The people I hire, I hire to be master teachers. I think I can judge good teaching
and evaluate it, but I don ’t see myself as a better teacher necessarily. The people I
have here, many of them are exceptional teachers that I couldn ’t hold a candle to
in terms of my own practice as a classroom teacher. That is what I see my job as
being: getting [and keeping] that kind of person in the classroom ( 5/02 ).
Reflecting a shift of sorts in his thinking, James’ stated goal for the upcoming school year
is to more skillfully and regularly engage in critical dialogue with teachers around
instructional issues.
Professional Community
New teachers at Unity become socialized into a professional culture that views
teaching as intellectually challenging public work. His goal is to “go away from the
isolation of the teacher, ” to “open those doors up and have people be responsible for
more than their twenty or their thirty kids.” Moreover, teachers at Unity —- new and
veteran -- are expected to continually work toward improving student achievement. His
goal is to get teachers to think aloud about what they are doing, within and across grade
levels.
We need to get people into their zone of proximal development and push gently,
but push to constantly move them forward. The best way to do that is through
critical friends, who are using critical eyes to feed the conversation and ask
critical questions, so that people are thinking about what they are doing ( 5/02 ).
James credits the “almost seamless” way that preservice, induction and staff
development activities facilitate this work around a shared standards-driven language.
James believes everyone in the building plays a unique and needed role in
accomplishing the school mission. In corresponding fashion, he is at ease with redirecting

and divesting leadership to others. Looking back, he notes the many ways in which staff

have helped him to learn and grow as the school head.

81

It is the synergy that has developed among staff, especially the staff that have sort

of stuck with the program over the years, learning from each other and bringing

our strengths together in such a way that allows us all to grow individually but

[also] collectively, since we are linked and zeroed in on what we are trying to

accomplish, that gives it a common direction for us all to be headed in. It is

interesting, but I’d say more than anything, it is the relationships I have had with

my colleagues here at the school site... It is really what happens here, with the

folks that I get to work with, [that has] moved my abilities and thinking forward

(3/01).
Summary Thoughts on James

For James, good teaching equates with social change.

If you have good teaching that works, the result is social change. By having kids

that are well-educated, that are able to access opportunities in their society,

regardless of their background or the challenges they have in front of themselves,

then education is working and doing what it is supposed to be doing... ( 5/02 ).
Because teacher development is an ongoing process, mentored support is necessary so
that what gets learned is what ought to get learned during the often tumultuous early
years. To that end, everyone has an important role to play. James’ role as principal is to a)
establish and get teachers the resources they need to grow; and b) hold teachers
accountable for that growth.

The Case of Karen: Caring with a Purpose

Karen began her elementary teaching career twenty years ago in the South County
School District. Despite three leaves of absence — one to work in a neighboring district,
another to teach overseas and a third to pursue other interests — Karen considers the
valley her home. Fluent in three languages and a product of bilingual schools, Karen
knew from an early age that her passion was teaching second language children. With its

large Spanish-speaking population, the South County Schools were a perfect match. Her

greatest joy, first as a fourth grade teacher and now as principal, is working with kids.

82

Karen would likely have remained in the classroom had it not been for her four-
year stint as a BTSA mentor. Her experience as a mentor drew her to staff development,
which segued into administration. Although she did not consciously set out to earn an
administrative credential, Karen — motivated by younger teachers who had already
completed master’s degrees — was enrolled in a graduate program at the time she was
working with the BTSA program. Conveniently, it was a master’s degree with the option
of an administrative credential. Her positive experience as a mentor helped her to see
how her instructional skills could be utilized in an administrative role. As principal,
Karen’s commitment is to nurturing teacher development.

While I was a mentor with the program there was a lot of staff development, a lot

of presentation skills and giving information to dijferent groups of people. Lots of

time to actually spend on new research and readings... All of a sudden, I was
really interested in working at a professional development school...

Administration really wasn ’t what I wanted to do, but I 've learned that there are

a lot of things that I can do in this position that deal with instruction. 1 have some

real ideas about what it takes to move people forward and how to set up an

environment that is conducive to learning for both the staff and children (3/01).

When this study began, Karen was in her second year as principal at Arts
Elementary.IS Located in an established rural quadrant of the district, the school has a
worn look to it. Many of the students who attend Arts have parents who also attended the
school as children. Parent participation in school events and decision making is strong.
Recent corporate sponsorship has been used to develop a “literacy through the arts”
emphasis. These funds have made it possible for the school to hire a full-time music and
art teacher, as well as build a separate art center. “There is really a focus on integrating

the arts, whether it is movement, drama or music, into our literacy program, into reading

and writing and expressing ourselves. ”

83

In spite of these initiatives, Arts was without a clear mission statement at the time
this data was collected. Although Karen saw this as a useful next step, she had not yet
found the time for doing so. Her main priority is protecting faculty time for curricular and
instructional work. Helping her is the assistant principal/literacy specialist, also a former
BTSA mentor and friend. Together they are working to gradually rebuild a collaborative
culture after four years of inconsistent and shifting leadership.

If we were to look for a common theme in Karen’s talk, it would be her continual
focus on student learning. An insistence on putting students at the center pervades her
work.

Throughout the year, with everyone in all my communications, whether it is in the

weekly bulletins, or in the way we open up stafl meetings, or the note that I put on

the white board, it is always about kids. I think people really know that here. It ’s

about kids and about learnin g (5/01).

As Karen reflects on the past four years, she admits that being the principal is
taxing, what she calls a ‘burn out job. ” At the same time, she is hopeful that — like
beginning teaching — it will get easier as she learns the ropes. Believing that she can
impact larger numbers of staff and students, she stays on the job despite unending
challenges and demands. When she gets down, she looks to the children and their
teachers for encouragement. “It ’s really the growth in children, and the dialogue that we
have with staff about the good things that are happening at our school. That ’s the part I
really like. ”

Beliefs about Beginning Teaching

In the section that follows, we examine Karen’s beliefs about beginning teaching.

Quickly we get a glimpse of her as both a principal and mentor to new teachers.

 

S . . . . . . . . .
" Prior to jormng Arts, Karen served for one year as assrstant prrncrpal at a neighboring school where her

84

Consistent with Maria and James, Karen expects her new teachers to be skilled novices,
but also willing learners. Although her own time is limited in terms of the support she can
offer, Karen does what she can to directly assist in their growth and development.
Expectations of New Teachers

Karen’s expectations for new teachers are consistent with Maria and James. She is
looking for accomplished beginning teachers who sees themselves as team players and
Ieamers.

I expect them to know teaching strategies and techniques to support our second

language Ieamers and know something about differentiated instruction. I expect

them to have a philosophy of collaboration and call on help when needed. I don ’t

want somebody who is self-contained, who says I don ’t need anything. We all

need lots of help. So that ’s really what I ’m looking for. Somebody that can get

along with others and have some basic methods and knows where to go for

resources (Principal, 5/01).

An experienced former teacher, Karen knows new teachers have much to learn.
The transition from theory to practice is not easily or quickly made. “No matter how
good a teacher preparation program is, the reality of the classroom is always a little
different. ”
New Teacher Learning Needs

What does Karen thinks new teachers still need to Ieam? As a former mentor,
Karen understands the importance of helping new teachers learn basic procedures and
policies.

You know, basic expectations. How we communicate with parents and what kinds

of records you need to keep, where to get materials, and how to set up your

schedule so everything fits ( 5/02 ).

New teachers need to learn other things as well. In addition to the basics, Karen

knows that new teachers will struggle with classroom management and long-term

 

Primary duties were staff development.

85

planning, at least through the first year and sometimes longer. As a former mentor, she
recognizes the need for focused attention in these areas. In addition, Karen wants her
beginning teachers to act in a manner that demonstrates understanding and respect for
students and their families. This requires getting to know parents and their needs. “I want
them not to blame families and say parents don ’t care, because parents do care. ”

New Teachers as Beginners

Karen is quick to note that she sees beginning teachers as different from their
more seasoned peers. Because of their experience, she expects them to “have some things
down that a new teacher does not. ” For example, when a new teacher has a difficulty
time getting students to line up quietly, Karen will offer suggestions or model more
effective strategies. When a veteran teacher has a similar problem, Karen is more direct.

I do more coaching with new people than with veteran teachers. I think they need

more support and I ’d like to be able to draw it out from them when they don ’t

know something. Whereas, with an experienced teacher, I figure they need to

know so I just tell them (6/01).

Asked how long it takes someone to become a master teacher, Karen responds
four or five years, providing you stay at the same grade level. One of the benefits she sees
from early mentored support is the desire to continue working collaboratively with peers.
“They are used to that collaborative interaction with others and their reflective
conversations so they seek that out and they create their own circles of support. They set

up their own network of support. ”
Beliefs about Induction and Mentoring

This next section highlights Karen’s beliefs about induction and mentoring. As

one might guess of a former mentor, Karen’s understanding of mentors’ work is well-

86

defined. Her stated preference is to oversee the induction process and, to the extent
possible, coordinate offers of assistance with the new teacher mentor.
Perspectives on Induction

Karen’s understanding of new teacher support is influenced by her experience as a
BTSA mentor which made visible the predictable struggles of the beginning teacher.
Also influencing her understanding is the observation that teaching is becoming
increasingly more complex as public expectations grow. In Karen’s mind, mentors are
key to helping the novice make sense of multiple demands. “There are great expectations
of the work they do that they really need to have somebody who helps them along and
coaches them to be able to make sense of some of those expectations. ”

With regard to her place in the induction process, Karen quickly acknowledges
the centrality of mentors’ work with the novice. Her role is not to supplant that
relationship, but to oversee it so that “the new teacher is willing to participate and really
gets the most benefits out of the program.”

Understanding of Mentors’ Work

Not surprising, Karen has an intimate understanding of mentors’ work. As a
former BTSA mentor, she is as capable of advising the novice as is the mentor. What she
lacks is not experience, but time. Reflecting on how her support efforts differ from those
of the mentor, she says,

They spend much more time. They go in much more in-depth. I wish I could do

that with every teacher, but the reality is that I don ’t. I think it is great... to let

teachers know about assessment and about ranking kids according to where they

are with the standards and I don ’t do any of that. I really don ’t. My thirty minutes
in the classroom is much more superficial ( 5/01 ).

87

However, Karen will make the time when needed or asked. She particularly
welcomes the opportunity to work with the mentor in providing coordinated support,
especially when the new teacher struggles. For example, she appreciates an invitation to
drop in the classroom and look for a specific problem or challenge. Likewise, she wants
to be alerted when a new teacher does not appear to be well-suited for teaching. If so, her
hope is that mentor and principal will work together to develop a pre—assistance plan
which may even move toward counseling the novice into another profession. At the same
time, she is aware that these are highly sensitive issues that require case by case problem-
solving.

Balancing Assistance and Assessment

As a new principal, one of Karen’s greatest challenges is in knowing how to
balance offers of assistance with honest feedback about performance. In our first
interview she talks about what makes this difficult, some of which can be traced back to
her experience as a mentor where she learned the importance of trusting relationships,
thoughtful support and patience.

The concerns that I have, it is a real struggle for me to think about how to phrase

that so as not to turn them away and really my goal is to work with them. I know

that some of the things that they have is typically new teacher stuff. With enough
support and with time, they will develop those management skills and they will
develop their presence with the students, but it is not something that is going to

happen overnight (12/99).

With practice and the help of her principal mentor, Karen is learning how to be
more assertive in her evaluations. Putting kids first makes this easier.

I definitely am more comfortable because you can ’t dance around it. I don ’t have

the time to dance around it and my goal is to make sure that students are

receiving instruction (3/01).

Beliefs about School Leadership

88

In this final section, we look at Karen’s beliefs about school leadership. Here we
see how Karen’s commitment to new teacher development parallels that of all teachers.
Her goal is to create an environment where not only children learn, but teachers as well.
Beliefs about Instructional Leadership

Karen sees herself as a collaborative leader. At the same time, “not everything
goes. ” Her intent is to work with teachers to craft a shared vision, asserting her authority
as needed to stay the course. “I think of myself as gathering all the input and doing
research and allowing stafl to kind of go the course that we’ve agreed on, with some
parameters that I ’ve put along the way, so we don ’t deviate from the course. ”

Guiding her work is an abiding concern for students and what best serves their
needs. When asked where this commitment comes from, Karen consistently replies, “I
am a teacher. ” Notably, she considers herself one of a “new generation ” of principals;
one where “we are more data driven and know instruction because we all taught. ” We
see how the combination of teaching knowledge and skill come together as Karen reflects
on her style as an instructional leader.

I feel like I really know teaching and I know strategies. So when we talk about

how do you move the school forward... you have got to see what is in the

classroom and you have got to look for people who are doing eflective instruction.

Then you have got to open those classrooms so that other people can see effective

instruction (5/01).

As Karen looks back over the past three years, she notes her growing confidence
with letting others take on greater leadership responsibility. Whereas in her first year she
needed to know every detail of every activity, she now realizes

I can ’t fix it all, so why even try? It is totally okay to let somebody else do it, but

to be supportive... it feels like there has been growth in me. I do not have to have
my hands in all of it ( 5/02 ).

89

Professional Community

Karen wants to be viewed by her staff as an equal partner in the education of
young people. Moreover, she wants Arts to be a collaborative community, “one that
understands research-based instruction and knows that using data is the best way to
increase student achievement. ” She stresses,

I’d love there to be just a collegiality between all of us. It doesn ’t matter what hat

you wear, who you are. We are all here for the same reasons. It is really to

provide quality instruction to our students (12/99).

To this end, Karen works hard to facilitate sharing among staff about what is
happening in the building. The bottom line is always the same: improving student
learning. She encourages teachers to visit each other’s classrooms, sometimes reading to
children so teachers are free to move about the building. She posts notes in the faculty
room that highlight the good things she observes others doing. She incorporates
discussions about curriculum into staff meetings, as well as the examination of test score
data. A future goal is to sanction time for more grade level teaming around test results.

Our staff meetings are structured around looking at data and analyzing data,

having conversations about what needs to happen, identifying areas where

students are not strong, planning activities and strategies that will support them
learning and gaining skills in the areas that they are the weakest in (6/01).

Summary Thoughts on Karen
For Karen, good teaching is data-driven. She continually asks, “Have our students
moved? If they haven ’t moved, what do we need to put in place so that we move them? ”
As principal and school head, Karen moves this agenda forward via the tone she sets and

the professional culture she is striving for. As a former teacher/mentor, Karen recognizes

90

the need for new teachers to have mentored support, particularly to overcome over the
hurdles they will likely face.
The Case of Ramon: Learning to Support New Teachers

Ramon began his education as a young boy at Valley Elementary, the same school
he now leads. A long-standing member of the Latino community and product of the
South County Schools, Ramon is respected by parents and peers for what he has
accomplished and for the example he sets. According to a mentor who works in the
school,

He has a tremendous amount to offer that school. He grew up in that community.

He went to that school in its former building. The parents are his peers, his

relatives. He’s a really strong role model for the kids ( 5/01 ).

In his own words, “I just wanted to be a teacher, a good teacher, and come back
to my community where I grew up and work with the kids in my neighborhood. ” Initially,
Ramon had no interest in administrative work. It was the repeated urging of colleagues,
as well as the positive experiences he had each year as a summer school head teacher,
that eventually changed his mind.

It was very exciting to work with new teachers [ to the program] and every year

we had a focus. It could be setting kids up to go to the university, or a focus on

literacy, or focusing on culture. I like those themes, so it motivated me to apply

every year to be a summer school principal (3/01).

Ramon graduated from the local University of California campus with a sociology
degree. Soon after he began earning credits toward a teaching credential while also
working with migrant children and their families through a local school-based program.
He assumed his first full-time teaching position in 1986; six years later he was honored by

the district for excellence in developing and implementing a students-at-risk program.

Through the years, Ramon has served South County as a fourth and fifth grade teacher,

91

bilingual resource teacher, student teacher supervisor, summer school head teacher and
assistant principal. He was beginning his second year as principal at Valley Elementary
when the study began.

As Ramon reflects on the past three years, he is quick to note the difficulties and
challenges he has faced: repeated low scores on state achievement tests; district demands
for improvement with minimal support; a disproportionate number of new teachers on
staff; faculty who resist collaborative work; state mandates that fly in the face of sound
educational practice for non-English speaking students. The principalship at Valley
would be a challenge for even the most skilled administrator. It has been especially hard
on Ramon. There are many days when he feels overwhelmed as a school leader.

Ramon took over Valley Elementary at a time when student scores in English on
state achievement tests were significantly below state and district targets. At the same
time, he replaced a well-liked principal who was known for her strong instructional
leadership. Ramon’s own reputation comes largely from his work with at-risk students
and their families; arguably, an area of expertise needed for this struggling school. The
expectation is that Ramon will raise test scores and unify his staff around that mission.
Two years ago the school began intensive work with outside consultants in order to
improve its academic program. Ramon hopes that through collaborative work, careful
data analysis, and some restructuring they will be able to reach their goals. At the time
data collection ended, faculty morale was better but student scores had failed to improve.
The good news was that they did not get worse.

Although Ramon has completed coursework for an administrative credential, he

credits much of what he needed to learn to experience and coaching. Like Karen, he has

92

been fortunate to be assigned an administrative coach. He looks to this mentor for
answers to routine questions, insight on dilemmas, and general counsel. Ramon also
appreciates the professional development offered to new administrators by the district.
For example, after a recent workshop on the evaluation process, Ramon invited the
district facilitator to sit in on one of his post-observation conferences so that she could
offer feedback on his communication skills. Because his administrative coach and the
evaluation trainer work closely with the local BTSA project, Ramon hears a consistent
message from not only his coach and the trainer, but also new teacher mentors. He
comments,

The [local BTSA program] has made me think about teaching supervision; the

supervision of teachers, not as an administrator, but as a coach. That is what I’ve

learned the most. Not to go into a classroom with my administrator’s hat on and
look at all the wrong things. But going into the class and looking at things and
working with teachers to improve, not to evaluate. If you ’re going to be a team,
you have to be a coach. So, yes, it has taught me how to see things diflerently as
an administrator. Not to give negative judgements about what is being taught, but

to help the teacher and I work together towards the common cause (6/01).

At the same time, Ramon is quick to acknowledge that putting one’s beliefs into
practice is not as easy. The many other responsibilities he has as site administrator for
fifty staff members, six hundred and fifty kids, and many more parents tend to get in the
way. Identifying, understanding and addressing facility needs (e. g. new storage
containers for playground equipment) consumes much of his time as a new principal.
When “you ’re put in a principal position, you find out that you’ve learned only twenty
percent about what being a principal is about.” As a teacher, these were things he rarely
needed to pay attention to; as principal, he can ill afford not to pay attention.

When asked what challenges him the most as an administrator, Ramon shares his

struggle with interpersonal communication skills.

93

The most challenging for me, something that I was not prepared for was working
with people. I read a lot about what to expect, but once the person is in front of
you, then you can ’t take out your book and say, “I read about you”... One of [the
things I need to learn] is how to be a good communicator. How to express myself
clearly... It ’s really important for me to work on those skills (3/01).

Ramon returned to the classroom for a year after his first job as an assistant
principal because he missed teaching. He found his way back, but the journey has not
been without challenges and struggles. For Ramon, the principalship can be a daunting
proposition. “You ’re expected to be perfect. You ’re expected to know everything. ”
Beliefs about Beginning Teaching

In this section we trace Ramon’s professed beliefs about beginning teaching.
Although he comes to the principalship with ten years of teaching experience, he is less
able than the other three to articulate his understanding of new teacher learning needs. As
the following discussion will illustrate, Ramon knows what he wants from his new
teachers, but is less clear about what it will take to realize such expectations. Wisely, he
looks to his new teacher mentors for insight and guidance.

Expectations of New Teachers

When asked what he expects beginning teachers to know and be able to do,
Ramon nominates “good teaching.” He explains,

Good teaching is good teaching. I mean, if you have a good teacher you can have

the lousiest curriculum; but still the kids will learn because it is all about

teaching. That’s what we want to focus on (5/01).

I probe further, asking what this means. His reply hints at more than pedagogical
expertise and skill. At its core, “good teaching” implies a rapport with children coupled

with high academic expectations.

Good teaching is not only curriculum, good teaching is having a rapport with
students, having a vision about where you want the kids to be as far as academics,

94

socially, and preparing them for life. Have a dream for them and cultivate a
dream in them. That’s good teaching... You can have the best curriculum, but if
you don ’t know how to teach and how to relate to kids, they won ’t do anything.

They won ’t communicate with you ( 5/02 ).

For Ramon, good teaching is fundamentally linked with skill in relating to students.
New Teacher Learning Needs

When asked what beginning teachers need to learn, Ramon highlights the
personal characteristics he hopes to see develop in new teachers, specifically a
willingness to take risks and learn from mistakes. He sees new teachers as well-prepared
in theory, but lacking in practical experience. Adopting the stance of a learner better
enables the novice to bridge that gap.

They come well-prepared...they come with all the tools. They know how to use

them. But this is reality... how to be risk takers at times and not take the job so

personal that if one lesson doesn ’t go well, that it ’s not the end of the world. You

move on and you learn by it (12/99).

To be successful at Valley Elementary, Ramon believes beginning teachers need
to understand students and hold high expectations for them. This is a priority for all
teachers, but especially those who are not familiar with the Spanish language and Latino
culture.

For a teacher to come to our site they need to come to know our culture, the

language, the people. To understand them; not feel sorry for them... When I grew

up, back then, in the early 60’s, I was treated as the poor little Mexican. El
pobrecito. He ’s in poverty. He has all these needs, so we ’11 just pass him along.

What happens is that years pass and kids don ’t benefit from school because they

were treated as not being able to succeed. So teachers who come to our school

have to think of another culture, another language and treat the kids like they are
able to succeed in whatever comes their way ( 5/02 ).
New Teachers as Beginners

When asked how long it takes a novice to become a master teacher, Ramon is

quiet for a time, then responds:

95

It ’s an individual kind of thing. A fast paced teacher will be about her third year.
But to be a real master teacher, you have at least ten years ( 5/01 ).

Reflecting on his own teaching experience, Ramon is quick to note that he falls short of
master status. He always felt there was more he could learn to better reach his students.
One difference between then and now, however, is the presence of trained mentors.
Remembering his own early years, Ramon deeply appreciates what mentors can offer
new teachers in his building.
Beliefs about Induction and Mentoring

This section looks at Ramon’s beliefs about induction and mentoring. Here we see
a new principal with limited knowledge about local mentoring practices and little time for
learning more.

Perspectives on Induction

 

Given the turnover in staff Valley has experienced in recent years, Ramon
recognizes the need for new teacher support. He also acknowledges his role in making
sure that such support is provided. At the same time, he considers the induction of
newcomers as a task the entire staff is responsible for. This fits with his preferred image
of a collaborative, team-based school where he is part of a larger school-wide process.
Asked to define induction, his explanation lacks the detail common to the other study
participants. “It means not only having a classroom and students and books, but also
learning about colleagues and resources that we have and collaboration and that kind of
thing.” He freely admits that his own offers of support are limited: “I ask how it is
going, let me know if you need anything, going into their classroom and just being there
for the teacher. ” Support that goes beyond these initial gestures, e.g. curriculum

development, are left to grade level colleagues and BTSA mentors.

96

Understanding of Mentors’ Work

Although Ramon is a former mentor under the California Mentor Teacher Project,
he has never had the opportunity to observe a BTSA mentor at work, nor has he attended
BTSA-sponsored functions specially designed for principals. We might attribute some of
this to his inexperience as a principal. Skill in supporting, developing and assessing new
teachers is not an expectation placed on many new principals, Ramon included.

When asked what he thinks mentors do, Ramon has an idea based on what he has
heard from others. In contrast with Maria, James and Karen, his description favors
logistical and emotional support over ongoing instructional development.

BTSA provides a lot of, not only training, but in-class visitation, feedback on

lessons. [Mentors] are experienced teachers going into the classroom of

beginning teachers and... their experience is shared with the new teachers. For
example, they share about their first year of teaching and how it was back then
and just letting the teachers know that what they are going through is normal for
getting a new job, working with kids and being in control of thirty students. Being
in control of how the lesson plan looks, what the objectives are and the

responsibility of the academic growth of the individuals. All of that they share
with the mentors. The mentors guide them and make suggestions (12/99).

Mincing Assistance and Assessment

Ramon never directly addresses the divide between assistance and assessment in
our interviews. That there might be a conflict of interest never occurs to him; at least not
during our conversations about it. Perhaps this should not surprise us. Ramon’s failure to
see a tension between assistance and assessment seems to be symptomatic of his practice
more generally with respect to new teachers and their mentors. His efforts to support new
teachers are largely symbolic and his evaluation practice routine. During the years of this

study, Ramon was admittedly overwhelmed. Targeting the needs of new teachers was not

something he had the time or eagerness to do; not because it was unimportant, but

97

because of the many other things that needed attending to. Rallying the entire staff to
raise test scores was a more pressing and immediate need. In fact, their survival as a
school rested on that.
Beliefs about School Leadership

In this final section we examine Ramon’s beliefs about school leadership. Like
James, Ramon reports taking a more indirect, hands-off approach to instructional
leadership. Nonetheless, he advocates for a strong and collaborative professional
community at Valley.
Instructional Leadership

As a leader, Ramon wants to actively involve others in the decision-making
process. Having worked under principals who adopted a more authoritarian stance, he is
convinced that cooperation and collaboration are key to raising scores and improving the
climate at Valley. He did not anticipate, however, the resistance he would face when he
joined the staff three years ago. Rather than working together to determine next steps, he
found teachers asking him to make decisions on their behalf. Three years later, things
seem to be better. With time, Ramon is refining his leadership style and together, he and
his staff are adjusting their expectations of one another.

Ramon is admittedly frustrated as an instructional leader. While he wants to have
a stronger instructional presence in the school, he lacks the time needed to work in-depth
with his teachers on curricular issues. This is compounded by his belief that instructional
leaders are also instructional experts. If one is not actively teaching, then one must be

well read, and if one is neither, then instructional leadership comes up short. “How can

98

you be a curriculum leader if all your experience is what you read in a book without
really practicing it? ” He continues,

When I get together with teachers and talk about curriculum...I feel kind of like,

why should I put my two cents into something that they are into already? They

know the kids, they know the curriculum, and so I kind of feel left out (3/01).
That Ramon should feel this way prevents him from taking an active and more
importantly, a confident role in instructional leadership.

Professional Community

As stated above, Ramon is working hard to institute a collaborative professional
culture at Valley where teaming is an expected part of the culture. With the help of an
under-performing schools grant, groups of teachers are being trained to work in teams
and structures are being put into place for horizontal and vertical teaming. Staff meetings
are regularly scheduled to look at student work with the purpose of identifying
instructional strategies that will raise student achievement. Ample opportunities for
professional learning are being provided to teachers.

To date, their success is mixed. The good news is that morale is reportedly on the
rise. It seems that Ramon and his staff are learning how to co-exist and work together.
That test scores have remained stable is a welcome sign. Ramon remains hopeful this will
unlock the school’s potential. He looks to the past year’s success in planning meaningful
staff meetings as a good omen.

The principal is not the only person who is speaking. It is colleagues presenting,

looking at student achievement through the eyes and voices of teachers — not

necessarily somebody else. That is new, their own voice speaking ( 5/02 ).

Summary Thoughts on Ramon

99

For Ramon, good teaching is dependent on building rapport with kids, teaching
skillfully with heart, and incorporating theory into practice. Like many principals, Ramon
looks to his new teacher mentors to help novices become good teachers, link theory with
practice and learn from experience. Curiously, his work with mentors seems to trigger an
interest in and responsiveness to new teacher needs.

Cross-Case Discussion: What Stands Out?

The four elementary principals in this study differ from one another in terms of
personal background, professional experience, culture, gender; differences that mirror the
administrative population at large. At the same time, these four principals share similar
professional experiences and professional commitments in a setting that cares about new
teacher growth and development. What does the data teach us about effective principal
support of new teachers? Additionally, what does the data tell us about the factors that
enable and constrain principal support of new teachers? In the section that follows I
reflect on these questions in light of the data shared thus far.

Common Background, Shared Commitments

The four individuals in this study share a common background and bring similar
commitments to their work as principals. Three patterns are particularly strong: 1)
teaching and mentoring as valued work; 2) professional motivation and commitment to
“these” kids; and 3) stance as a learner.

Teaching and Mentoring as Valued Work

All four principals are former teachers. James had the least amount of classroom

experience with seven years, while Maria and Karen spent nearly two decades in the

classroom prior to becoming principals. Each was accomplished in his or her own setting:

100

James for his work as a bilingual resource in his building; Maria and Karen for their work
in literacy; Ramon for his work with at-risk students and their families. In addition, all
four served as mentors to new teachers during their tenure as classroom teachers: James
and Ramon through the California Mentor Teacher Project, Maria and Karen through
BTSA.

Presumably, these experiences have helped to cultivate among the four a deep
respect for the work of teachers, an understanding of how difficult good teaching is, and
an acknowledgement of the critical role mentors can play in promoting new teacher
development. There is little doubt that these four individuals value the work of teaching
and mentoring.

Professional Motivation and Commitment

Furthermore, each principal entered teaching with a passion for working with
non-English speaking children in school settings. Becoming a teacher was a career move,
not merely a job. For Maria and Ramon, Latino members of the community, it was about
serving their people. Similarly, Karen was drawn to teaching through her experience with
being a bilingual student in an unfamiliar cultural setting. James was fulfilling a call to
serve, first given by a ninth grade teacher who challenged him to make a difference in the
world.

Notably, none of these four individuals began teaching with the dream of being a
principal. Rather, each gradually assumed more responsibility, first as teachers, then as
teacher leaders. Becoming a principal was a likely next step, one that was encouraged by
their peers. As principals, each has adopted a style of leadership that is part managerial

and part instructional, depending on what needs are most pressing at any given time.

101

James and Maria describe their work as leaders with confidence and ease; experience
seems to have served them well. Karen and Ramon are more tentative in their responses.
As new principals, they are still finding their way. Regardless, each uses their role as
principal and school head to enact a personal and professional commitment to serving
this student population well.
Stance as a Learner

Finally, each describes him or herself as a combined leader, teacher and learner.
Notably, all four are quick to recall their first identity as teacher. Moreover, they each
express a desire to keep learning and growing in ways that will improve teaching and
learning in their building. Maria is eager to attend workshops with her teachers so she
stays current. Maria and James regularly poll their staff for insight into their performance
as administrators. Karen and Ramon look to their administrative coach for help through
their turbulent early years. Ramon even looks to the new teacher mentors in the building
for guidance. Although Ramon is perhaps the least clear about what he needs to get better
at, each of these individuals acknowledges his or her weak areas and works to improve
them.

In addition, each understands and values teamwork. This helps to explain why
James and Maria are working to sustain collaborative professional cultures in their
respective buildings, and why Karen and Ramon are striving to create such an
environment for their staff. Of critical importance, all four consider teacher development
a necessary first step toward improving student achievement. These are not principals

who eagerly adopt professional development packages. Rather, they are actively — if not

102

always effectively — working with the teachers in their building to create situated learning
opportunities for teachers that will enhance learning opportunities for kids.

That fact that these four individuals share a common background and similar
commitments is important. Always learning, these former teachers have logged forty-
eight years of classroom time. Each has served as a new teacher mentor, suggesting that
they not only took an interest in new teachers, but were trusted by their peers to serve in
such a role. All four entered the education field with the hope of making a difference, one
Spanish—speaking child after another.

Explaining Principal Action or Inaction

Nonetheless, as the mini-cases begin to illustrate, the four principals in this study
conceive of and report enacting their responsibility for new teacher support in differing
ways. What explains their action, and in some cases, their inaction? Moreover, what
contributes to their desire (or hesitancy) to support new teachers? Three factors are
considered in this section: I) the role of school context; 2) principal understanding of new
teacher learning needs; 3) leadership preference and skill.

Role of School Context

School context likely plays a key role in shaping how these four principals think
about new teacher support.’6 All four see teaching as professional work that demands
inquiry and reflection around shared expectations. All four talk at length about wanting to
create a professional culture that values ongoing learning and teamwork in their building.
Translating such beliefs into practice, however, is more difficult. All four schools have

large numbers of students who have limited English skills. Human and material resources

 

’6 My understanding of school context is based on multiple data sources, including on-site interviews with
new teachers, mentors, district and program officials over three years.

103

are limited. In a state where bilingual education has been virtually eliminated, the added
pressure of meeting state mandates is at times overwhelming.

James and Maria, as experienced principals, have been able to create and sustain
professional cultures in their buildings that value learning. It helps that both Unity and
Shining Star are led by a clearly defined and shared mission. Although Unity continues to
struggle in its efforts to raise student test scores, staff are encouraged by their progress.
There is sense that everyone is in it together.

Karen and Ramon, as new principals, are each working toward the same end, but
under different circumstances. Karen is slowly bringing her teachers together, although
they remain without a clearly articulated vision. That they were without a principal for
the four years prior to her appointment contributes to why she is moving slowly, but
deliberately toward change. Solid scores on recent state tests bolster the sense of positive
forward energy that Karen is hoping to build on. Ramon, on the other hand, is clearly
faced with the most challenges of all four administrators. Not only has his school failed to
meet district and state testing targets in recent years, there has been an exodus of veteran
teachers from the building. Building a collaborative culture with a large numbers of new
teachers while under the threat of district takeover would be challenging for any new
administrator. Ramon is struggling for good reason. That his new teachers feel a lack of
principal support should not surprise us.

Moreover, the principals in this study were equally influenced by their immediate
context. Although all four principals worked in the same state and district, under the same
set of guidelines, expectations and mandates, each building takes on a flavor of its own.

When general building needs (e.g. curriculum alignment, discipline, testing) were

104

pressing, new teacher needs took a backseat. We see this to some extent in the Karen
case, but especially in the case of Ramon. However, when building needs are being met,
new teacher growth and development can rise as a priority. This explains Maria’s
commitment to keeping new teachers efforts focused on the classroom. In the case of
James, we see how the special needs of the building require the full participation of new
teachers, but in a supportive setting that recognizes and affirms their needs as beginners.
Although we might reasonably argue that school leaders can rise above a range of
difficult circumstances, the weight of pressing demands likely restrains principals’ ability
to attend to the needs of new teachers in their building.

Understanding of New Teacher Needs

What do principals believe new teachers most need to learn and how do they best
learn that? Principal perceptions of new teacher learning needs likely shape their response
to the new teacher. The four principals in this study agree that new teachers are Ieamers
and beginners. None of them expect the new teacher to have achieved excellence prior to
their appointment as full-time teachers; rather, all four acknowledge the situated nature of
learning to teach while on the job.

Interestingly, all four principals embrace South County’s growth-oriented
evaluation process. James, a member of the committee that developed the process, is the
most articulate about the principal’s role in evaluation. Rather than place himself
immediately in the role of evaluator, he opts instead to be “an extra set of eyes and
ears, ” gathering information according to the beginner’s individual learning plan. Even
Ramon is learning to recognize the learning opportunities implicit in the district

evaluation process.

105

But while all four talk about new teachers as Ieamers and beginners, and the
situated nature of learning through experience, Maria and Karen are the best prepared at
identifying novice learning needs. They are quick to see when a novice is struggling, as
well as pinpoint the cause of the problem. As former BTSA mentors, both women are
attuned to what is likely to be difficult and when, for whom. In contrast, James defers to
his veteran teachers — whom he considers more expert than himself — to compensate for
his lack of recent classroom experience. He intentionally builds support structures around
his teachers so that their needs are met. Of the four, Ramon is the least likely to see new
teacher needs without prompting. The sheer busyness of being the principal in a
challenging environment robs his attention. So he looks to his mentors to coach him; to
tell him what the novice needs and how he can meet that need. Although Ramon is
learning, he has not yet positioned himself or his staff to see and react to new teacher
learning needs as they emerge.

It is interesting to note, when asked who is most responsible for providing new
teacher induction, each of these principals nominated themselves. Even though they
respect and value the work of mentors, they take their role as school head seriously.
Something as important as new teacher support can not be left to one person alone. New
teacher support needs everyone’s involvement — principals included.

Leadership Preference and Slfl

Leadership preference and skill is a third factor that may influence how these four
principals conceive of and report enacting new teacher support. James and Ramon, the
two men in this study, are not considered especially warm and nurturing by their

respective staffs. Maria and Karen, on the other hand, are seen by their staff to be

106

congenial and supportive. It follows that James and Ramon adopt a more hands-off style
of instructional leadership, as contrasted with the hands—on approach favored by Maria
and Karen. Their respective understanding of new teacher learning needs, as well as their
confidence as instructional leaders, further explains the differences among their preferred
styles.

We might also attribute their leadership preference to experience and setting.
James and Maria are veteran administrators who have found their niche and are widely
regarded as effective leaders. It would not be fair to expect the same of Karen or Ramon
at this point in their careers, as both are still figuring out how to assert their authority and
power. For Karen, this becomes an issue in the context of evaluation as she learns to be
more assertive in the evaluation process. For Ramon, it becomes an issue as he strives to
coalesce his staff around a shared mission.

Regardless, common to all four individuals is a commitment to serving bilingual
students and their families. Administrative work was a natural next-step for these skilled
and knowledgeable former teachers, and instructional leadership an obvious means for
accomplishing their goals. But as illustrated in the individual cases, their administrative
training lacked clear descriptions of what effective instructional leadership looks like and
how it might be attained. As a result, each principal was on his or her own to carve their
path through the territory. Maria and Karen do so in an abridged mentor version. James
does it around the edges, establishing support structures that others will enact. Ramon
does it in fits and starts, often in response to the urging of in-building mentors.

Closing Thoughts

107

This chapter highlights principal beliefs vis a vis new teacher support,
development and evaluation. In addition to examining underlying assumptions, attempts
were made to explain the personal and contextual factors that are likely to influence
principal ideas and actions. While all four principals share a similar background,
including a) well-established teaching careers and experience in mentoring new teachers,
b) a commitment to second language learners, and c) a natural willingness to keep
learning on the job; three distinct observations emerge from this analysis. Collectively,
they raise questions about principals’ willingness and ability to effectively enact new
teacher support.

First, we see the important role the context and setting played. New teacher
support is difficult to enact in the face of other more pressing demands. We see this most
clearly with Ramon. Even then, a principal needs a clear sense of what it is that new
teachers most need to learn and how they might best learn that. Without this
understanding, new teacher needs are likely to go unnoticed. For Maria and Karen,
extended experiences with mentoring seem to serve as the background for this
understanding. Finally, to effectively enact new teacher support, a principal must possess
the requisite skills in promoting and developing novice teacher development. If not, as
we see in the case of James, they might best acknowledge their limitation by getting out
of the way so that more skilled others (e. g. mentors) can do the job.

Lurking in the shadows of this analysis are two unanswered questions: To what
extent is principals’ reported practice consistent or congruent with these espoused
beliefs? And, to what extent do principal beliefs guide and predict effective support of

new teachers? Although the data is limited by self-report, the next two chapters begin to

108

address these questions by focusing on principals’ reported practice, first with new

teachers, then with their mentors.

109

Chapter 4:
Principals Supporting New Teachers

The most diflicult part of the first year was in understanding the expectations of
the principal. I didn’t know what to expect. What was the role of the principal and
how was I to relate? At the beginning all I saw the principal do was act as a
welcomer. Here’s the school. Good luck. I didn ’t know what his role was, his
expectations for me, and how I could expect him to react. I wanted to know his
philosophy, expectations for me, his values for education, students, and
expectations for quality teaching. I was left on my own to develop a style of
teaching and classroom management. I hoped that it was one that he approved of.

~ New Teacher (Brock & Grady, 2001, p. 6)
Chapter Overview

This second data chapter explores the question: How do principals report
enacting their roles and responsibilities vis a vis new teachers? In other words, what do
principals report doing on behalf of new teachers? Moreover, what factors enable this
work? The chapter is organized into three main sections. The first introduces a
conceptual framework for thinking about principals’ work with new teachers that
includes recruitment, hiring and placement; managing the environment and resource
assistance; instructional development and evaluation; and building a professional culture.
This framework becomes the basis for the mini-cases that follow. In conclusion, four
summary findings are offered: a) although principal involvement varies, the little things
add up; b) supportive principals attend to individual needs and are careful to lay the
foundation for a working relationship with the novice; c) supportive principals structure
the evaluation process to be a learning opportunity; and (I) new teacher support can come
through the direct, hands-on involvement of principals, as well as via a more indirect,
hands-off approach; more important, however, is that principals’ know when to get out of

mentors’ way.

110

Introducing a Principal Support Framework

I recently asked a group of professional educators, many of whom were staff
developers, what they most wanted from their principals as new teachers.17 Their
responses were predictable. These no-longer-new teachers remembered wanting an
orientation that included a clear explanation of their role and responsibilities, as well as
that of the principal. They wanted recognition, praise, and constructive feedback. They
wanted principals to listen to their needs and concerns, to set a tone in the building that
indicated it was okay to ask questions and take risks, and they wanted to be treated as
adults, even peers. These former new teachers wanted time to meet and work with other
colleagues. They especially wanted to be treated like beginners, with reasonable
expectations, plus time to grow and develop as a teacher. Most striking to me about this
exchange is the significance of seemingly small gestures that collectively invoke a culture
of professional work.

I focus this chapter around the question of what principals do, believing that
before we can appropriately prescribe changes to practice (should we want to do so) we
must first understand principal support of beginning teachers as it naturally occurs. As
every new teacher soon learns, effective principals help to make the tasks of beginning
teaching easier. But, what characterizes the work of principals who are recognized for
their efforts with and on behalf of new teachers? The principal support framework that
follows outlines a range of tasks principals might engage in to support new teachers.

These tasks are drawn from the literature on induction and mentoring, new teacher policy

 

’7 Interactive Session, “Principals Supporting Role in New Teacher Induction”, at the annual meeting of
the National Staff Development Council, December 5, 2001 in Denver. Colorado.

111

and principal leadership, and are enhanced by study data.'8 They include: recruitment,
hiring and placement; site orientation and resource assistance; managing the
environment; relationship building; instructional development; new teacher evaluation;
and facilitating supportive school contexts.

My purpose in introducing this framework and accompanying continuum,
illustrated below in Figure 2, is to identify the range of activities principals might engage
in to support new teacher and their mentors.'9 I say might because the four principals in
this study were selective about what they did, and in some cases, did not do. I would
assume this to be true of most principals. Arguably, principal effectiveness is due in part
to the choices one makes. Building on preliminary findings identified in the previous
chapter, we will soon discover that the principals in this study weighed alternatives,
selecting the option most suited to a) their understanding of the school context, including
resources available; b) their perceptions of new teacher learning needs; and c) their

preferred leadership style.

 

’8 Note, many of the recommendations drawn from the literature are written from an advocacy position and
not based on empirical evidence. Also, because a limited amount of data was reviewed and only four
pgrincipals sampled this should not be considered an exhaustive list.

The continuum might alternately be cast as a wheel since there is no chronological basis for this ordering,
except that hiring comes first and evaluation last. Also, this continuum is meant only as a generic listing of
activities or strategies principals might engage in. As a result, elementary and secondary, urban and rural,
public and non-public principals are considered as equals. as well as those who may play different roles
within a building, e.g. principal and assistant principal.

112

Figure 2:

PRINCIPALS SUPPORTING NEW TEACHERS:
A CONTINU UM OF CORE SUPPORT TASKS

i A Continuum of Core Support Tasks I

L A
v V

Recruitment Site Orientation Managing the Relationship Instructional New Teacher Facilitating a
Hiring & & Resource Environment Building Development Evalualion Supportive
Placement Assistance School Context

In the text that follows, I outline these tasks or strategies, highlighting their
importance for new teacher support and development. Keep in mind, the four principals
in this study did not do, nor advocate all of these strategies. Instead, they did what they
could, when they could. More important, none of these principals considered new teacher
support an added aspect of their work. Rather, they incorporated these strategies willingly
and naturally into their daily routines. For these four individuals, supporting new teachers
was part of the job. At the same time, as will become increasingly clear, not all four
principals were equally effective in their efforts.

New Teacher Recruitment, Hiring and Placement

The first step or link in the continuum highlights decisions made regarding a new

teacher’s placement at a grade level and/or in a department, their physical classroom

space and/or students; extra assignments, such as coaching or committee work; and when

113

applicable, the formal assignment of a mentor teacher. These responsibilities are
traditionally assumed (or at least coordinated) by a site administrator.

A great deal has been said in recent years about the need for change in the area of
new teacher recruitment, hiring and placement, and yet there is little evidence that the
recommended changes are being implemented (Fideler & Haselkom, 1999). The
argument holds that new teachers should be recruited aggressively and the hiring process
streamlined so that novices have a chance to settle in long before the school year begins
(Brock & Grady, 2001; Darling-Hammond, Berry, Haselkom, & Fideler, 1999; NCTAF,
1996; Villani, 2002). Once hired, it is critical that they be placed in their area of expertise
and licensure (Darling-Hammond et al., 1999; Odell & Huling, 2000); that they be
provided adequate resources to meet their needs; and that extra duties and responsibilities
be limited (Bloom & Davis, 2001; Brock & Grady, 2001). In a nutshell, administrators
should see that new teachers are given assignments that optimize their chance of success,
e.g. their own classroom; single grade classes; limited preparations, limited extra
curricular responsibilities, smaller class sizes (CTC/CDE, l997b). Finally, it is critical
that challenging students be distributed equally among all sections, rather than “dumped”
in the beginner’s classroom (DePaul, 2000).

Site Orientation and Resource Assistance

Once hired and placed, all new teachers need to become acquainted with the rules,
procedures and policies of a building and access needed resources, both material and
human. Examples of support that address this need include a building-level orientation at

the opening of the school year as well as efforts to assist the novice in acquiring needed

114

resources. Such responsibilities are often ascribed to principals in collaboration with
other staff.

Of all the recommendations found in the literature, the one most commonly cited
is that of a principal-arranged orientation which overview policies, procedures and
resources available at the site (Bloom & Davis, 2001; Brock & Grady, 2001; CT C/CDE,
l997b; DePaul, 2000; NCTAF, 1996; Portner, 2001; Villani, 2002). Orientations may
also be the recommendation most likely to be implemented, as few can argue with the
logic. Arranging an orientation for new employees not only makes good sense, it is fairly
easy to accomplish. Additional recommendations include assigning in-building mentors
(Darling-Hammond, 1999; NCTAF, 1996); helping to establish an informal support
network for the novice and providing adequate and needed resources and supplies,
especially when the novice is in a challenging setting (CTC/CDE, l997b; DePaul, 2000).
Managing the Environment

This category may be easily overlooked, as the responsibility for managing the
environment is typically left to the classroom teacher. However, providing support is
inclusive of more than pointing someone in the direction of the teacher lounge. For many
newcomers, trusting that the school context will be physically maintained and that
students are expected to behave in an orderly fashion can be very reassuring. As the
pseudo-plant manager, principals are the ones to provide such oversight.

It is widely believed that the first and biggest problem of beginning teaching is
classroom organization and management (see Veenman, 1984; Wong, 1998). Therefore,

it is not surprising that principals are encouraged to facilitate a disciplined school

115

environment so that the novice can concentrate on teaching students, as opposed to
simply managing them (DePaul, 2000).
Relationship-Building

Although principals are busy people, it is important that they — as school heads —
take the time to get to know the new teachers in their building. If their offers of support
are to be received as genuine and trust worthy, they will need to first establish some sort
of professional working relationship with the novice.

References to relationship-building in the literature are subtle. Recommendations
suggest that principals welcome the new teacher and help facilitate their introduction to
the site (Brock & Grady, 2001; CTC/CDE, l997b; NCTAF, 1996). Others are more
explicit about what this means in terms of principals’ obligations: be in frequent personal
communication (Brock & Grady, 2001); be available for individual conferencing
(DePaul, 2000); be attentive, listen more, be a role model and seek help in determining
what the beginner needs and wants, e. g. ask the new teacher what you can do for them
(Donaldson & Poon, 1999); maintain an open door policy (Brock & Grady, 2001); and
treat the teacher as a whole person (Leithwood, 1990). The point of these
recommendations is to build a professional working relationship with the novice, and to
help the novice build professional working relationships with peers throughout the
system.

Instructional Development and Supervision

Instructional leadership has long been considered the work of effective principals.

But what does this look like with respect to beginning teachers? I propose this category

as a ways of capturing the careful work some principals do with beginning teachers to

116

advance their practice. This includes activities like deveIOping the novice’s instructional
repertoire; assistance in creating effective classroom environments and managing student
behavior; and the use of data to assess student learning. Although we rarely speak of
administrators engaged in this level of work with their novices, there are examples of
principals who are actively involved in developing the knowledge and skill of their
newest teachers.

Recommendations that fit the category of instructional development and
supervision can be divided into two groups: a) the things principals do directly for the
novice and b) the things principals do indirectly on behalf of all new teachers. Among the
first set are the following: regularly visit classrooms, review lesson plans and provide
immediate feedback (Brock & Grady, 2001; Colley, 2002; DePaul, 2000); be clear about
performance expectations (Colley, 2002); use formative assessment strategies and help
the novice set reasonable goals (Brock & Grady, 2001); making professional dialogue
part of the new teacher’s experience (Donaldson & Poon, 1999); provide new teachers
with curricular and instructional guidance and support (Bloom & Davis, 2001; Brock &
Grady, 2001); be available and give the novice your time, acting as a mentor if necessary
(Brock & Grady, 2001; Colley, 2002).

Among the second set of recommendations — indirect ways principals support
instructional development — are the following: give novices time to work with other
teachers to develop their teaching through co-planning, co-teaching, etc. (Brock & Grady,
2001; DePaul, 2000; Odell & Huling, 2000) and provide incentives for such work
(Darling-Hammond et al., 1999); protect new teachers planning time (DePaul, 2000);

facilitate observations of other teachers by beginning teachers (Brock & Grady, 2001);

117

arrange for new teacher gatherings and meetings (DePaul, 2000); and facilitate beginning
teacher participation in professional development opportunities (Brock & Grady, 2001;
DePaul, 2000; Odell & Huling, 2000).

New Teacher Evaluation

The continuum comes full circle with the formal assessment process. It is in this
cycle that new teachers are either fully assimilated into the existing culture or guided out
of the profession. The traditional evaluation process consists of several classroom
observations, complete with pre and post conferencing — all directed by the site
administrator in charge. More recently, performance-based teacher evaluation programs
have been adopted that put greater ownership in the hands of new teachers and in some
cases, share the responsibility for evaluation among a team of skilled professionals. In
addition to summative assessment strategies, the emergence of induction and mentoring
programs has brought about increased emphasis on formative assessment practices. The
primary advantage of formative assessment is its emphasis on promoting growth over
accountability. Formative assessment is more likely to be utilized by mentors, in part
because of the tremendous amount of time it requires.

Of all the categories, this is the only one that does not appear in the literature on
new teacher support. The assumption has always been that summative evaluation is not
part of the new teacher induction process. However, when evaluation is considered a
means for promoting teacher development and growth, it seems reasonable to consider
principals’ efforts as serving a support function. When this is the case, the following
recommendations are relevant. First, be clear with the novice about what is expected

(Bloom & Davis, 2001). Second, structure the process around the explicit needs of the

118

new teacher, e.g. focus observations and feedback on a limited number of critical skills
(Colley, 2002). Third, shift the emphasis from an outsider looking in, to a colleague
discussing performance as it pertains to teaching and learning (Donaldson & Poon, 1999).
Finally, coordinate evaluation activities with the induction/mentoring program to prevent
unnecessary overlap (Danielson & McGreal, 2000).

Facilitate and Sustain a Supportive School Context

Finally, principals interested in supporting their newest teachers must attend to the
distinct needs and interests of new and experienced members of staff, while at the same
time find ways to bring the two groups into closer communion. In addition, principals are
the ones most responsible for consciously shaping the school culture in particular ways,
often around a shared mission, as well as responsible for establishing desired working or
learning conditions.

Of all the things principals do to support new teachers, building and sustaining a
supportive school culture may be the most pervasive, as well as most elusive. Pleasant,
collegial work environments, guided by professional standards, are good for all teachers.
Among this set of recommendations we find things like foster a pleasant, supportive and
collegial work/leaming environment and establish a common, shared language among the
faculty (Leithwood, I990; Odell & Huling, 2000; Brock & Grady, 2001; Bloom & Davis,
2001; Colley, 2002). Other recommendations are more explicit, suggesting that
professional standards be used to structure individual and site—level learning opportunities
(CT C/CDE, l997b; Odell & Huling, 2000), and expectations for teaching and learning are
Clear (Brock & Grady, 2001; Bloom & Davis, 2001). Above all, there need to be high

CXpectations for student and teacher learning (NCTAF, I996).

119

 

 

Table 3: Principals Supporting New Teacher Development

Recruitment, Selection and Placement

V Recruit aggressively; streamline and facilitate the hiring process.

V Assign novices to subject area and grade level they are qualified for.

V Distribute challenging students among sections.

V Provide adequate resources to meet needs and expectations.

V Protect novice time by limiting extra duties and responsibilities.

Site Orientation and Resource Assistance

V Facilitate introduction and welcome to the site.

V Offer site orientation to highlight available resources, procedures and policies.
V Assign in-building mentors (if not already provided).

V Provide needed resources and supplies.

Managing the Environment

V Clearly articulate teacher expectations.

V Streamline state and district paperwork.

V Protect novices from the competing demands of state and district mandates.

V Maintain a disciplined school environment.

Relationship-building

V Be in regular personal communication with the novice.

V Acknowledge and reward performance, as appropriate.

V Maintain an open door policy; ask how you can be helpful.

Instructional Development and Supervision

Facilitate novice participation in professional development opportunities.
Provide opportunities and incentives for all teachers to work together.

Protect novices’ planning time.

Visit novice classrooms and provide feedback; help novice set reasonable goals.
Review novice lesson plans; offer instruction in teaching strategies.

Facilitate observation of other teachers by novice.

Engage in ongoing professional dialogue with the novice.

ew Teacher Evaluation

Explain expectations and procedures at the beginning of the year.

Schedule observations in advance; provide novice with copies of evaluation
records.

Use standards to guide your assessment.

Be positive but honest in your feedback; recognize the novice as a beginner.
Help the novice set reasonable goals for their learning and development.
Balance formal observations/conferencing with informal observations/feedback.
Coordinate evaluation activities with induction and mentoring program.

uild and Sustain a Supportive School Context

Develop and foster a welcoming, nurturing and collegial work environment that
values critical inquiry, reflection and risk-taking.

Help teachers on staff acknowledge and understand novice development and needs.
Set high expectations for teaching and learning and make them clear to all.
Use teaching standards to structure professional development opportunities.
Model collaborative working behavior.

W\\'\'\\ \\Z\\\'\\\\

'\

\\'\'\

 

I20

 

Additional Considerations

In addition to these more direct support tasks, principals can demonstrate their
support for new teachers in less obvious, yet critically important ways. Although
administrative leadership and professional development are not included on the support
continuum, they both represent commitments considered necessary for principals who
want to effectively support new teachers.
Providing Administrative Leadership for Induction and Mentoring

There are numerous ways a principal can show support for his or her new teachers
through administrative leadership. First and foremost, principals must articulate public
support for the program, including visible support of program work and activities on site
(Brock & Grady, 2001; CTC/CDE, l997b; Odell & Huling, 2000; Portner, 2001; Villani,
2002). They should participate in overall program development and evaluation
(CTC/CDE, l997b; Odell & Huling, 2000). More specifically, they should participate in
mentor selection, coordinate mentors as needed (Odell & Huling, 2000; Colley, 2002)
and attend training sessions designed for principals (CTC/CDE, l997b). They should
strive to coordinate new teacher support with mentors in order to present a unified effort
(Brock & Grady, 1997). And they should advocate for new teachers, especially with
difficult parents and/or students (DePaul, 2000).
Principal Professional Development

Little is said about principal professional development vis a vis new teacher
support, with one exception: the need to gain knowledge to insure program effectiveness.
Among the recommendations for principal learning and professional development are:

becoming knowledgeable about program goals and activities (CTC/CDE, l997b; Odell &

121

Huling, 2000); understanding the mentor’s role and respecting the mentor’s need for
confidentiality (CTC/CDE, l997b) and becoming knowledgeable about new teacher
development and learning needs (CTC/CDE, l997b). It is also suggested that principals
try to remember what it was like to be a new teacher and to improve their observation and
communication skills related to supervision (Bloom & Davis, 2001).

In the descriptive cases that follow, I detail the varied ways in which Maria,
James, Karen and Ramon describe supporting their beginning teachers. To the extent
possible I have used their words, drawn from taped interviews, to summarize reported
action. To make the telling more cogent, I have grouped support strategies into four broad
categories: a) recruitment, hiring and placement; b) managing the environment and
resource assistance; c) instructional development and evaluation; and d) building
relationships and a supportive professional culture.

While self-reports are critiqued for not being objective or reliable, what I report
here is supported by what I have observed and what has been described to me by mentors
and novices in their buildings. Nonetheless, Maria, James, Karen and Ramon all made
decisions about what they would (and would not) share in response to a question. I view
these self-reports as a medium for telling stories about their work, what they value, and
what is a priority. I am convinced that what they shared is important enough to retell
here.

The Case of Maria: A Teacher’s Principal

When you have admiration and respect for your principal... it’s part of why I

love Shining Star and it’s partly why I wanted to be a teacher here. Because I feel

like she ’s a teacher ’s principal, in that she ’s an advocate for the same thing I ’m

an advocate for, which is advancing student achievement for English Language
Learners specifically (Sharon, New Teacher, 5/01).

122

As the above quote suggests, Maria is looked to as a “teacher’s principal”. An
active instructional leader, Maria is the resident expert on issues of teaching and learning
in the building. Recall, Maria came to Shining Star Elementary from the local University
of California campus where had been supervising student teachers as a member of the
clinical faculty. When plans were drawn to make Shining Star a professional
development school site, Maria knew she wanted to be part of it. Five years into her
tenure at Shining Star, Maria assumed the role of principal — a role she has held for the
past six years. Using the tenets of socio—cultural theory as her guide, Maria is striving to
create a just, leaming—rich environment for students and teachers alike. Her strong
reputation, both in and outside the district, are proof positive that Maria has been widely
successful in her efforts. Her aim in working with new teachers:

I want to assure myself that I will have a beginning teacher inducted into the field

with good teaching habits, a strong knowledge of curriculum, everything that the

teacher has to have [as measured by the California teaching standards] and I

also want to make sure they are going to be effective with diverse students ( 3/01).

The text that follows looks at Maria’s approach to new teacher support,
development and evaluation through the lens of a) new teacher recruitment, hiring and
placement; b) managing the environment and resource assistance; c) instructional
development and evaluation; (1) building relationships and a supportive professional
culture.

New Teacher Recruitment, Hiring and Placement
Since Maria has taken over as principal, the need to hire new teachers has

dropped dramatically, signaling stability among staff for the first time since becoming a

PDS. Given the appeal of their multicultural mission, close relationship with area teacher

123

preparation programs, and reputation for on-site staff development and mentoring,
Shining Star does not have to look long for new candidates.

Hiring at Shining Star is done by a committee that includes resource teachers,
paraprofessionals and parents, as well as relevant grade level teachers and representatives
from the administrative team. For Maria, hiring always hinges on an individual’s
commitment to teaching for social justice. “It’s not every school site that’s going to take
on and put issues of race on the table. If you as a teacher are not willing to discuss those
things, then this is not the right school, because we are not going to back down. ” In this
regard, Maria plays an instrumental role in shaping who the committee will consider. In
her words,

My role is to assess the stafi in terms of who I think is the leader we need. What

types of teachers [do we need] to move the school forward ? I do that as an initial

pre-assessment. Then I tell the committee, this is what I think (5/01).

For example, she recently guided a search committee toward two goals she had identified
for the school: more experienced teachers and greater diversity among staff. She explains,
“I 'm looking at kids, what do the kids need? What kind of teachers do they need and that

is how I guide committees. ”

Perhaps Maria’s most significant efforts toward new teacher support come via her
careful approach to teacher placement. At Shining Star, new teachers are “protected” so
they can focus their energy on developing as teachers.

I really want them to focus on their teaching the first year. [really don ’t want to

distract them from that because they form their habits so early in their careers. I

want them to only concentrate on improving the quality of their teaching (6/01).

Maria ensures this through two specific strategies. First, she is watchful of their

assignment. “In terms of kids, I will protect them [new teachers] as much as I can with

124

children that either have reputations, behavior problems, so forth. I ’ll try to match the
kids to the teacher. ” In an interesting twist, Maria also protects her students from too
many new teachers. “For instance, if I ltave a third grade student and he ’s had a
beginning teacher for two years, then I would assign him to the more experienced teacher
next year.” Secondly, she is careful to not overload beginning teachers with committee
work.

For instance, beginning teachers... are not asked to serve on heavy-duty

committees. They get like the Sunshine committee. The way we have it set up is we

have committees that have a light commitment, a medium commitment and a

heavy commitment. I ’1] ask the beginning teacher to sign up for one light, one
medium (3/99).

Notably, Maria understands that she attracts young teachers who will eventually
leave for other parts of the state or country. From this perspective, Shining Star operates
like a teacher training site. “I know that whatever teacher I have here, for as many years
as they are here, they are going to have this pedagogy and they are going to move into
other school sites and they are going to take that with them... I don ’t mind that they
leave. I ’ll train more! ”

Resource Assistance and Managing the Environment

Maria relies on Kathryn, the on-site mentor, to orient new teachers to the building
and to address their resource needs. However, assigning this set of tasks to Kathryn
should not imply that Maria is neglecting her own role in this arena. Maria understands
that the responsibility for orientation and resource assistance ultimately falls on her
shoulders. As principal, her aim is to oversee and supplement Kathryn’s efforts.

We ’re here to support them. We want them to succeed. And it ’s my job to support

them and provide optimum conditions for them in teaching, and that includes

materials, resources, and if there are any conferences they need to go to or they
want to go to, I would support that as well (5/01).

125

But not everything Maria does to protect the new teacher is visible. Behind the
scenes she is busy doing the small things that only she, as principal, has the authority to
do. Administrative streamlining is one example of this.

Concretely I do a lot of making the teachers life easier... If I get a mandate from

the district or a report, I often times will redistribute the work in the oflice with

my support staff and give very little to the teachers. I only give them as much as
they need, when they absolutely have information that I don ’t have... I try to make
the teacher ’s life as optimal as possible because that’s my bottom line. My vested
interest is that they do their job with as little disruption and as little confusion as

possible. So that ’s where 1 direct my energy, a lot of my energy (6/01).
Instructional Development and Evaluation

With respect to instructional development, Maria takes a more hands-on approach
than many principals might. As a self-proclaimed “instructional leader” who “knows
teaching as well as anyone else in this building Maria is not afraid to praise good
performance, ask hard questions, raise concerns. To understand what that means to
Maria, we look to her reported practice.

One of the most visible ways Maria asserts herself is by maintaining an active
presence in the building. “I try to be in classrooms daily, but I won ’t be every
classroom.” Recently she was trained in doing three-minute “walk-throughs” which have
helped maximize her efforts and meet teacher expectations. “It gives me permission, not
that I need it, to give in for three minutes, assess and come out. And teachers actually like
it. They like to see principals in classrooms. " When she does enter a classroom, she
expects that the teacher will have their planning book open. She reminds teachers at the
beginning of every year: “I will go into your classroom from time to time. I will expect to

see your lesson plans. Your lesson plans must always be there and I will spot check your

plans. ” How they prepare these lesson plans is not important to her. That they do so, is

126

very important. When there is a discrepancy between what is written and what is
happening at the moment, she will ask why. She shares the following story to illustrate
her point.

One day I went in and I saw a teacher. It was ten o ’clock and he was doing class

meeting. Then I looked over and I didn ’t see his lesson plans, so I left a little note

and I said, “Come in and see me during recess or when you get a chance. ” And I

said, “This is the second time I ’ve been in and you ’ve been doing class meeting

with the kids. Is there something happening because morning is prime time for
language arts. When do you do your language arts? He actually had a good
reason. Something had been going on so he did it and he said, “Honest, Maria,

It’s doesn’t always happen this way” He’s an excellent teacher, but sometimes

he just needs a little kind of push. He ’s young, so I have to remind him that yes, he

does have to do lesson plans and they have to be there so that I can walk in and

see them, because I ’m always keeping the kids on my bottom line (3/01).

Maria supports instruction in other less obtrusive, yet still powerful ways. For
example, after returning from a principal institute one summer she hosted a series of
“Principal Breakfasts.” Attendance was not required and yet close to two-thirds of the
staff attended. The focus of conversation was a book that highlighted effective teaching
behaviors. Each week the group would discuss a different chapter. According to Maria,
veteran teachers benefited the most from these conversations, as “it gave them a language
that they didn ’t have before.” Today she uses these same concepts, together with the
California teaching standards, to frame her feedback in the evaluation process. In fact,
she routinely copies readings from this text to distribute to teacher candidates and
beginning teachers, even veteran teachers when she feels it is warranted.

In a separate instance, Maria stepped in to help a group of beginning teachers plan

art centers. In a casual conversation she learned that this group of teachers was interested

in adding an art center during language arts time, but didn’t know where to begin.

127

Because this is a strong interest of Maria’s, she volunteered to get them started. To be
equitable, she has made a similar offer to the rest of the staff.

Additionally, during any communication with staff, verbal or otherwise, Maria
tries to focus the conversation around instruction and students. Although we may never
know how successful she is in accomplishing this, as a goal, it clearly guides her
intentions.

All of the stafl development that we do, the collaboration time, the professional
development, any time I have an opportunity to speak to them [staff] my

comments are always around instruction. Any staff meeting, any sort of content,
any memo, I really try and make sure instruction is at the core of what they are

doing. I always try to refocus them to their teaching and to their instruction of
children (6/01).

Maria is convinced that a sustained emphasis on development of sound
professional habits is critical to new teachers’ development. In the following statement
we see the importance of lesson plans surface again. This story is significant in that Maria
not only has a vision, but also a set of strategies for realizing the dream. In this excerpt
we are also reminded of how involved Maria is willing to get. It comes as no surprise
that Sharon, one of the new teachers in the building, describes her as a “teacher’s
principal”.

Because of what we know about how beginning teachers develop their habits in

the first few years, I think it’s critical that we help them before their habits are

entrenched and they revert back to the way they were taught. For instance, I ’ll

ask to see my beginning teachers lesson plans and I’ll ask for them the Monday

before the week begins...because I want to push them to plan a week in advance
so they’re not planning day to day... I don ’t want them to get into the habit of
planning day to day, so I’ve put that structure in place. I ’11 only ask until I am
reassured that they are doing okay... So things like that. I think I have a picture of

what a good teacher should be so I help them. I help them get that way (3/01).

Later in the interview Maria adds,

128

I understand instruction better than a lot of people at this school site and my
teachers know that. I think that a principal has to be an instructional leader. You
have to know teaching and learning in order for the school to run. I have to
understand reading and math and all the other content areas as well as the
teachers in the classroom; well enough to be able to present it in staff
development (3/01).

These excerpts portray Maria as a strong, dynamic instructional leader; a “teacher’s

principal.” Can she maintain this stance during the formal evaluation process?

The Evaluation Process

Maria approaches the evaluation process matter-of-factly. Early in the year,
Kathryn, the on-site mentor, takes responsibility for orienting new teachers to the process
and assists them in writing Individual Learning Plans. When it comes time, Maria
schedules an observation based on the stated learning plan goal. A pre—observation
conference is held, but this can as easily take the form of a casual conversation next to the
copy machine as a formal meeting in her office. Observations are always scheduled to
last a full class period. Sometimes Maria will take a running record on her laptop; other
times she will be more informal about collecting evidence. Within a couple of days,
Maria will meet with the new teacher to review the observation and set new goals. This is
where the process becomes something more than routine practice.

Maria approaches teacher evaluation as a learning opportunity — for herself and
for the novice. Through a series of three formal observations she is able to learn more
about their beliefs, knowledge, skill. It also becomes an opportunity for her to impart
what she knows about good teaching. During the post-observation conference Maria steps

back from the principal role to become a teacher again. “The first few years when l

observe them, I ’ll be very explicit in my observations.” In the passage below, Maria talks

129

about how she approaches these conversations. What emerges is a principal who takes
her calling as an instructional leader seriously.

So for instance, Sharon could have come in and said, “I want you to look at
classroom management. ” Well, I want to deconstruct that part. I want her to
know that classroom management includes momentum, what they could call
attention rules and this is what they are... You can look at [my evaluations] from
a few years ago, and they would say “recognizes the school environment”. Well,
that doesn ’t give enough information to a teacher. You have to say what is in the
physical environment that is making this an effective environment... in my
particular case I’d like it to go a little further and I have the tools and the
knowledge to do that. If it benefits teachers and benefits kids, I’m going to do it....
When they get explicit feedback like this, their faces light up. And they say to me,
“This is so great, you have no idea! I know I’m a good teacher but I can ’t always
say why! ” (12/99).

Still, we need to keep in mind that these conversations are short, rarely lasting
more than twenty minutes, and only occur three times a year. Maria and Sharon readily
admit that the real work of instructional development happens with Kathryn, the on-site
mentor.

When asked what she looks for as evidence of growth during the evaluation
process, Maria talks about changes in the novice from the beginning of the year to the
end. She uses the California teaching standards and accompanying developmental
continuum, as well her own expertise, to ground her impressions. Additionally, she draws
heavily on what Kathryn shares with her about the new teachers’ performance and what
she herself observes more informally. Moreover, when Maria feels the novice should be
focusing their development in a particular area, she doesn’t hesitate to tell them so.

If I feel that they are not stressing something that I think they need to address then

I ’ll address it through the observation. I’ll observe this and say, “Oh, I also

noticed this, this and this, so for our next observation... ” Or I’ll throw in a fourth

observation. I have done that, saying: “I really didn ’t see this. I saw this that you

wanted, but then I saw this, so I want to come back in two weeks, and then I want
to come back in a month and do this (5/01).

Maria’s responses highlight the obvious: principals are always evaluating their teachers.
Important to note, however, is that Maria is equally devoted to helping her teachers grow
and develop. Assessment cannot be separated from assistance.

The picture painted thus far is rather rosy. In reality, the process is not always so
smooth. For example, Sharon is a very accomplished and skilled 4'h grade teacher, now in
her second year at Shining Star. Maria is thrilled to have her on staff and sees her as a star
teacher in the making. Still, during a recent observation conference, Maria was very
direct about her discomfort with the noise level in the classroom the day she observed.
When she raised this during the conference, Sharon began to cry. Maria adds, “I wasn ’t
meaning it as a criticism, it was an observation that I made. I felt so bad... I hurt her
feelings somehow. It might have been the way I said it. I don ’t know, but the next thing I
knew she was right there and I just saw the tears come. ” Maria could tell Sharon
disagreed with her perceptions of what had happened. Still, Maria knew what she saw, so
she worked hard to make her observations explicit. “Yes, but I was at one table where the
two girls were supposed to be reading with each other. I said, ‘Sharon, they were reading
across the table. As a teacher you can eliminate some of that noise by having them sit
next to each other. ’ Basically I was fine-tuning for her. ”

One explanation for what happened in the above case reflects the relatively small
and unpredictable amount of time Maria spends in instructional development, be it in or
outside the evaluation process. Without a trusting relationship, developed over time,
Maria’s good intentions and smart advice will always run the risk of being

misunderstood. A second explanation might be attributed to personal beliefs. In Maria’s

mind, being observed regularly is part of being a responsible professional. “I also think

131

that as a teacher, as a responsible teacher, I would want to be observed every few years.
When I was a teacher I didn ’t mind being observed every three years. ” Unfortunately,
not all teachers come to the classroom with this assumption internalized.

Building Relationships and a Supportive Professional Culture

Shining Star is a welcoming place. Strangers are greeted by students, staff and
parent volunteers with a friendly smile. The office staff is quick to respond and be of
assistance. There is a steady stream of parents coming and going. In the background you
see teachers busy gathering materials and asking questions of one another. The tempo is
quick and focused; the mood is positive and supportive. On one of my visits, Maria was
out photographing a proud group of grandfathers who were sitting on the courtyard
benches, waiting to walk their grandchildren home from school. Nurturing relationships
seems to come naturally to Maria and her staff at Shining Star.

DeveIOping a good working relationship with each individual teacher is very
important to Maria. This is especially true of her work with newer staff members. As we
can see in the quote below, she approaches this proactively. Rather than wait for a request
to come to her, she seeks opportunities to be supportive. She does so knowing that
beginning teachers are shy and often don’t know what it is they need.

I really work hard at building a relationship with them. I think a relationship goes

a long way, so I really make sure they know who I am and that I ’m there to

support them. I make sure they have all the materials that they need, because

often times I find teachers are hesitant, especially beginning teachers, they are

shy about asking the principal (5/01).

Maria anticipates and responds to the needs of new teachers in a variety of ways.

She takes on a “parent role” by asking about their family and their children and “making

sure they take care of themselves. ” She maintains an “open door policy”, hoping they

132

will feel free to ask questions and raise concerns. She rewards good work with teacher
books and resources. Last year she offered teachers a coupon to leave early on a
Wednesday when children are released early. Her goal is to communicate that she cares.
Her hope is that by expressing this care, teachers will feel more comfortable taking risks
to develop their instructional practice.
I develop a relationship with them. I ’1] ask them about their families. I ’1] ask them
about their kids. I develop a strong relationship with them. They know that I care
about them as a person. That relationship takes it a long way. It really opens the
doors for me to talk to them about superior performance (12/99).
Although Maria clearly cares for all her teachers, this interest takes on a special,
protective quality with new teachers. In her words,
It is diflerent in that I am their evaluator for the first few years, but I can tell
you... it ’3 almost like I have a special relationship with my new teachers. It’s
probably more nurturing than it is with my veteran teachers. With my veteran
teachers I have more of a collegial relationship, I guess; whereas with my
beginning teachers, I nurture them. They are very close to me in that they come
and share. They cry in my ofi‘ice and they feel very open... I have an open door
policy with everyone, but I look out for them. I protect them. I ’m protective of my
beginning teachers. Again, because I want them to develop their skills (6/01).
Nurturing a Professional Culture
Maria does a variety of things to build community at Shining Star. Grade level
meetings occur weekly, often on Tuesday afternoons since children are released early.
Occasionally Maria will assign a task that needs to be done, e. g. revising the retention
policy to reflect changes in state legislation, or implementation of the bilingual model.
Most of the time, however, this time is reserved for co-planning at the grade level.

Kathryn, as on-site staff developer, oversees the work at this level. Grade level

discussions also occur during staff meetings, as Maria is committed to devoting thirty

133

minute each month to grade-specific discussions about student work. To the extent
possible, she delegates facilitation of these discussions to experienced staff members.

Interestingly, Maria uses committee work as a strategy for socializing new
teachers to the building and to the profession. New teachers bring a perspective that is
fresh and sometimes challenging; veteran teachers bring a perspective that bears the fruit
of experience, tempered by big picture thinking. Maria, the teacher/leader, is always
looking for ways to give novices opportunities to learn from the wisdom of more
experienced others.

Maria was drawn to Shining Star precisely because of its commitment to teacher
development. As she reflects back on the type of professional community she has helped
assemble at Shining Star, we get a picture of what she considers the essential traits of
good teachers: courageous, bright thinkers who are willing to carry the banner of social
justice. Everything else — including content knowledge — can be learned on the job.

My number one criteria was a teacher community that was highly intellectual,

because I think that the better and the smarter the teacher, the smarter the

teaching. So I wanted to develop a cadre of teachers that valued intellectual
capital, that saw that as their number one resource. I knew that from that it would
be easy to build content knowledge... I wanted them, of course, to be very strong
in addressing issues of equity, 0 very culturally responsive teacher...in terms of

anti-biased curriculum and teaching for social justice (6/01).

For this learning to occur, Maria needs the help of a professional community that
values collegial work. Establishing this community is one of Maria’s primary tasks. She
accomplishes this first and foremost through relationship building. In doing so, she hopes
to create “learners and leaders” who are prepared to “tackle the hard issues " together.

I invest heavily in building a community of learners and leaders and I do a lot of

relational building with teachers. I work very hard at establishing a relationship

with them and having them establish relationships with each other so that we can
develop an environment of trust. Then we can tackle the hard issues... I want

134

them to be leaders. I want them to understand and to see the school through my

eyes... That we’re here to work together as a community to educate all of the kids
in the school (6/01).

Two additional factors are critical to maintaining this community: social capital
and accountability. For Maria, risk-taking and high standards go hand in hand.

You start with social capital. You start with making teachers feel good about

themselves and what they are doing, and making them feel safe. Make them feel

that this is a safe, risk-free environment for teaching and learning. If you set that
up and do it consciously, they’re going to do the work that they are about, which
is intellectual... But the other thing that we do is accountability. We do hold

teachers to high standards... because we work with such an at-risk population, I

don ’t feel that we can let up (3/99).

A theme of accountability runs across all five interviews with Maria. As she
explains in our second conversation, all teachers know that “we are serious about
education” and “we are going to hold you accountable. ” Maria’s direct approach to
giving instructional advice is a prime example of this. When she recently discovered that
a new teacher was only working with students twenty minutes a day, two days a week, in
reading instruction, she knew that was not enough. She demanded that this teacher find
the time to “see these kids, every single child, on a daily basis. ”

One tension Maria must balance is her desire to protect new teachers with a
competing need to enculturate them into the activity and routine of the school. “I try to
protect them as much as I can, but there are some things that they need to know.” To this
we can add the things new teachers need to do. We sense the pull between protecting and
involving as Maria thinks about the extra commitments teachers are expected to take on
as part of their PDS work. “I think we have a lot of projects going on. [New teachers] are

not expected to participate in all of them. I certainly don’t expect them to do that. But I

do expect them to participate in one of the projects that is going on. ”

135

Maria summarizes her role in facilitating professional community in the following
statement. Note how she describes her work as that of scaffolding support so that her
teachers can concentrate on teaching well.

If I ’m going to hold those teachers to high standards, then I need to provide the

supports they need. If I ’m holding them to this assessment module, for example,

then I need to provide release time for them to assess it. I need to provide training
for them to know how to do it. I need to provide someone to input the data so they
don ’t have to. And those are the same kinds of things I ’m expecting in the

classroom if they are holding kids to high standards (3/99).

The Case of James: Doing the Job

Last year I was very paranoid when he came in. This year, I ’m like, you know

what? He’s here to help me. I don’t need to be nervous, just teach, just do what

you ’d normally do if he wasn ’t here... Of course, he ’s always questioning and
wanting to know my reasoning behind it, but I think that’s good, he should. I’ve

never left his oflice feeling like he didn ’t hear me, he didn’t listen to me, he didn ’t

respect me or he was condescending (Maya, 5/01).

As suggested in the quote above, James has high expectations for his teachers.
Often this is frightening to the novice. At the same time, he is quick to offer support. In
fact, he sees his job as just that — building a web of support around his teachers so they
can do the job they have been hired for.

I think a new teacher coming in has to be able to perform their job. My job,

number one, is to make sure they can do it. And number two, to support them in

growing and developing as an educator. But they do have to be able to do the job
and be efiective at it. Nobody belongs in a classroom, given the needs of these

students, if they can ’t meet the learning needs of these students (James, 8/01).

James did not begin teaching with thoughts of administrative work. Rather, he
gradually assumed greater leadership responsibilities; first as a bilingual resource teacher,
then as a head teacher. These experiences eventually pushed him toward an

administrative credential. He is now completing his eleventh year as principal of Unity

Elementary, a dual immersion charter school.

136

I now look at James’ approach to new teacher support and evaluation through the
lens of a) new teacher recruitment, hiring and placement; b) managing the environment
and resource assistance; c) instructional development and evaluation; (1) building
relationships and a supportive professional culture.

New Teacher Recruitment, Hiring and Placement

Like most principals, James is responsible for new teacher hiring at Unity. Recent
legislation mandating class size reduction in the lower grades, coupled with a shortage of
certified bilingual teachers, has made the task more challenging in recent years. It’s no
longer uncommon for James to spend the month of August looking for teachers. The
realities of teaching in California have reinforced for James the importance of linking
with local teacher preparation institutions for help in “growing our own

Today, James looks to Unity’s long-standing relationship with the nearby
University of California campus as a recruiting tool. Teacher candidates who show
promise during their field placements, are supportive of the school mission, and fully
credentialed are aggressively recruited for open positions each spring. Late summer
appointments are often filled with individuals on emergency permit. An advantage to
hiring former student teachers is that they have already begun the process of being
socialized into the professional community at Unity.

In terms of the hiring process, James approaches this task collaboratively. He
takes responsibility for “fl ring ” open positions and searching for candidates who may be
a “goodfit”. Ads are run in the paper, the school is represented at local teacher fairs, the
names of interested individuals are kept on file. A hiring committee, of which he is a

member, narrows the pool of candidates, conducts interviews and makes final decisions.

137

James avoids controlling this process, except under extreme circumstances, such as the
year he pulled a favored candidate after uncovering charges of harassment.

As for teacher placement, James is looking for a ‘good fit” between the new
teacher’s perceived strengths and challenges and the needs of a particular position. When
the fit is good, he is content with letting the novice carve his or her own niche on the
staff. When the fit is not as ideal, James assumes a more proactive stance. For example,
he recently made the decision to hire an under-qualified, yet promising young teacher
precisely because of the strong instructional support she would get from her grade level
peers, her BTSA mentor, and on—site staff developers. In this case, James sought multiple
opportunities to support her learning and development at the onset.

Resource Assistance and Managing the Environment

Although the induction literature touts the importance of principal—led
orientations, James doesn’t put a lot of importance on this as a formal activity. New staff
orientation rarely lasts more than an hour, sometime the week before school begins. The
emphasis is on making introductions, completing district paperwork, reviewing school-
wide policies and procedures. Mostly, James relies on the grade level teams to orient
newcomers. “The grade level teams do a great job of bringing people in, and that
happens without me. They do that on their own.” Once school has begun, James will
meet again with new staff to acquaint them with the evaluation process.

While formal orientation appears to be a non-event at Unity, James takes
seriously an ongoing need to assess and meet individual needs. If he sees someone
struggling with classroom management, he will try to link him or her with a colleague

who can help. When a novice recently was without a phone in a challenging classroom,

I38

James helped enact an emergency plan that drew on the help of colleagues teaching next
door. Notably, James taps the expertise of others — often, but not always a mentor — to
ensure that support is forthcoming. As a general rule of thumb: “If they have certain
kinds of specific challenges, then we’ll probably sit down and try to find resources that
can be applied to help them through whatever the challenge is that they happen to be
going through. ” For James, this is all part of the “nuts and bolts” of teaching, e. g. what a
person needs to do the job effectively. As principal, it is his job to ensure that teacher
needs are met.

Part of it is the nuts and bolts. What is it that the person needs to so they can do

their job? Basic information about how the school works, the ins and outs, all the

things that even as a student teacher you may not have been aware of, but that an
experienced teacher takes for granted. [We have ] an understanding that a lot of
those pieces are missing and they need to be developed for that first year teacher,
so we’re trying to be sensitive to that and support people and get those pieces in

place (3/01).

Principals can also support new teachers by managing their environments. This
can happen in a very direct and visible way, like when James steps in to protect the
novice from difficult students.

If there is a particular student that’s being highly disruptive, I don ’t want that

(Recruiting, New, & Teachers, ) teacher to suffer through and think they have to

put up with the situation. I don’t want that teacher’s teaching to be stopped by

that one student in the classroom. I want the student out of there. We can deal
with it through the discipline process, through conferences with the parent. We
can get the teacher the support they need to learn the skills they need to work
eflectively with that student. But time and time again it happens, a teacher will

think, “I can ’t manage the child ’s behavior, so the principal is going to think I’m

a terrible teacher and I won ’t be hired or something. ” What I try to tell them, my

priority is that you are teaching and the kids are learning (5/01).

A more indirect way of managing the environment comes through careful

bUdgeting, thereby “assuring that there ’s always an allocation for materials and books

139

spread out among all the classrooms James considers budgeting a priority task when it

comes to the principal’s role in supporting new teachers.

In summary, much of what James reports doing to support his novices has an

indirect quality to it, where the task is one of creating, fostering and reinforcing support

structures. By drawing on the expertise of others to creatively meet individual needs,

James is helping to ensure that his newest faculty members are given the opportunity to

grow and develop into effective teachers’. In turn, James expects their best effort. For

James, this is all part of doing one’s job.

Their job is to make sure instruction happens effectively in that classroom. My job
is to support them in that and get them resources that they need to be successful.
Therefore, if there ’s something they need, if there is a skill that they need to
develop, or a book that they need...l ’m a resource to make that happen. The
bottom line is that they are responsible; their professional responsibility is to
make sure instruction is taking place. It ’s not my job to come in and show them
how to teach (9/01 ).

Instructional Development and Evaluation

James, adopting more of a managerial, removed from the classroom leadership

style, describes himself as an instructional leader of a certain kind.

James:

Cindy:

James:

I learn more from the teachers that I work with than I think they would
ever learn from me. I think I have the ability and experience to be able
to go into a classroom and be able to find, and be able to see, and
criticize the teaching that I see going on in there... But I don ’t see that
as a primary strength of mine.

Would you still call yourself an instructional leader or something else?

I would call myself an instructional leader in the sense that I hold the
teachers accountable for the curriculum and instructional strategies
that we’ve defined as being necessary for achieving the goals that we
have, and working with people to move them forward and becoming
more adept and more proficient in those difierent areas basically
defined by the [ CS TP] continuum of teacher abilities (3/01).

140

For James, the school runs best when everyone assumes the role they have been
assigned. His own role in promoting effective instruction is to ensure that individual
teachers are held accountable for enacting school-based curriculum and instructional
strategies; whereas, more skilled others (e. g. grade level leaders; on-site Title VII staff
developers) are responsible for providing instructional leadership close to the classroom.
James depends heavily on the structures that have been created, as well as the individuals
assigned to those structures, for promoting teacher development. It is not that James does
not want to spend more time with teachers in the classroom. Rather, the multiple
demands and continual interruptions of the principalship often preclude it.

Something I’ve always tried to do was block a time specifically to get out of my

office and into the classrooms and cover as much ground as possible. Which,

more often than not, is time that gets interrupted or gets usurped by some other
incident that happens to be taking place ( 9/01 ).
Still, finding time remains a goal of his.

I think one of the things that people think is a weakness of mine is the fact that I

don’t spend more time in classrooms... but I know that I have made much

progress there and part of it is because of all the other things that are happening.

I have lots of excuses, but it is something that I think is a need, something I need

to develop ( 9/01 ).
The Evaluation Process

Given James’ hands-off style, his greatest opportunity for directly influencing
novice instruction comes through the evaluation process. Guided by district protocol,
James conducts three formal observations annually for each untenured teacher in the
building. This process is guided by an individual learning plan that in recent years BTSA
mentors have taken the lead in helping the novice prepare. James expects that these

learning plans will address the six domains of the California teaching standards and

hopes they will also address classroom management issues. Prior to each observation,

141

James asks the novice to complete a pre—conference questionnaire in which they are
specific about what they want him to look for. Typical observations find James typing
furiously on his laptop as the 45 to 60 minute lesson unfolds. He is looking for two
things: a) evidence in support of the novice’s learning goals, and b) evidence in support
of the California teaching standards. Following the observation he will meet with the
novice for 15 to 20 minutes in a post-observation conference. If learning goals are
revised, they are done so at this time. Plans are also made for the next observation. When
asked what he most wants to learn or see from this process, he responds:

What I ’m really looking for is that they are reflecting on what they are doing with

what the state and district have identified as being the critical elements of their

profession, of their instruction, of their work as an educator (5/01).

Having participated in the development of this evaluation model, James is a firm
believer that principals’ primary role in the evaluation process is ultimately to support
teacher professional development — which he does with almost religious devotion.

The questions in the evaluation document are really set up to have the teacher

reflect on what they are doing, and to specifically ask the administrator what it is

that the administrator can do, as another set of eyes in the classroom, to gather

information that can be shared with the teacher to help in the development of
their skill and ability (12/99).

At the beginning of each year James’ schedules a meeting with all untenured
teachers to share his “two hat” approach to the evaluation process. At this meeting he is
up-front about what the new teacher can expect.

I try to be as explicit as possible and say that, as the administrator, I get to wear
two hats. The only hat I really want to wear is the one where I am a professional
resource to you in the development of your skills and ability. But I also have a
responsibility to make sure that the best teachers are in these classrooms and the
most competent teachers in these classrooms. At such a point that I become
concerned, then I switch and put on a different hat and I make that very explicit. I
will tell you that and I will document, I will put down on a pre-assistance form
areas that I ’m concerned about. I will remove myself from that other role and

142

work with you because there are some very specific concerns that I have about
your performance (12/99).

Prior to donning the second hat, James will do what he can to address concerns as
they first arise. Often times it is a matter of accessing additional resources that can help
them over the hump. Other times it is simply a matter of drawing attention to the concern.
For example, James finds that new teachers often get caught up in having too much
recess or too much art —- well—exercised children in pretty classrooms — at the expense of
reading, writing and math. So during a post observation conference James may engage
the novice in looking at their lesson book and counting the minutes spent on math for a
given week, thus prompting a conversation about how instructional time is spent. This
may lead to a new focus for the next round of observations. Reflecting back on what it
takes to make these gestures work, James notes that it “is the ability to form a working
relationship and a sense of trust and confidence with the teacher”. When problems
continue and a concern becomes serious, James puts on his second hat — convinced that
the artful blending of assessment with assistance is a challenge any good administrator
must face. The bottom line, however, must always be student learning. “A fundamental
responsibility that I have is to make sure that there is a qualified teacher in each
classroom. If they can ’t show me that they have those qualifications, then it’s my job to
remove them from the classroom. ”

Perhaps James is best characterized by a unique twist on the evaluation process
that he has supported with the kindergarten team. Two years ago, all but one of the
kindergarten teachers was new, and the only experienced teacher among them also
doubled as their BTSA mentor. Rather than proceed one to one as is typical, the group

decided to work together around a common area of focus by videotaping their work with

143

students and then meeting periodically with James, the vice principal, and their mentor to
view the tapes and dialogue about what they saw. Group goals were then set for the next
round of observations. In reflecting on this process, James highlights the value-added
nature of “expanding the conversation” from one principal and one novice to a team that
includes principals and mentors with novices.

I like to think that there’s some value in my coming in and observing someone in
the classroom. But I think probably for most people it ’s seen as a burden. We
have interesting comments about it and I’m sure they get some value out of it. But,
it doesn’t compare in my mind to what we ’ve done with the kindergarten group
where we have the group of colleagues sitting together, observing somebody ’3
practice and having dialogue and giving people feedback. That in my mind is a lot
more valuable to the teacher than the notion of my coming in, with my busy
schedule, responding to their questions. I said that definitely has some value. I’m
not going to write myself ojf. I do have something to offer. But, anytime that you
expand the conversation to include other people that increases the value
exponentially (5/01).

Building Relationships and a Supportive Professional Culture
James does his best to be sensitive to the needs of new teachers and give plenty of
positive reinforcement, as exemplified in this story.
I try to be very sensitive to the needs of new teachers and understand that they ’ve
got tremendous challenges in front of them... For instance, I had one teacher last
year who was an emergency credential type and is just a star. She made a point of
every month having her kids do an art project, which she then put them up on the
bulletin board here in the oflice. It made just a wonderful contribution. So when I
sat down to do my evaluation, 1 made a point of just being really positive and
appreciative of that effort. So I wouldn ’t go and say, “You know, I really think
you ought to be doing more of this or that. ” That is the last thing that someone
who is feeling overwhelmed or dealing with the challenges of the first year will be
open to hearing ( 9/01 ).
Nonetheless, building and sustaining relationships with faculty is an area of
admitted weakness for James. Periodically he reminds me that his job is not about

rewarding teachers with gold stars and happy-grams; rather, holding them accountable for

good, effective teaching. For James, it is all about doing your job.

144

We all have jobs to do and the most important thing is teaching those kids. I’m
not going to give you a report card with little stars on it because we ’ve got more
important work to do. You ’ve got a role and I have a role and I work my butt off
making it happen and that’s what we do here together. That to me is the
affirmation that I’m looking for (3/01 ).

At the same time, James is quick to note that he is only one element of a larger
effort supporting the new teacher. Equally important are mentors, staff developers,
resource teachers, and grade level colleagues. The fact that he has responsibility and
authority to pass final evaluative judgment makes that all the more necessary.

Nurturing a Professional Culture

It is fitting to conclude any discussion of James by looking at his efforts to build
professional culture at Unity. In his own authoritative, yet quiet style, James’ has helped
to build, nurture and sustain a community of teachers -— new and not so new — who
reflect, inquire and learn from each other. As James reflects on Unity, he sees a school
where teacher preparation, new teacher induction and professional development programs
are “in sync” with one another and where a commitment to the classroom binds everyone
together. He credits the use of a shared language, particularly as found in the work of the
local BTSA program, for much of this.

This big part of that is the fact that all those dijferent elements are talking the

same language. They are talking about the same things. Especially and primarily

the [BTSA] project is supporting those teachers and moving them toward mastery
of those strategies ( 4/99 ).

Several factors enable professional community at Unity. First, the virtual
elimination of bilingual education in the state forced the school’s recommitment to a
dual-immersion model through charter status. Unity teachers remain deeply committed to

this model despite poor test scores in the upper elementary grades. Second, the addition

of federal and state grant monies have enabled the school to hire on-site staff developers

145

and resource specialists, as well as develop a “super sub” program which allows for
regular co-planning sessions at grade level — an essential component of the dual-
immersion model. As James shares, from the very beginning the goal has been to move
away from the image of an isolated teacher. Third, the school has a long-standing
relationship with the local University of California teacher preparation program and spin-
off BTSA program, both of which have drawn attention and resources to teacher
development at the preservice, induction and professional development stages.

It builds on itself as the teacher moves from a student teacher, to a new teacher,

to an experienced teacher. You have teacher education, you have BTSA, you have

our evaluation system, and you have our own internal staff development program.

All are integrated and connected (3/01).

As evidence of his ongoing commitment to collaborative work, James is now
pushing teachers to articulate their goals across grade levels (vertically) as a complement
to the strong team structure that exists at the grade level (horizontally). The need to raise
state test scores in the upper grades is partially responsible for this move.

In my conversations with James, he frequently jumped from talk about new
teachers, to student teachers, to veteran teachers. Although James is clearly sensitive to
the needs of beginning teachers in his building, there is an equally strong pull to have all
teachers participate in the Unity community as equals. James manages this tension by
addressing individual needs and paying attention to when these needs are good for all
teachers, while at the same time expecting active participation from the novice. In the
following excerpt, James describes what he hopes for when a novice joins the staff.

What I would like to see is a rookie teacher standing up for what they believe in

and not being intimidated by the people that are already here. Somebody who is

ready to jump with both feet and engage in the grade level team... I understand

completely that, especially the first year, teaching is just overwhelming... I feel
happy when I have a rookie teacher who is meeting the challenge of their first

146

year and also engaging in various aspects of the school. Whether it’s
participating or coming to the council meetings once a month, getting out in the
yard and playing with kids during their lunch time, having lunch with their kids in
the cafeteria, participating in presenting workshops to parents. Those are all
extra things. I definitely can think of some teachers that it just was not possible
for them to do that their first year. But I guess what I do sense is some people
come in and see that as part of being a teacher. And for other people that are
overwhelmed by it and just feel like they don ’t have any energy or the time to do
some of these other activities, it seems to be an approach that gets carried on to
the rest of their career. They end up being people that never do participate in
those other activities (8/01).

When asked what fueled his commitment to building professional community
around a shared mission, James nominates his staff. More than colleagues at any other
level in the system, he attributes his faculty for moving him forward as a leader.

It’s the synergy that has developed among the staff, especially the stajf that stuck
with this program over the years. Learning from each other and bringing our
strengths together in such a way that allow us all to grow not only individually
but collectively, since we ’re linked and zeroed in on what we ’re trying to
accomplish... More than anything it ’s the relationships I ’ve had with my
colleagues here at the school site. Then probably the next level down would be my
colleagues here at the district level and fellow principals. But once you make that
leap from the school site to something outside of the school site... the scale of
impact of influence, in terms of myself, is at a much lower level. It’s really what
happens there with the folks that I get to work with that I think moved my abilities
and thinking forward (3/01).

Promoting, facilitating, building teacher support structures are all part of the
principal role as James envisions it. To his credit, he is guided by the vision of preparing
bilingual and biliterate children — a vision that requires teachers to be skilled,
knowledgeable, and creative. At the same time, he holds everyone accountable for doing
their job effectively and getting results.

I have no need or desire to wield power or authority over other people. What I

want to see happen is people be responsible for their work, be proud of their work

and put the best product out there so that student achievement happens. To the

extent that I can support that, there are many different roles that I play as an
administrator to make that happen. But [I] do not need to be a patriarchal power

147

figure in the equation. I think that’s probably one of the least ejfective models for
change (12/99).
The Case of Karen: Principal and Mentor to the Novice

She really cares, that shines through. I think she really takes time when you’re

sitting with her and conferencing about your observation. She gives you good

feedback. I really appreciate that (Sonja, New Teacher, 5/01)

As suggested in the quote above, Karen is a principal who cares enough to take
your development as an educator seriously. A veteran of the classroom and former BTSA
mentor, Karen knows what it is like to be a newcomer and a beginner. From the moment
the novice is hired, Karen is reaching out to encourage and help. Like Maria and James,
however, this sense of caring does not prevent her from taking a strong professional
stand. Expectations at Arts Elementary are high. New teachers who fail to recognize that
they need help are probably not going to appreciate Karen’s “caring with a purpose”

approach.

I expect them to know teaching strategies and techniques to support our second
language Ieamers and know something about difierentiated instruction. I expect
them to have a philosophy of collaboration and call on help when needed. I don’t
want somebody who is self-contained, who says I don ’t need anything. We all
need lots of help. So that ’s really what I ’m looking for. Somebody that can get
along with others and have some basic methods and knows where to go for
resources (5/01).

We now look at Karen’s approach to new teacher support and evaluation through
the lens of a) new teacher recruitment, hiring and placement; b) managing the
environment and resource assistance; c) instructional development and evaluation; and (1)

building relationships and a supportive professional culture.

148

New Teacher Recruitment, Hiring and Placement

Like the other principals in this study, Karen supports a collaborative approach to
hiring. “I ’m part of the committee and I have the same voice that everybody else does. ”
Karen proved this last spring when her top choice was not the same as that of the search
committee. Believing that she has an obligation to “model the democratic process”,
Karen pulled back, allowing the search committee to select a team member they felt best
matched their needs.

Karen does intervene, however, during the placement process. Critically aware of
new teacher needs, she is determined to see that novices are given the best placements
possible — even when she has to defend these decisions to hard-working veteran teachers
accustomed to having their choice of assignments. Her goal is to get to the point where
conversations, like the one reported below, don’t happen because new teacher support is
an assumed part of the professional culture.

We ’ve hired a couple of new people and we ’ve had to make some changes, create

some combinations because of our enrollment, and I will not give a new teacher a

combination class and I will not give them students that are more diflicult. They

will go to an experienced teacher. It was hard telling an experienced teacher that
they were going to do a combination and they said, “Why don ’1 you give it to the
new teacher? ” I said, “I ’m not doing that That should be understood for all

of us. That ’s not what we do (6/01).

Karen attributes her experience as a BTSA mentor with this heightened sensitivity.

I think it ’3 [local BTSA project] made me more aware of, you know, being more

sensitive to their needs in terms of being respectful. Not giving them the worst

room and not giving them combination classes and really making sure that there
is equity in terms of when we make class assignments and what kind of students

are going to go into a new teacher’s class. Really advocating for them so they
don ’t get the worst or most difficult assignments (6/01).

149

Resource Assistance and Managing the Environment
As a former BTSA mentor, Karen is very aware of how important the first days
and weeks are for the new teacher. She estimates that her involvement in new teacher
support is greatest at the beginning of the school year. Her first concern is always
management. Quick visits in and out of classroom those first weeks frame her early
assessments of performance. If a teacher has not received a BTSA mentor, she is quick to
find a buddy teacher in the building. She distributes back-to-school gifts to teachers and
reminds them that her door is always open.
I tend to always check in with management... that’s the part I check in on. And I
give them strategies and ways to support them so that their kids are not always in
the oflice. Those who don’t end up with a mentor, since we have new stajf that
transfer in or have some experience, we pair them up... The staff has been great
about taking a new person in so that they take them under their wing. I assign two
people to kind of be their buddies. And definitely I always have an open door
policy. I ’m very accessible... I check in with people usually the first couple of
weeks. I ’11 pop in the classroom a lot and I ’11 leave little notes asking if they need
anything. We always go to the local teacher education store and we buy goodies
and put it in their boxes (5/01).
Once Karen is certain her new teachers are well-established, she steps back a bit.
Some of this is a matter of logistics — things come up that pull her attention in other
directions. Some of this pulling back, however, is very intentional. Karen respects and
trusts the work of mentors. Although she is quick to help new teachers with managing
effective classroom environments, Karen leaves the finer details of working on
curriculum and instruction to mentors.
Instructional Development and Evaluation

Karen works hard to be an instructional leader. After all, it was a love of teaching

and an interest in staff development that drew her to the principalship in the first place —

150

not the mundane task of playground pest control and hot lunch inspection. When asked
how she helps support teachers, she replied:

I try to visit classrooms regularly. I don ’t get to them as much as I want to, but I
do chat with people and I think I know curriculum and I know good teaching
strategies because of my solid background in teaching. I don ’t have a lot of
administrative background but I know teaching and... I encourage people to visit
one another. I really facilitate opportunities for people to share things that are
happening (12/99).

Karen makes a point of letting others know the good things she sees going on,
either by verbally announcing it or simply posting it so others can see. She reads to
children so teachers are free to visit other classrooms. She does quick 3—minute walk-
throughs just to better understand what teachers are teaching. And she makes student
learning the focus of staff meetings, sometimes bringing in test score data for teachers to
discuss.

We look at a lot of data. Our stajf meetings are structured around looking at data

and analyzing data, having conversations about what needs to happen, identifying

areas where students are not strong and planning activities and strategies that
will support them learning and them gaining skills in the areas that they are

weakest in (6/01).

When Karen has questions or concerns about a teacher’s performance, she
approaches the individual slowly and cautiously. Her goal is to tread softly in order to not
destroy their relationship. In these situations, Karen acts very much like the mentor she
once was. Consider the following story.

If I see them when they’re lined up out on the playground, and they ’re going into

the classroom all over the place, and I walk in and they’re just talking and really

noisy, things like that, I will kind of ojfer and say, “I ’d love to come in your
room.” I don’t start like, “I’ll come into your room. ” I usually start with,

“There ’s some sponge activities to do for when your kids come in so that they can

settle down after recess. ” And then two weeks later I ’11 say, “How did those

activities work? Would it be okay if I came into your classroom and did
something? I want to connect with your kids (5/01). ”

151

But acting as a mentor is only good for helping promoting teacher development
when the stakes are low. When it comes to conducting summative evaluations, Karen is
working hard to get tough and to be direct. Early in her first year as principal, her mentor
made the observation that Karen was acting too much like a coach (i.e. mentor) and not
enough like an appraiser (i.e. principal). She has made it a personal goal to correct this
stance and once year after our first conversation was congratulating herself on progress
made.

The Evaluation Process

Karen honors the evaluation process as directed by the district. However, unlike
the other principals in this study who rely on mentors to help their new teachers prepare
individualized learning plans (ILP) each fall, Karen experimented this past year with a
team approach. She and an experienced mentor, Jennifer, hosted an after-school ILP
writing session for all new teachers in the building. She notes, “It was great because it
actually created relationships among the teachers because they knew what each other
was working on... it really empowered the new teachers... there was energy in the
room! ” In fact, for two of the novices it led to shared classroom observations during the
year.

As for giving beginning teachers feedback on the appropriateness of their chosen
ILP goal, Karen imagines that there would be instances when that would be an acceptable
thing, but only for a second year teacher. First year teachers need to identify their own
goals because she doesn’t have a basis for making suggestions so early in the year.
However, by the second year this shifts. Karen describes how she might approach such a

situation. I’d probably say, “Just from our work last year, how can we integrate some of

152

the things that I’m seeing? Where can we fit them so they do get addressed this year
(5/01)? ”

Regarding the evaluation cycle, Karen is quick to note:

I love doing the observations. I love having post conferences with teachers. I feel

really comfortable...l understand the six domains [of the CSTP]. I know where to

put information in. I ’m really at ease sharing that. The struggle, as I said, is the

part about being direct (12/99).

These comments are not surprising, given Karen’s background and interest in
mentoring and coaching. Nor is it surprising that Karen will use the evaluation process as
a tool for helping the novice get better. While some principals will never be comfortable
playing such an active role, for Karen, it comes naturally. For example, Karen recently
felt a novice was not sufficiently prepared for an upcoming observation, as based on their
pre-conference session. Her response was not to sit back and see what happened, but to a)
involve the mentor in re-designing the lesson and b) reschedule the observation until the
task was successfully completed. Her comments about the usefulness of writing summary
evaluations midway and at the end of the year are telling.

I like doing them. I don’t like putting in the time, but I like it because it makes me

think... It makes me think about each individual [teacher] and what’s special

about them and what are their strengths and what are their weaknesses... so it

gets me to focus in (5/01).

When concerns do emerge out of the evaluation process, Karen is learning how to
be more direct with her teachers. She’s come to see that critical feedback is not always a
bad thing, but can be a helpful reminder, especially when something can easily be
corrected, e. g. getting students to line up quietly and orderly. She has also discovered that

if she wants changes made, she needs to assert that earlier rather than later to give the

novice a reasonable amount of time for making the necessary adjustments. Although

153

Karen is not opposed to including the mentor in the improvement process or even
delegating it to the mentor, she is just as likely to offer direct assistance herself.
Building Relationships and a Supportive Professional Culture

Earning the trust and confidence of her staff is important to Karen, unlike the
distance that characterized her own relationship with former principals. Instead, she
considers herself a new type of principal, one who is “data driven and knows
instruction but especially one who cares and who is interested.

It is part of who I am. I am a people person and I want to know about people. I

am interested and I hear bits of con versations. I spend a lot of time chatting with

people in the hallways and building relationships. I really learned that...the more
rapport I have [with teachers] the more we can work together. I can ask them to
serve on committees and... they know it ’s because I care and because it ’s an
interest of theirs. So I’ve really worked at making those relationships with people

(3/01).

As this story about finding committee members demonstrates, Karen uses the
information gained for mutual benefit; for what she calls “working together. ” One gets
the sense in talking to Karen that she treats all members of the staff this way, new and
old.

Another reason for developing a good working relationship with her teachers is to
create the trust necessary for giving/receiving critical feedback. She credits her mentor
training with helping her develop skill and understanding in the relationship-building
process.

I truly understand relationships and comfort. When you have that with a person

you can coach that person. So I ’m real conscious of building relationships with

people so that they can be open to feedback. Without rapport, I learned that

through [BTSA], without rapport it ’3 hard to work with people, especially when
you do have concerns (12/99).

154

At the same time, Karen is cautious to not cross the boundary between boss and
friend. “I don ’tfratemize outside of work, but we joke a lot informally and we connect in
lots of different ways. ”

Nurturing a Professional Culture

 

Many of the strategies Karen uses to support instructional development have a
value-added nature. Encouraging teachers to observe one another; sharing the good things
that are happening between classrooms; devoting staff meetings to discussions about
student learning; connecting test score data to the curriculum; ensuring that all new
teachers have a buddy -- each contribute to a professional culture that values critical
reflection and inquiry. As an experienced former teacher, Karen understands that if
teachers are going to work together they need prompting and time. Gradually, Karen is
trying to put these things into place. Because the staff has had three principals in as many
years, she is starting slowly.

One way Karen deliberately “passes ” new ideas on to her staff is by involving as
many as possible in off-site staff development opportunities. She has found it especially
helpful to use resource specialists who do not need a substitute when gone during the day,
but who return to work in a wide variety of classes. “They have a lot of influence so
whatever they pick up they are going to pass on informally. I find that’s more effective
than requiring that everybody do some kind of training. ” Karen is also a big believer in
data-driven instruction, so periodically makes data the focus of staff meetings.

We look at a lot of data. Our stafi’ meetings are structured around looking at data

and analyzing data, having conversations about what needs to happen and

identijying areas where students are not strong. And planning activities and

strategies that will support them learning and gaining skills in the areas that they
are weakest in (6/01).

155

When asked what sort of professional community she envisioned and what she was
willing to do to make it happen, Karen responded:

Ideally my plan is to have teachers do that [work collaboratively] on their own
without having us facilitate that all the time. So setting up the structures for staff
to automatically, when they get together at grade level say, “Well, let ’s look at
where our students are at. Let ’s look at what we need to do. ” Giving them more
opportunities to collaborate on their own. That is what I would like to see (6/01).

Karen’s ultimate dream is to find ways to incorporate the work of mentors into the daily
routine at Arts.

I ’d love for them to be at all our staff development days... I ’d like to encourage
more of that where advisors come and share good strategies. It’s not the new
teachers who need it, it ’s the old veteran teacher who has been here twenty-five
years. She ’s using the same techniques that they did twenty-five years ago that I 'd
love to see benefit. I ’m not quite sure how to facilitate that, but that is something
that I want to start incorporating because the new teachers are getting a lot of
stuff. They get a lot of new ideas and new strategies and their problem is
management for the most part and long-term planning. But they [experienced
teachers] know how to do it. So I ’d love there to be just a collegiality between all
of us. It is like it doesn’t matter what hat you wear, who you are, we are all in
here for the same reasons. It ’s really to provide quality instruction to our
students... that's what I would like to see, having them [mentors] be a part of the
staff as a resource for all of us (12/99).

The Case of Ramon: Blinded by Competing Demands

He comes into my class a lot, just kind of drops in and leaves a little note: “great

work.” F or the formal evaluation he actually writes things down. He comes in, he

sits therefor a whole lesson and writes down what I do and then I meet with

him... and he just thinks that everything I do is really fabulous. I find that hard to,

I mean, I don ’t think I’m a bad teacher, but I definitely could use some

improvement and I ’ve never gotten much feedback from the principal (Karla,

New Teacher, 5/01).

Of the four principals in the study, Ramon brings the least knowledge and skill as
an instructional leader to his work as principal — in spite of a long and successful run at

classroom teaching. That his new teachers wish for more feedback, as the above quote

suggests, does not come as a big surprise. Revered for his ability to relate to and work

156

with the local community, Ramon struggles through his early years as principal to
establish the professional teaching culture he dreams of. While we might offer a number
of different explanations for why this is, including the press of high-stakes testing with
limited resources and a non-English speaking population, it is apparent that Ramon lacks
a clear and well-articulated vision for what reform-minded, ambitious teaching is and can
be. As noted in the excerpt below, Ramon’s definition of good teaching is limited to
relating well with students.

Good teaching is good teaching. I mean, if you have a good teacher you can have

the lousiest curriculum; but still the kids will learn because it is all about

teaching. That’s what we want to focus on (5/01).
New Teacher Recruitment, Hiring and Placement

Recruiting new teachers to South County is often a challenge. First and foremost,
teacher salaries do not match the cost of living in the region. Schools are seriously under-
resourced — a fact of life for teachers across the state. Finally, South County teachers
must be willing to work with diverse students, many of whom come from homes where
English is not spoken. Every year teachers transfer out of the district at the last minute,
leaving principals like Ramon in a wait and see mode as summer vacation wanes. Other
teachers transfer around the district in search of better positions. By late summer,
teachers are recruited from wherever they can be found. Two years ago, Ramon was still
looking for two teachers the week before school began.

Like the other three principals, Ramon approaches the teacher hiring process
according to district guidelines. Candidates are screened at the central office and then

interviewed by a team of teachers from Valley. Unlike the other principals, however,

Ramon makes the final decision regarding who he recommends to the board. In his

157

words, “when it comes down to it, I am the one that evaluates and I ’m the one that ’s
responsible ifit doesn’t work out.”

Although Ramon prefers to hire fully-credentialed teachers, he does not always
have that choice. He does expect that any untrained new teacher will work toward a
credential, however. If this does not happen -- a situation he encountered recently — he
will release the teacher. In this case the teacher had a lot of “potential” and “heart ”, but
no credential. She was not offered a new contract.

She has done an excellent job, a super job. And the reason -— I told her very frank

— the reason you are not coming back is because you don ’t have a credential. You

need that theory and the teaching theory. The other teachers that have that will
have a job (5/01).

Resource Assistance and Managing the Environment

Ramon reports taking more care with his newest teachers. He tries to check in on
them periodically, visiting their classroom and asking if they need anything. He offers
two explanations for this, their newness to the site and their newness to the profession.

I take more interest in the new teachers, because they are new to the site and new

to the profession. So I take more interest in what they need and the questions that

they have about things, procedures (6/01).

Still, Ramon’s offers of help are mostly that: offers. For new teacher to
experience this support, they must know what they need and be willing to ask for it. Not
all beginning teachers do this equally well. Moreover, it is not clear whether Ramon —
still learning to be a principal — is able to assess the needs of new teachers and respond
proactively through his role as principal. Clearly, he expects that veteran teachers will
assume a great deal of the responsibility for welcoming and orienting the novice.

New teachers are welcome as far as everybody tries to help them as much as they

can. This goes beyond just finding pencils and paper. It goes as far as providing
history on their kids, as far as what they know about the family or what they know

158

about their child’s academic progress or abilities. I see the veteran teachers
really, really eager to help the new teachers in any way that they can (6/01).

Notably, Ramon recognizes that he could do more for his new teachers.
When a new teacher comes to our site, I don ’t think I ’ve done enough really. I ask
how it is going, let me know if you need anything, [ I go] into their classroom and
just [be] there for the teacher (3/01).

Instructional Development and Evaluation

Ramon has a relatively large number of new teachers on his staff; roughly one
third of Valley teachers were in their first or second year of teaching during his second
year as principal. This has created some interesting challenges and opportunities. Ramon
comments, “because of lack of experience on my part and their part as well, we ’re kind
of learning as we go along. ” One example of “learning as we go” resulted when Ramon
observed several groups of new teachers leading grade level meetings. As might be
expected, the group was having a difficult time getting started. To help guide their work
in a more fruitful direction, Ramon rotated among groups as a facilitator, sometimes just
helping the group set an agenda. From his perspective, what they needed most were
“more tools on how to be facilitating, how to be working as a team. ”

This story captures the essence of Ramon’s approach to teacher development. He
does not take an active, hands-on role like Maria or Karen. Rather, he prefers to facilitate
the work around the edges. Why is this? Although Ramon is widely considered to be an
accomplished former teacher, he admittedly struggles to put that knowledge and skill to
work as an administrator. Notably, he is frustrated by his own lack of initiative and
involvement. The problem, from his perspective, is a lack of time for extended work with
kids in the classroom. Too much of his day is spent solving problems for students,

parents, staff. “Yes, I do classroom observations, I give comments, but there ’s not a lot of

159

time to really work with people on curriculum. ” In the following excerpt, Ramon
explains his reluctance to take a more active and vocal role in what he calls “curriculum ”
— a belief that likely gets in the way of him leading the staff instructionally.

To be an instructional leader you have to be teaching. You have to be teaching

and you have to be practicing and you have to be implementing, you have to be

modifying in the classroom. For us, as administrators and instructional
leaders...it means that you’ve read everything. You know the curriculum. It ’s all
in a book. How can you be a curriculum leader if all your experience is what you

read in a book without really practicing it? That’s where I feel left out because I

always have to draw upon my experience as a classroom teacher...and explain,

“this is what worked for me and I think it will work for you in this situation.” But

when I get together with teachers and talk about curriculum that is going on, I

feel, why should I put my two cents into something that they’re into already? They

know the kids. They know the curriculum. So I feel left out (3/01).

In this powerful excerpt we can feel Ramon’s frustration with the current state of
affairs. Feelings of isolation — from kids and teachers, teaching and best practice — have
stripped him of the confidence to lead his staff instructionally. In some cases, such beliefs
might actually better prepare a principal to step aside, thereby empowering teacher
leaders to play a more significant role in instructional development. This doesn’t appear
to be the case with Ramon. Instead, he remains caught in the tension of not doing what he
thinks he ought to be, while at the same time not comfortable delegating the task to
others. How this tension resolves itself in the coming years will be critical to the type of
principal Ramon becomes.

The Evaluation Process
Overall, Ramon bases his judgement of a novice’s performance on a combination

of formal and informal observations. His second year on the job he reflects on the large

group of new teachers in the building.

160

They are doing an excellent job. I see it in the observations. I see it in their
professionalism. I see the kids benefiting by being in the classroom and doing
excellent work in their lesson planning (12/99).

When asked for details, Ramon described how a kindergarten teacher kept careful
records on each of her students that enabled her to document their growth over time. He
described another teacher who was routinely observed asking his colleagues “critical,
very important questions ” about children who had been reassigned to his English-only
classroom. Furthermore, Ramon felt the students “truly respected him.” Based on these
examples, we get a glimpse of what Ramon really cares about. Are teachers using data to
promote student achievement? Are they taking care to get to know their students as
bilingual learners? Do the students handle themselves appropriately in the teacher’s
classroom? Does the teacher show an interest in working collaboratively? Ultimately,
this is what Ramon looks for during the evaluation process.

As a teacher you are paid to do a job. You are measured by the success of the

kids...that’s the bottom line, accountability. You can’t measure every teacher with

the same yardstick. So that’s the end result. I also measure success by how well

the teachers work with students and their colleagues (5/01).

Ramon conducts the formal evaluation process according to district policy. New
teachers prepare individualized learning plans with the assistance of their BTSA mentor
and these are presented to Ramon prior to the first observation cycle. Embedded in the
entire process are the California teaching standards, which Ramon uses to guide his
assessments. Furthermore, Ramon is convinced that good teaching may look different
across various classrooms. “My own personal style of teaching is dijferent than some
teachers and I don ’t want to push my style. ” As a result, he comes across as quite tolerant

of various instructional styles. Ultimately, he considers the evaluation process a means

for learning more about a teacher’s unique and valued presence.

161

Sometimes I ask for help from the teacher. I don ’t see everything they do. So I say,

“Help me out. What have you done when I’m not there? ” You know, it ’3 hard to

shed light on the evaluation because teachers do a lot of great things that are not

seen sometimes (5/01).

While Ramon admits that in his first year the process had an evaluative overtone,
he credits his continuing work with his coach and the district evaluation trainer for
helping him become more of an instructional coach. “Last year it had the overtone of
evaluation because that’s what I ’ve known all the time. Working with [ my principal
coach] I found out that it ’s outdated. It is now coaching. ” He adds, “It ’s not do the model
lesson and move on. It’s not that. It’s a system to talk about teaching.” Ramon has come
to favor this approach. If there is anything Ramon would change about the evaluation
process, it is the amount of paperwork and time that it demands. Still, he is convinced
that his efforts are “profitable in the long run. " ’

Building Relationships and a Supportive Professional Culture

It’s important to Ramon that his new teachers feel “comfortable” in their new
role and that they feel free asking questions that arise. He strives toward this by “having
dialogue with them” and “making the new teachers comfortable with their assignment
and comfortable with them coming to me and inquiring about certain things that they
have questions on. ” Ramon tries to convey this to his new teachers and their mentors
each year, explaining “I will always make time for the new teachers. It is just part of the
job. ” Still, experience has proven otherwise for Ramon. In his second year on the job,
Ramon recalls a mentor asking that he be more accessible. As he tells the story,

I need to be more accessible. I didn’t know that, but teachers needed more than

the talk that I had with them outside the classroom, or the observations required

by the district. So it’s good to have a [mentor]... They said, “You know this is
something our new teachers have been saying and it would be helpful If you

162

would spend a little bit more time with them, give more positive feedback. That ’s
good for me because I didn ’t know that. I thought I was giving positives (12/99).

In this excerpt Ramon shows that he is sympathetic to their cause as new teachers.
He wants to do what is right. He wants them to be successful and happy. He simply
doesn’t always see what it is that he can do differently. Overwhelmed by the challenges
of being principal, Ramon needs the unsolicited advice of the new teacher mentors. As
this story illustrates, Ramon is deeply appreciative of their willingness to offer it.

Nurturing a Professional Culture

 

Ramon is a firm believer in collaborative work. “I think more collaboration is the
key. It can come from top down as far as what you need to do, but it isn’t as effective as
working together toward the common goal. ” At the same time, he understands teacher
resistance — for he was once there himself. Ramon has had to hold firm to this vision in
spite of pressures to back down from some members of staff. Today, he remains
convinced that as people experience the success of teaming, they will join the
bandwagon.

I know how they feel, because I felt that I was successful back when I was

teaching. I didn ’t like teaming. But then I teamed and I saw the fruits of the labor.

I understood how, back in September, I understand that I was going to get

resistance. But I understand also that once people saw something that was

successful, everybody else would gather in... [So] it helps me understand...

I knew what to expect and I wasn ’t surprised when I heard that (6/01).

When asked how he views himself as a leader, Ramon’s response hints at how the tension
between top down and bottom up leadership pervades his actions as principal. In his
mind, the decisions he makes or does not make are “all calculated, except that people

don ’t see that. ”

There are leaders that are authoritarian and there are leaders that like to include
people in the process... I know where I am as a leader. I know how to work with

163

people and have them have a say in what the process is or how the decisions get

made. At times I find myself, when we are in a situation such as now, people like

to be told what to do because it is easier, instead of going through the process of
thinking and working with other people and collaborating and such. I listen to
people maybe too much, not really decide on or make a decision and that is it. So

I’m trying to balance... [between] including everyone in the process, but also

making those critical decisions without input from anyone (3/01).

Ramon’s ambiguity between leading forcefully or following collegially continues to
emerge as he describes his work as a principal. He talks about needing to be stronger
without hurting others feelings and showing disrespect. How to do this seems to be a
constant struggle.

I feel there is a need for me to tell them how it is going to be. But, if I do that then

the whole process will be seen as, “It is the administration doing it.” I don ’t want

to go there, so I am kind of holding back and still getting heat for that. But it is all
planned. I have seen administrators not be respectful people, cutting people
down. “This is the way it is going to be.” Hurting people ’s feelings in ways that
could have been addressed differently. But I think I can be stronger. I have to be

stronger (3/01).

Underlying Ramon’s work with his faculty are reports of poor communication. To
illustrate, Ramon argues that continually repeating student academic goals to the staff is
“over kill” as they are “ingrained in everything we do.” Yet some teachers report feeling
left out of the loop, unaware of what the real focus is. To some degree this contradicts his
own belief that people feel comfortable approaching him with questions or concerns. “I
think they feel comfortable enough to ask me when they need something. I don ’t think
they are afraid of me. I think I’m approachable. ”

That these issues repeated themselves throughout the interviews is telling. Getting
Valley Elementary on track to raise scores is Ramon’s number one concern. He intends to

do so through collaboration and professional growth. “Working on that, ” he says, “I

think our program and our school can be very successful. ”

164

It’s still a risk, but it ’s a risk worth taking. 1 think the benefits will be so great that
it is worth that risk. This plan requires more collaborative work, with grade levels
and vertical meetings. It requires more sharing of professional knowledge. I think
this is the biggest thing that has happened this year as far as the direction of the

school (6/01).

Helping to hold the staff together is an active faculty advisory committee. This
group has been very involved in developing the new instructional program for raising
student achievement scores in English. New teachers have a voice in this committee,
although it is typically composed of more experienced teachers. Valley also boasts a
grade level structure where curriculum and instructional procedures are addressed.
However, Ramon admits that some groups are more committed to the process than
others. Again, he trusts that newly implemented changes to the instructional plan will
bring about needed change. Ultimately, he hopes this change will lead to a new
professional culture in the building. If so, new teachers are likely to reap the benefit.

The teaming will set a culture in the school. I think that is precisely what we need

because we have a high turnover in this school of teachers moving away...we

don ’t pay enough. So they move to a community that pays more...We wanted to

have a professional community, teachers willing to team and set a structure, a

program for that so that if teachers leave something is in place already.

Something that is expected of all the new teacher and veteran teachers. This

program has to be student-centered. Discussions are related to the students only

and their achievements... Even if teachers leave, there is a system. If principals

leave, there is a system (6/01).

Cross-Case Discussion: Principal Responsibility for New Teacher Support

This chapter explores the research question: How do principals report enacting
their roles and responsibilities vis a vis new teachers? Implicit in this discussion is an
understanding that new teacher support is first and foremost about developing strong and

effective teachers whose aim is improved student achievement for an under-served

population. On this the principals are unanimous. Where they differ is in the enactment of

165

this support. Four summary findings emerge from the data presented here. First, the little
things add up. Notably, all four principals approached the charge differently. More
important was that their efforts toward support were recognized and felt in multiple ways.
Second, supportive principals build relationships with their newest teachers and are alert
to individual needs. Third, effective principals treat evaluation as another opportunity for
teacher learning. Fourth, principal instructional leadership for novice support can be
direct and hands-on, or indirect and hands-off — more important is that principals know
when it is best to step aside and let mentors do the work and when it is best to step in.
Principal Involvement Varies: The Little Things Add Up

Although there are numerous ways that principals might support, develop and
evaluate new teachers, no principal in this study came even remotely close to doing it all.
Rather, they reported picking and choosing among various alternatives, basing their
decision on at least three things: a) leadership style, as dictated by personal preference,
knowledge and skill; b) stated or perceived learning needs of the novice; and c)
availability of school-based resources, human and material. Principals’ leadership style
and preference (e. g. authoritarian vs. collaborative), and to a lesser degree knowledge and
skill (e.g. curricular expertise; skill in conflict resolution), dictate the degree to which the
principal is comfortable with and/or compelled to get involved. What the principal
believes the new teacher most needs to learn shapes what they pay attention to and where
they are likely to direct their support. Finally, the context, including human and material
resources, to a large extent determines the nature and degree of support that is possible.

What principals do to support new teachers is therefore likely to shift with

changing needs, interests and contexts. For example, principals may provide an

166

orientation for all new teachers at the beginning of the academic year, but act in more
individually—appropriate ways as the year progresses. A young teacher who is struggling
with classroom management may be encouraged to attend a first days of school seminar,
while a teacher who has an especially challenging set of students may be given a
classroom assistant for part of the day.

More important than what principals’ do, however, is that they do something.
Gestures, large and small, add up. As the sample of beginning teachers in this study
confirms, a teacher takes notice when their principal demonstrates care and concern. This
is particularly true when the principal’s actions are immediately visible to the novice.
Although the novice benefits when the principal quietly asks a colleague next door to
keep an eye on the classroom, the novice also misses an opportunity to learn from the
situation and interact with the principal on a professional level. Principals must weigh
costs and benefits as they make these types of decisions. What is gained by the novice
participating in their own problem-solving? Conversely, what are the risks of involving
the novice more actively? Clearly, both approaches are warranted.

Minimize Orientation, Maximize Relationships

On a related note, the principals in this study minimize the importance and value
of a formal orientation. Although each does this on a limited basis at the beginning of the
school year, they rely heavily on their new teacher mentors and grade level colleagues to
orient the newcomer as questions arise during the year. All four were very comfortable
with this arrangement. What do they do instead? Maria gives us the best picture of an
alternative. She welcomes the new teacher, introduces them to others, focuses their

efforts on the classroom with minimal distractions, talks to them about their lives outside

167

of school. She makes these gestures intentionally to earn trust and respect — to build a
relationship with the new teacher. Although James and Karen do not talk much about
their efforts in this regard, their new teachers are immensely appreciative of the little
ways they show care and concern, e. g. stopping by the classroom to say hello at the end
of a long day, and generating parent support and enthusiasm for an upcoming
environmental unit.

While these four principals do not disregard the learning opportunities presented
by group-oriented support strategies, like orientations and seminars, they do tend to favor
assistance that is specific to individual needs. The value-added benefit of this approach is
that principals are building a relationship with the novice at the same time they are
supporting them. Through sustained talk over time they are clarifying expectations and
building trust. The pay-off from this strategy may not be immediate, but over time it
gives the principal and novice opportunities to get to know one another and develop a
rapport that will enable professional work in the future.

Evaluation as a Learning Opportunity

All principals in this study looked to the summative evaluation process as a
learning opportunity for the novice; an opportunity to “talk pedagogically. ” Rather than
a separate activity, evaluation was seen as part of an ongoing continuum facilitating
teacher growth and development. This was the district’s intent and they remained faithful
to that. Although they made minor adaptations to the forms and procedures to streamline
what was otherwise a time-consumin g process, each of the principals followed district

protocol. As James described, the principal is to be a second set of eyes, gathering

168

previously specified data for the novice. Only when a new teacher was struggling did
principals indicate a desire to shape and guide the process.

With the exception of Karen, who was learning to be more direct in the evaluation
process, principals seemed comfortable with their duty to both assist and assess. Notably,
none of them reported a role conflict. Instead, they used their commitment to student
learning as justification for acting in an authoritative and decisive role when necessary. In
a nutshell, supporting students was more important than supporting teachers. At the same
time, they acknowledged how difficult it was to do both at the same time. James and
Karen were particularly articulate, describing it as a matter of wearing two hats — a theme
that will be explored in greater depth in the following chapter.

For each of these principals, teaching is professional work. To that end, they each
use the California teaching standards to frame their formal observations. This has several
advantages: a) it creates a shared language for talking about teaching and learning in the
building; b) it promotes an understanding of what good teaching and learning look like;
and c) it holds new teachers accountable to a shared and known set of expectations.

This discussion demonstrates that the presence of well-trained and highly skilled
mentors did not seem to change or diminish how principals viewed their responsibility
toward new teacher evaluation. Rather, all four principals spoke at length about their
commitment to the process in theory and in practice. We might conclude that the
presence of mentors actually served as a motivating factor by prompting principals to do

their job well — if not, the mentor would know and call their bluff (see also Caruso, 1990).

I69

Instructional Leadership: Knowing When to Step Aside

In this set of cases, we see two approaches to instructional leadership with respect
to new teacher support. James and Ramon describe their practice in what can be
characterized as an indirect, hands—off style. Their talk is peppered with references to
creating conditions and expectations favorable to collegial work. James, in particular,
expounds at length about his efforts to create enabling support structures. Neither report
working closely with teachers to plan or deliver instruction. On the other hand, Maria and
Karen take a distinctly different approach. In addition to fostering collegial work and
managing the environment, both women show a willingness, even eagerness to do the
work of instructional leadership. Both report instances where they worked with one or
more teachers to co-plan or co-teach. In contrast, James and Ramon are more inclined to
create the right set of conditions, then get out of the way so that others — particularly
mentors, but also on-site staff developers and curricular specialists — can do the work.

Arguably, both approaches to new teacher support can be considered effective,
given the right circumstances. To illustrate, the five new teachers interviewed for this
study were unanimous in their view that specific, concrete instructional feedback was
welcomed, even when it came from the principal. General comments like, “you’re doing
a great job” and “keep up the good work” were generally not considered helpful. Because
these teachers receive weekly one-to-one assistance from knowledgeable and skilled
mentors, principals’ feedback must be well-timed and well-informed for it to be
considered. Principals who know the intricacies of teaching and learning — like Maria and
Karen — are well-positioned to offer such advice. However, principals who are not as

knowledgeable and skilled, or whose recent experiences are removed from the classroom

170

— like James and Ramon — may be better off stepping aside and deferring to mentors. In
this instance, principals would be wise to spend their efforts facilitating the work of
others as opposed to “doing” the hands-on work of close-to-the-classroom instructional
leadership.

Closing Thoughts

This chapter highlights principals’ reported practice of new teacher support. Note
the close alignment between what principals believe and report doing across the four
cases. Based on the work of Argyris & Schon (1974), these four principals are enacting
personally effective theories of professional practice. Furthermore, the range of support
tasks identified here, coupled with the notion that there is no perfect algorithm for
enacting new teacher support, development and evaluation, argues in favor of a
distributed perspective where principal, mentor and other designated support personnel
(e. g. professional development directors, assistant principal) share responsibility for
meeting the multiple learning needs of new teachers.

Equally noteworthy, in the data we see some striking differences, but mostly we
see a great deal of similarity. These four principals work in virtually the same context and
bring nearly identical backgrounds to the work, with one exception: Maria and Karen
have extensive training in new teacher mentoring and development, whereas James and
Ramon have been left to figure this out on their own. What James has refined over time,
Ramon has yet to learn. This chapter raises an important set of questions: What role does
prior experience and background play in preparing principals for the work of new teacher

support, and what are the implications for induction policy and practice?

17]

Chapter 5:
Principals Working with Mentors

I really need to help my novice learn to teach. That is my job. I ’m in a
teaching role.
~ Mentor Teacher (Feiman-Nemser, 1998, p. 72)
Chapter Overview

In this data chapter the emphasis shifts to principals’ work with mentors. The
focus of analysis is the research question: How do principals report enacting their roles
and responsibilities vis a vis new teacher mentors? After illustrating how each of the four
principals works with a select mentor in their building, I discuss the value-added nature
of principals and mentors working collaboratively, especially when the new teacher
struggles. I then outline a set of three guiding principles or pre-conditions: a strong,
trustworthy and professional relationship between mentor and principal; shared
knowledge about good teaching; and a mutual commitment to promoting teacher
development while at the same time ensuring professional accountability. In closing, I
argue that principals and mentors have the potential, under the right set of circumstances,
to complement and enhance one another’s responsibility for new teacher support.

New Roles, New Possibilities

In the following extended excerpt, drawn from one of our final interviews
together, James openly reflects on his work with new teacher mentors.20 In this interview
I ask him to once again, as concretely as he can, talk about his work with new teacher

mentors. When are they likely to talk about a new teacher? What are those conversations

 

_20 This set of excerpts is drawn from the fifth (of six) interview with James. Some editing of the text,
including limited rearranging, was done to make the narrative read smoothly and coherently. Every effort,
however, was made to preserve meaning and intent.

172

like? And are there things they avoid talking about? In this particular excerpt, James
contrasts two mentors, each with different perspectives on their work with principals.
Both are protective of the novice, but one is guarded in what she shares, while the other is
more openly communicative, particularly when there is a problem. As James puts ideas
into words, the image of an idealized relationship between principal and mentor emerges.
I share it for two reasons. First, because of the potentially powerful and new possibilities
this understanding of principal and mentor roles presents. Second, because it foreshadows
the conditions under which more open communication and shared work would depend.

[ How we work together] depends on the mentor and the relationship I have with
the mentor. One mentor — I’m trying to think of individual people - might come to
me and say, “ You know, James, have you spent any time looking at how the third
grade teachers are presenting information in their math classes or their science
classes? ” Because of the experience I ’ve had with that person, I would know that
meant it was something I needed to pay attention to. So it would be something I
would follow up on. But that person takes their role as an advocate for the
individual teacher under their charge very seriously. So that person would
hesitate to specifically name the person.

Another mentor would come in and say, “Can we have one of our

conversations? ” She’d come in, close the door and we ’d have a closed-door
conversation. She would be very upfront and explicit with me in saying, “So and
so in that classroom, I observed them say that the moon was made out green
cheese, as a fact, and I ’m very concerned about that and I think you need to be
too. ” And I ’d say, “Ok. ” We might then continue to sort of work together in
formulating a plan to help support that person address those needs... because that
person trusts me to approach it as a professional development issue and not as an
assistance or a disciplinary issue. We ’d have a conversation and come up with a
plan for addressing the issue (James, 8/01).

James continues by highlighting what he sees to be the critical difference between
the role of principal and mentor. In doing so, he clearly leans toward an open and
coordinated approach to new teacher support and development.

I’m also sensitive and honor the fact that a mentor is also an advocate. I mean a

better word might be an ally of the new teacher. I see a lot of value in having that
kind of trust and that kind of relationship. It ’s part of the support process for the

173

new teacher. So I’d want to be very sensitive to how that would develop... What I
hope they would do is share their concern with me. The mentor I ’m thinking of
that’s very open with me, when concerns come up we coordinate our response.
There are things that she does with her coaching and her work and there are
things that I do, with the evaluation process, so the issue is addressed

Last year I had three mentors on campus and one of them -— the open one — made

a point of being in my oflice every week and sitting down with me and saying how
things were going and having sort of an open channel of communication. Another
one would talk to me from time to time. And the other one never talked to me. But
in that particular situation we both felt confident that she had no concerns about
the people she was working with. I like it better when there is that open channel of
communication, we’re communicating regularly and talking about specifics or
generalities, just talking and saying, these are some of the issues that I ’m
concerned about. What have you seen? What are some things that we can do to
address whatever the situation or issue happens to be (James, 8/01)?

In concluding, James reflects on how his thinking has changed over time.
Experience has shown him the value of working with mentors in a more collaborative
fashion, particularly in terms of its potential for accelerating novice growth and
development.

I think what you ’re suggesting would be an acceptable thing to do now. To
basically say, let’s meet on a regular basis and be sensitive to the mentor ’s role
as an ally but also coming together in our shared concern that people who
shouldn ’t be teaching or the people that need specific kinds of help to make them
good teachers, that those things happen. . . That both principals and mentors can
play that role.

It ’s funny how this all developed... You know, the kind of conversations we were
having and the openness and frankness of them was contrary to the way it was
supposed to be. But because of the concerns that the person had about a certain
teacher it sort of developed from there. And she sort of went ojf on a limb and
trusted me and then it developed into what I think is now a very eflective
relationship. There’s no reason why, obviously, there doesn ’t need to be any guilt
associated with that. In actuality it’s an ideal relationship and actually should
serve as a model for the kinds of relationships that develop with other mentors
that are working on my site (James, 8/01).

Reflecting on his experience with different mentors in recent years, James

describes two communication preferences commonly taken by mentors. One approach

174

keeps the principal at a professional distance; talk is guarded in order to protect the
novice’s confidentiality and trust. Important messages about the novices’ performance
are passed from the mentor to the principal through a pattern of indirect statements. In the
other approach, mentor and principal talk openly with the dual intent of helping the
novice for students’ benefit. Appropriate support is then articulated and coordinated
between the two individuals. Important to note, both mentors believe they are acting
professionally. Mentor one does so under the rationale that it is best for the novice;
mentor two does so believing that it is best for kids. Examined side by side, each begs the
question: Who has the preferred approach?

Looking to the Literature for Clues

Proponents of new teacher mentoring have consistently argued that assisting and
assessing new teachers are incompatible functions (Costa & Garmston, I994; Huling-
Austin, 1990). Their concern is that new teachers will not open up and take the risks
necessary to learn, grow and develop for fear that they will be evaluated. Some mentor
programs, like BTSA, even prohibit mentors from participating in summative evaluation.
The reasoning behind this is to protect and ensure a trusting relationship between the
mentor and novice. But we need to ask ourselves: How necessary is this distinct division
of labor? And on what evidence do we base this decision ?

Clearly, both support and evaluation are warranted. If we are to keep new teachers
in the profession and help them develop to their potential, we need to provide them with
access to ongoing assistance and learning opportunities designed to meet their individual
needs. We also need to hold them accountable to doing good work. Teaching is a

difficult, complex practice leamed over time. Not everyone who attempts it will be

175

 

successful. Obviously, we need a means for holding the profession accountable to the
public it serves. Teacher evaluation, at least hypothetically, provides that needed measure
of quality assurance.

However, we also know that new teacher support and evaluation are often not
practiced in the ways that we might desire. Teacher evaluation continues to be a non-
event for most teachers. Evaluations are typically limited to one or two observations by
principals who are far removed from the classroom. Teacher input is rarely considered in
the evaluation process (Wise, Darling-Hammond, Bernstein, & McLaughlin, 1984a) and
when there is a problem, principals often overlook it (Bridges, 1986). At the same time,
many mentor programs today lack the rigor and vision that would promote the kinds of
ambitious, standards-based teaching reformers advocate. Rather than promote the labor
intensive and challenging work of instructional development, too many programs rely
instead on easy-to-provide emotional support (Feiman-Nemser et al., 1999). Thus, we
also ask: Can we counteract this tendency toward inejfectual practice by bringing the

work of principals and mentors together?

In the late 1980’s, Judith Shulman of the WestEd Regional Laboratory teamed
with Joel Colbert of the Los Angeles Unified School District to develop a set of teaching
cases appropriate for use with teacher mentors in the California Mentor Teacher Project
(CMTP). This work, developed during the early days of the CMTP, led to two related
observations (Shulman, 1987). The first regards what they coined the “confidentiality

rule. ” Because state regulations prevented CMTP mentors from conducting summative
evaluation, an unspoken ground rule emerged: mentors will not talk to principals about

the teaching practices of any teacher and all interactions between mentors and their

176

mentees will be kept confidential. Moreover, the authors found a lack of shared purpose
and common agreement between principals and mentors regarding their respective
responsibilities for new teacher support. Instead, principals tended to go about their
duties, despite the presence of trained mentors, as though the other was not present.”
Such insights led Shulman (1987) to question how mentors and principals can
truly assist new teachers if they cannot also share critical information about the new
teacher with one another. Her concern was valid. Would, in her words, “rigidly separate
domains of interest and authority” be counter-productive (p. 10)? She explains her
concerns as a problem of role conflict.
The essence of the problem appears to rest with a state of role conflict that arises
when mentors attempt to perform their new function. Both principals and mentors
are charged with overseeing the induction of new teachers. Both must be sources
of support. Both must make evaluative judgements if their assistance is to be more

than superficial. But only the principal is permitted to exercise a formal
evaluative role, even though the mentors are clearly the most expert witnesses

(p. 15).
She continues by suggesting that there is value to be gained when mentors and principals
share what they know.
The current situation is untenable because it puts both mentors and principals in
an impossible situation. If they are to work as a team and do justice to the
induction and support of beginning teachers, it appears that both mentors and
principals must combine the information and insights that they each have (p. 16).
In conclusion, Shulman suggests that when a growth-oriented approach is taken to

teacher evaluation and the emphasis is placed on promoting teacher development

(particularly when done collaboratively by peers or by a combination of peers and

 

2’ Notably, a similar occurrence was taking place in Connecticut. In 1990, Caruso (1990) coined the term
“parallel supervision ” to describe how mentors and principals in Connecticut’s Beginning Educator
Support and Training project — like the California group — also tended to work independent of one another,
in spite of their shared focus on new teacher support. '

177

administrators), then role conflict might be minimized. This suggestion was supported by
Phillip Schlechty’s work with the Charlotte Mecklenburg schools. After reviewing their
new teacher evaluation system, where evaluations were conducted by teams that included
administrators and teacher mentors, he concluded: since the idea of “evaluation as a form
of inspection is rejected, no distinction has been made between the roles of those who
engage in formative and in summative assessment ” (1985, p. 40, cited in Shulman, 1987,
p. 19). Here we see evidence in support of Shulman’s findings.

Armed with the belief that principals and mentors can share responsibility for new
teacher support, deveIOpment and evaluation, it is high time to pursue these notions in the
context of principals’ routine practice. We do so on the grounds that it is good for
teachers. But mentoring and induction must be about something more. Our concerns need
to also go to the children in the classroom. At its core, induction support should help our
newest recruits engage students in sustained academic work around commonly
recognized standards. Adopting the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm”, what is good for
teachers, must also be good for students.

Although we all may make mistakes when learning, the right of a mentee learning

to be a better teacher or of an experienced teacher learning to mentor does not

include the right to harm children in the process (Portner, 2001, p. 69).

In summary, support and evaluation — as practiced by principals and mentors - are
necessarily coupled when the bottom line is quality teaching for sustained student
learning.

The Value-added Nature of Sharing Support
Spillane and colleagues, drawing on their ongoing work with Chicago public

schools engaged in reform, found that when school leaders work collectively on a task it

178

’

frequently results in a product which is “more than the sum of each individual ’s practice’
(Spillane, et al., 2001, p. 25). This is as true of school leaders who work together toward
a shared goal, as those who — still sharing the same goal -- work interdependent of one
another. To illustrate their point, the authors share the example of a principal and
assistant principal working in tandem to supervise and evaluate teachers. One is
responsible for conducting formative assessment, the other summative. Both share their
findings to better understand teachers’ practice.

The assistant principal, who maintains a friendly and supportive relationship with
teachers, visits classrooms frequently and engages in formative evaluation by
providing regular feedback to teachers on instructional issues. He talks to
teachers prior to his observation to determine areas of focus, observes their
classroom instruction, and follows up with a post-observation conversation. The
principal, on the other hand, functions more as an authority figure...she engages
in summative evaluation, visiting classrooms one to two times per year and
making final determinations about the quality of teachers’ instructional practices.
The assistant principal shares his learning with the principal, and the two use
their collective observations to develop a rich understanding of teachers’
practices (p. 25 ).

Through this example, Spillane and colleagues describe what they call a
distributed approach to leadership, where tasks are stretched across multiple persons.
They go on to explain the value-added nature of this approach, where principal and
assistant principal work “separate but interdependent. ”

This separate but interdependent practice allows the principal to avoid making

judgements based on the “horse and pony” shows that she feels are an ineffective

basis for evaluating teachers. Working separately but interdependently, these two
leaders co-construct a practice of leading instructional change through the
evaluation of teaching practice. While they have a shared goal, they practice
separately but interdependently. This practice of leading instructional change
through the teacher evaluation process is stretched across the separate but
interdependent work of these two leaders (p. 25 ).

The analysis that follows builds on Spillane’s theory of distributed leadership to

explain how and why principals and mentors might work together on behalf of new

179

teachers and the students they serve. Further, I argue that these cases point to a new
understanding of principal practice, one where the incongruity between espoused belief
(e. g. principals and mentors should never break the “rule of confidence”) and reported
practice (e. g. principals and mentors do talk when the situation demands it and when
certain governing conditions are in place) present a dilemma that forces a re—examination
of the problem (Argyris & Schon, 1974). I begin by examining the reported work of the
four principals and a select mentor for each. The data reported here comes from
interviews with both principals and mentors. In keeping with earlier data chapters, the
chapter ends with a cross-case summary.

Maria and Kathryn:
Accelerating Development through Responsible Support

In previous chapters we were introduced to the work of Maria, a self-described
“teacher’s principal. ” A former teacher in the building, Maria claims to know teaching
as well as or better than any member of staff. Although she is happy to share leadership
responsibilities at Shining Star, Maria will not abdicate her role as an instructional leader.
It follows that Maria assumes a visible presence in the building. She is in and out of
classrooms, actively engaged with her teachers in the “nitty gritty” work of teaching and
learning. As the previous chapters illustrated, Maria takes her responsibility for new
teacher support seriously. The following section describes in greater detail her work with
Kathryn, Shining Star’s in—house professional development coordinator and new teacher
mentor.

Mentoring new teachers is just one of Kathryn’s many responsibilities at Shining
Star. As the full—time on-site professional development school liaison, Kathryn is

responsible for the growth and development of all teachers in the building, from

180

preservice candidates to new and veteran teachers. Like Maria, Kathryn was recruited to
Shining Star at the time it became a professional development school. Importantly,
Kathryn shares Maria’s commitment to teacher development, as viewed through the lens
of equity and social justice. With offices near one another, the two work as partners,
checking in with the other several times daily to ensure the school is running smoothly,
teachers are doing their job well and students are learning. While Maria is clearly the
leader in charge, Kathryn plays a significant supporting role.

What does this supporting role look like? How do Maria and Kathryn work
together around beginning teacher support? Equally important, what is the rationale they
give for that work? Under typical circumstances, Maria and Kathryn check in with one
another routinely to share observations, insights, concerns about the new teachers. For
example, after formal observations, Maria will share, “I saw this and this, but I didn ’t see
this. And then we’ll talk about how come that happened. What can we do to help them ? ”
Sometimes this will lead to Maria accessing resources, including monetary support for
attending workshops or time for observing other classrooms. At other times it will prompt
Kathryn to plan a series of demonstration lessons or more focused discussions around an
issue of concern.

The purpose, first and foremost, behind these conversations is to share
information that might guide and coordinate support interventions. When the new teacher
is doing well, Maria tends to step back, trusting Kathryn to take the lead. When the new
teacher struggles, Maria’s involvement grows, and yet they are both careful to protect the
trust and confidence that Kathryn has earned with the novice. As a result, Maria’s visible

involvement almost always is secondary to Kathryn’s efforts.

181

If a teacher is struggling, I ’1! usually go in and I’ll say to Kathryn. “Did you
notice this? Perhaps this needs to happen. ” That kind of thing. We work closely
together that way, through discussion. I ’ll get involved with the overall assistance
with the teacher, but Kathryn fills in the details. Kathryn is the one who is doing it
daily... we want to keep the relationship between the new teacher and Kathryn

safe (12/99).

Often, when a beginning teacher struggles, Kathryn will subtly shift from being
an informant to an advocate. This seems to be a function of their traditional roles: Maria
as evaluator and Kathryn as support provider. As Maria explains, “ Her work is to
support them, mine is to evaluate. She is very much their advocate. She will say to me,
‘Maria, I think this one has this particular piece done and why don ’t you come in and see
it. We ’re working on this. I think she’s progressing. At the same time, Maria recalls
instances where she has played the advocate, urging Kathryn to withhold judgement a
while longer. Maria explains, “My job is to look at the potential of all teachers. I can’t
discount anyone. I have to be able to support everyone... but Kathryn will, if there is
somebody on the stajf that she thinks I ’m looking at through rose colored lenses, she’ll
come in. So it’s a two-way street. ”

When there is tension between Maria and a beginning teacher in the building, it is
often Kathryn who will mediate the conflict. During the course of data collection, Maria
had an emotional encounter with an exemplary new teacher when, in the course of the
post-observation conference, Maria shared a concern about classroom management. This
exchange, shared by Maria in hopes that it would be a useful observation, was interpreted
very differently by the novice, who immediately welled up with tears. It was Kathryn, the

outsider, who helped the new teacher understand the intent of the feedback and mediate

the conflict. In Maria’s words,

182

I felt bad, but on the other hand, I wanted her [the novice] to hear that there were
some things that she could improve on... I talked to Kathryn about it and asked
her to let [the novice] know that I loved the observation. It ’s great to have
someone like that be my mediator (5/01).

In addition, Kathryn reviews formal evaluation procedures and expectations with
each new cohort of teachers as the school year begins. Kathryn also assists Maria by
helping beginning teachers write their individualized learning plans (ILP) each fall, mid-
term reviews in the winter and end-of—year reviews in the spring. Over time, this has
become an efficient means of handling the task. When asked if she is ever tempted to
intervene in this work, Maria shares the following:

I would if I felt that a teacher needed it. But so far, teachers I ’ve had are pretty

much on target with what they need. If I feel they are not stressing something I

think they need to address, then I ’1] address it through the observations (5/01).

The picture emerging is one of coordinated support. Primarily through discussion,
concerns are shared, problems solved and action plans developed. Maria remembers a
time when they often worked as a “threesome”, Maria and Kathryn meeting directly with
the new teacher. Today the two are more likely to communicate their thoughts in private,
thereby coordinating an efficient plan of support that is appropriate for the novice.

It is often argued that the type of coordinated support described here threatens the
trusting relationship between novice and mentor. How do Maria and Kathryn, both firm
believers in the “rule of confidentiality”, resolve this dilemma inherent to their work?
The answer lies in their shared commitment to promoting teacher development.

I think we support each other. Because remember, our twin or common goal is

teacher development. So any of the conversations we have about the beginning

teachers are always, how are we improving instruction with them (5/01)?

The fact that the two routinely converse about new teachers should not imply that

they share responsibility for summative evaluation. Both are quick to reply that Kathryn’s

183

careful and up-close work with the beginning teacher would not be possible if the fear of
evaluation were hanging over their heads. In Kathryn’s words,

I expect a great deal from them [new teachers] and we’re very rigorous in our
relationship and I give them 100% support and encouragement. It ’s just very full.
I don ’t believe that we could enter into the relationship at that level if they were
concerned that I was evaluating them or their job was on the line (5/01).

As Maria notes, her work with new teachers, as the building principal, is very
different from that of mentors. With great respect for what mentors do, Maria hints at the
complementary nature of their interdependent roles.

Their role [mentors] with new teachers is good. The teachers, they mentor and

they counsel; whereas my role falls not only to mentor and counsel, but I have an

obligation to coach in a more, you know, I’m coaching for superior performance
and skill. They ’re coaching for development. So it’s a nice match. It’s a nice

marriage in that I can depend on them to do what they need to do.... They are a

tremendous help to me. I couldn’t do the work that I do if I didn’t have them

because they deal with the day to day, the nitty-gritty details of teaching. That I

don ’t have time to do (3/99).

Maria adds,

I don ’1 want anything to compromise teacher development... I feel when teachers

know you are the evaluator, there is something there; whereas with Kathryn,

there are no boundaries. She can accelerate teacher development. She can do
what she does because the shadow of evaluation isn ’t there. The flip side of that is
to support responsibly. I’m not sure everybody does that, but Kathryn is

particularly skilled (5/01).

Described here is a coordinated approach to new teacher support by both
principal and mentor. Underlying the work is a shared commitment to promoting teacher

development through rigorous and responsible assistance.

James and Anne:
Teaming to be Pillars of Support

James is the longest serving principal in the study. A former bilingual classroom

teacher, lead teacher and mentor through the California Mentor Teacher Project, James

184

has proven himself to be a knowledgeable and skilled school leader. At the close of every
school year he polls his staff, asking whether or not he is the one to lead them into the
future. With the exception of one year, the results have been unanimous. The reason for
his success? Perhaps it is his belief that everyone has a job to do; a job that he will hold
you accountable for.

In my first interview with James three years ago, he described his work
with new teachers and their mentors as a coordinated effort. In fact, it was James that first
framed for me the idea of a support triad.

What we ’ve tried to do is set up sort of a triad between myself, the mentor, and

the new teacher, so that the work I do with evaluation and the work they do with

new teacher support are coordinated (12/99).

To coordinate this work, James expects to meet periodically with the mentors in
his building. Often informal, these meetings can be initiated by either James or the
mentor to share new teacher progress, get input on local building needs, identify
emerging concerns and, if necessary, develop an individualized support plan.

Either I ’m calling the meeting because I want some input about things that I ’m

seeing or the stage that I am in with the evaluation process. Or they have a

concern that they think I need to be aware of or that my involvement needs to be

brought to bear (12/99).

Importantly, how things get talked about vary. When the new teacher is doing
well, the conversation is often limited, as there is little to talk about. When the novice is
beginning to show signs of concern, most mentors will deliberately “invite” James in to
the classroom. Over time, he has learned to read between the lines. When mentors ask if
he has been in to see new teacher X recently, he knows things are amiss. When mentors

report in February that they are still working on classroom management, he understands

this to mean progress is slow. When a problem is full-blown, James and the mentor are

185

more likely to engage in open and honest problem solving with the ultimate intent of
guiding new teachers’ development. To illustrate, in a recent case James authorized an
emergency contact procedure — with him in the point position — for a new teacher who
was having a difficult time controlling his classroom. This example is important, as few
mentors would have the authority to implement such a plan without principal approval,
and few principals would know the necessity of their involvement without an open line of
communication.

For James, a coordinated approach to new teacher support is both efficient and
practical.

The mentor and I work with new teachers so that the activities they have to be

engaged in, both for the induction program and for the evaluation process, don ’t

overlap or don ’t duplicate themselves, but are coordinated and integrated and

part of the some effort (12/99).

As James reports telling his new teachers, “I’m one more element, one more
person in the effort to support you and move you along the process of professional
development. ” Only when James has a serious concern about a beginning teacher’s
performance does he adopt a more critical stance. He describes this to new teachers at the
onset of each school year as wearing two hats. As long as they are doing well, he wears a
hat of support. However, if concerns emerge, he will switch to a second hat, arguing that
“my fundamental responsibility is to make sure there is a qualified teacher in each
classroom. If they can ’t show me that they have those qualifications, then it is my job to
remove them. ”

In the early days of the induction program, James often met directly with the new

teacher and their mentor. Today, he and the mentor are more likely to develop an action

plan that brings together their respective strengths. For example, James is best able to

186

access resources, like phones and water coolers, and tap funds for workshop attendance;
whereas mentors are in a better position to arrange demonstration lessons and engage in
co-planning. Most important is that the new teacher’s needs are being met.

In the excerpt that opened this chapter, James gives us a glimpse of how
principals and mentors might work collaboratively to support new teachers, providing
one condition has been met: the mentor trusts the principal to do no harm. At this point I
push harder. Are you really advocating that principals and mentors talk more freely and
honestly about the new teacher? In a reflective tone, James responds affirmatively.
Experience has shown him that principals and mentors can come together, out of shared
concern, to promote teacher development. Key is maintaining sensitivity to their
respective roles while upholding their commitment to professional accountability.

In a similar way, Anne, a mentor teacher in the building, describes the
necessity of bringing James on board, particularly when the novice is struggling. For her,
this has become a strategy for motivating new teachers to take their growth — and her
suggestions — more seriously.

Sometimes, because I ’m not an evaluator, it ’s hard for me to motivate [ new

teachers]... I know what they need to do so I’ll ask [the principal] for support. I ’1]

ask, “Could you please mention to so and so that they need to do this? because

I don ’t have clout! I’m not the one writing the evaluation... Because I ’m not an

evaluator and I’m not writing their evaluation and whether or not they get a job

next year isn ’t depending on my word alone... I have to work with their

supervisors, sometimes, to make sure that if I have a concern I voice it because I

have a commitment to the students in the classroom... If I see that my suggestions

and my modeling and my sitting down with them and working through things is
not being transferred to their daily practice, then I ’11 go because it’s too

important and my time is too limited with them to not take care of business (5/01).

Clearly, James prefers an open and honest flow of communication with mentors.

At the same time, James is highly professional in his use of this feedback. He is careful to

I87

maintain confidentiality by not disclosing what he has learned directly to the novice;
instead, using that information to inform his judgement and ensuing action. It is with the
utmost care and respect that James works collaboratively with mentors.
What I basically say to them is that I understand that your role is to be an
advocate for this teacher. I want to support you in that role because I understand
how critical and important it is. I think that the relationships between the triad
that I was describing can be a very powerful one. So let ’s talk about those things

that we can do to honor and respect your role as an advocate and that can benefit
from my involvement (12/99).

Karen and Jennifer:
The Power of a Trusting Relationship

We now examine the work of Karen, a new principal and former BTSA mentor,
and Jennifer, a veteran mentor who visits the school on a weekly basis. Long-time
colleagues and friends, Jennifer first taught under Karen as a student teacher. As Karen
reflects back, the fact that they had a long-standing working relationship -— including a
style of communicating and a basis for understanding one another — makes the task of
sharing new teacher support much easier.

I have a relationship with them [Jennifer and the other mentor in the building], so

it ’5 been really easy. The doors open, they drop me notes. I drop them notes,

saying: These are some of the things I ’m concerned about. Would mind working

on this with so and so? I also get notes from them, saying: These are some of the

things we have been working on. Why don ’t you go in and check this out. I like the

way this is... I like to have open and honest communication with the mentor and

say these are some things that are causing me a little bit of difficulty, would you

check on that? (12/99)

In this excerpt, we see how Karen routinely enlists the help of mentors. Through
carefully worded phrases designed to protect the novice (e. g. this is what we are working

on, why don ’t you check it out?) Karen and Jennifer alert one another to classroom

successes and emerging problems. Often this takes place through written notes and

188

 

 

chance meetings as they pass in the hallway. Abbreviated comments about what is being
worked on become hints about areas of challenge or concern. In turn, these concerns
become the basis of new and ongoing assistance. To illustrate, Karen shares the following
story.

I had a teacher who I was really concerned about and it was really wonderful for

me to pick up the phone or put a note in Jennifer’s box and say, “Jennifer, it’s

coming close to observation time. Please help X with planning because I need to
be in there and I want her not to be stressed about it. ” So then I get a note back.

“We met on Saturday and we have a long range plan. Please go in there and talk

to her about it. ” The new teacher felt good about it, I felt good about it, and the

advisor felt good about it. Ultimately, the kids were getting a structured

curriculum (12/99).

In another instance, Jennifer - at Karen’s request — helped a second year teacher
redesign her lesson plan prior to one of Karen’s formal observations. Karen actually
postponed the observation following the pre-observation conference so that a more
appropriate lesson could be developed. It was at that point that she enlisted Jennifer’s
targeted help.

Although most of the time they work independent of one another in their support
of new teachers, Karen and Jennifer have collaborated under special circumstances.
Karen is willing to do so, stating, “if there is somebody I am real concerned about, we
would make it a priority and we would schedule it. ” In a more informal and
serendipitous way, this happened recently when Karen happened to be walking by a
classroom just as Jennifer and one of her new teachers began observing a classroom
video together. Because Karen and Jennifer had previously shared concerns about this

particular novice, it made sense for Karen to join them without the auspices of a formal

meeting hanging over their heads.

189

Notably, when Karen and Jennifer do work together, they do so in a professional
manner that is respectful of the new teacher. As described by Sonja, a new teacher at Arts
who is assigned to Jennifer,

Jennifer’s let me know sometime when she ’s talked to Karen, and I think Karen’s

let ’s me know or Jennifer’s let me know when she ’s talked to Karen. I think I’ve

let that go and just realize that it’s part of where I am at and part of the fact that

it’s in their best interest. If they do, I trust them as professionals (5/01).

Importantly, this works because Jennifer, like Karen, sees student achievement as
her bottom line. Passing along critical information, raising questions, and sharing insights
is acceptable when principal and mentor trust one another to be professional in their

actions. As Karen states,

I think there’s a fine line between being the mentor and being the evaluator, but I
think we all have the responsibility to make sure that kids are being served. And
the mentor has that responsibility as well. Without breaking the confidence of the
teacher, I think usually there is a rapport between the advisor and the beginning
teacher where you can say, “Let ’3 work on this because this is a problem” (6/01).
Nonetheless, there is a limit to what Karen is willing to share with and hear from
Jennifer. As a former mentor, Karen is protective of the relationship that exists between
the new teacher and mentor. Only when the new teacher struggles does Karen feel
justified in talking openly about concerns. Asked why maintaining a code of confidence
is so important, Karen asserts,
It puts the teacher in an awkward position when the advisor comes to me. The
teacher needs to know that they have an ally and they need to know that the
advisor is therefor them to really share everything that they need to share
(12/99).
Although Karen would love to be viewed as a new teacher ally, her responsibility for

summative evaluation prevents her from playing this role. Instead, she relies on the

mentor to nurture such a relationship.

190

In reflecting on this case and the data from which it is drawn, an important theme
emerges: relationships. In this case we get a glimpse of how vital it is that principals and
mentors can effectively communicate with one another around shared understandings and
can trust the other to act professionally in the novices’ best interests.

When first asked how she builds this relationship with new mentors in the building,
Karen responds:

It ’s having an open door. And I try to attend induction programs and activities

because I want mentors to know that I want to work with them and that this has to

be a relationship... For me it would be the same kind of thing as with any new

staff person — building rapport and being honest and open about what I need
(12/99).

One year later, she builds on her previous comment:
I try to make people feel comfortable and I let them know that I am here for
student achievement. My bottom line is we need to do what’s best for kids. I think
when you depersonalize it — it’s not about me, it ’s not about them, we ’re all here

for the same reason — I think that really always creates the feeling that we really
are all here for kids. I think that kind of relaxes people (5/01).

Ramon and Rebecca:
Coaching in Instructional Leadership
We now examine this issue through the eyes of Ramon and Rebecca, a new
teacher mentor. Recall from previous chapters, Ramon is a new principal placed in a
challenging setting. At the time of data collection, Valley Elementary was struggling to
raise student test scores in hopes of averting district take—over. After a full year of
planning, with the assistance of outside consultants, the faculty began implementing a
new instructional plan at the start of the past school year. Compounding the challenge,
roughly one-third of Valley’s teaching faculty is new to the profession. Not surprising,

Ramon’s own newness has left him feeling overwhelmed at times. That he looks to his

191

new teacher mentors for help in negotiating the task of new teacher support seems fitting.
In his words,

I think we work as a team; not as an evaluating team, but as a team to speak

about needs. So, not to evaluate anyone, [but] to talk about teaching and things

that maybe I need to provide the new teachers, or support, or guidance, or any of
those sorts of things. Basically...the idea is to work together and help the new

teacher succeed (6/01).

Two things in this comment warrant further attention. First, in this excerpt Ramon
makes clear his preference for working with the mentor as though they were a team. A
disposition toward working collaboratively and equally is implied when he says they talk
about teaching and things he needs to provide the new teacher with. Further, he indicates
an openness to being coached by the new teacher mentor — a theme he returns to in later
interviews. Second, this team is focused on meeting new teacher learning needs, which
stands in stark contrast with a more evaluative and traditional principal role. Rather than
judge a new teacher’s competence, his emphasis is on helping the new teacher succeed.

When asked what he expects from mentors, Ramon responds:

I meet regularly with the mentors. We talk about ways of helping new teachers,

from my end. Also, sometimes the new teachers don ’t want to share things with

me but they share with the mentor. Let ’s say they need more supplies and they see
me as always running around real busy. They don ’t want to stop me and say,

“Look, I need this. ” So they kind of communicate with the mentor and then the

mentor comes to me (12/99).

From this we can ascertain that Ramon meets regularly with mentors and that they
freely share non-confidential information back and forth. Based on this, we get the
impression that mentors also use these occasions to pass along important insights and
observations — things that Ramon may not see on his own, but should nonetheless be

aware of. Note how this comes out in the following dialogue.

Ramon: But now I know... they [new teachers] needed me to be more

192

accessible. I didn ’t know that teachers needed more from me than
the conversation I have with them outside the classroom, or the
observations required by the district. So it’s good to have a

mentor.
Cindy: So the mentor brought that to your attention ?
Ramon: Yes... if you would spend a little more time with them, give more

positive feedback. And that ’s good for me, because I didn ’t know
that. I thought I was giving positive feedback...I thought I was
doing that, but I go, whoa. Maybe I wasn’t doing as much as I
should have (12/99).

Altemately, when Ramon has a concern he is comfortable sharing that with
Rebecca. For example, recently a new bilingual teacher at the school was not providing
students with any instruction in Spanish. Although Ramon reportedly addressed this
directly with the teacher, he also shared his concerns with Rebecca in hope that she
would follow-through in her work with the novice. At last report, things were improving
in this situation, thanks to a “team” effort.

At the same time, Ramon is careful to not breach confidentiality. He understands
that the new teacher/mentor relationship is a private one. However, he also distinguishes
between conversations focused on improving teaching and those focused on evaluating
performance. When the former is in play, he believes confidentiality is less an issue.
Probed as to what constitutes a breach of confidence, Ramon explains:

We’re speaking about teaching and learning, we’re not talking about evaluation.

So it’s not confidentiality, I mean, it’s working to make the teacher successful. If

you do not share, it might be too late...the sooner we start working on it, the

better we can address a problem or need (6/01).

This comment reminds us that time does not stand still in schools. Problems that get

overlooked or set-aside often get bigger and more difficult to handle. Taking care of

matters before they get out of hand is Ramon’s preference.

193

Reflecting on this case, Ramon’s desire to be coached by Rebecca and the other
new teacher mentors in the building is worthy of noting once again. Importantly, Rebecca
has a complementary understanding of her role. She shares,

When I come in, he ’11 say to me, “Oh, good! I want to ask your opinion about this

and this”... I have to coach him a lot on what to look for when he goes into the

room... He can talk about their sense of control in the class. He can talk about
how he thinks they ’re responding to the kids, but he can ’t talk about what they are

teaching (5/01).

Note, what Rebecca hints at here is critical. Ramon cannot help his new teachers
grow and develop if he lacks confidence and skill in his ability to do so. As raised in the
last chapter, both are issues he struggles with. Rebecca’s coaching, no matter how skilled,
can only bring him so far. For that reason, he and his new teachers are fortunate to have
Rebecca in the building. Perhaps he knows this already; when asked what he expects in
terms of support from mentors, Ramon responds:

They [mentors] are helping me so much already by coaching the new teachers, by

spending the time that they do with new teachers. They are doing things to assist
me in those ways... (6/01).

Cross-Case Analysis:
Principals and Mentors Working Toward a Common Goal

In the data reported we hear strong references to what Shulman (1987) coined the
“rule of confidence. ” All four principals are not only aware of the reported tension
between principal as evaluator and mentor as supporter, they are outspoken in their desire
to preserve this separation. Or are they? A close look at the data reveals a discrepancy
between what principals espouse and what they report actually doing. Although each
advocates for confidentiality under the guise that it protects the new teacher, they each

find ways to circumvent this guiding principle when teacher development and/or student

I94

learning is at stake. In the terms of Argyris and Schon (1974), this stance toward
maintaining confidentiality at all costs acts as a self—reinforcing system that is rule-bound,
standardized and predictable with sharp role definitions. In simpler terms, the system is
characterized by outdated professional thinking.

Argyris and Schon (1974) go on to claim that dilemmas arise when there is a
mismatch between espoused and enacted theory, and it is out of these dilemmas that new

theories of professional practice are born. I will argue in the pages that follow that this is

 

precisely what is happening in the South County Schools as the presence of BTSA
mentors slowly and unknowingly challenge the way things are traditionally done. This is
not to say that the “rule of confidence ” should be discarded. Rather, that it needs
amending under certain circumstances or pre-conditions. As a result, a new theory of
practice that better explains effective support of new teachers and their mentors by
principals is needed. I argue further that this new theory must reflect a shared or
distributed perspective on instructional leadership (Spillane, et al, 2001).
Valued-Added Nature of Working Collaboratively

I begin this cross-case analysis by highlighting the value-added nature of
principals and mentors working collaboratively, claiming that this work is good for the
principal and mentor, the new teacher, and the children he or she teaches.
Working Together is Good for New Teachers and their Students

New teachers can become easily overwhelmed by the multiple demands placed on
them. When the expectations of a mentor do not match with those of the principal, the
sense of overwhelm may become too great. One advantage of principals communicating

openly with mentors about a new teacher’s developing practice is a sense of shared

195

expectation. Even when perspectives differ, there is an opportunity to make that
difference publicly know and discussed. Furthermore, for the new teacher who is wary of
yet another suggestion for improvement, a unified stand can be motivating. Recall Anne
mentioning this in reference to her work with James.

Students are another reason for mentors and principals talking together. Mentors
are not there to protect new teachers at all costs, but to guide them in their development
as teachers and professionals. Principals carry a similar responsibility. When students’
needs are not being met, the mentor and principal must be prepared to act. By serving as
each other’s confidential sounding board, principals and mentors can better equip
themselves to take needed action. It is also likely that by talking regularly and openly
they will surface potential problems earlier.

Workirg Together is Good for Principals and Mentors

When it is understood that principals and mentors work together to support new
teacher development, there is no need for principals to read between the lines of mentor
talk. Nor do mentors need to work so hard to cover up their concerns through guarded
hints and clues. Communication can be more open and honest. One obvious benefit
comes as a result of combining two sets of strengths and resources. Mentors have time
and expertise; principals have money and authority. By joining forces, new teacher
support is effectively doubled.

But more than shared resources result when principals and mentors work together.
Each can be a trusted second opinion for the other as they seek consensus in their
impressions and observations. Moreover, when there is a conflict between the new

teacher and either mentor or principal, there is a mediator in waiting. Recall Kathryn’s

I96

 

 

description of this in her work with Maria. All of this adds up to greater efficiency as
principals and mentors strive for effectiveness.
Guiding Principles

That said, none of the value-added benefits identified above are automatic when
principals and mentors work together. The four cases presented here suggest that at least
three guiding principles govern such work: 1) the presence of a trusting relationship

between principal and mentor based on professional norms of practice; 2) a shared

 

understanding of what good teaching can be; 3) the willingness to promote teacher
development as well as ensure teacher quality, e. g. a commitment to blending assistance
with assessment.

Trusting Relationships

 

For the support triad to work, an investment in relationship-building is needed.
Mentors must develop trusting relationships with novices and their principals. Likewise,
principals must develop trusting relationships with novices and their mentors. First and
foremost, these relationships depend on open and honest communication where
performance expectations are clearly articulated among the three. At the very least,
principals and mentors need to openly communicate with one another their expectations
for the novice, which in turn needs to be shared with the new teacher.

Equally important, these relationships require trust. Novices must know that they
are safe to learn and that communication between principal and mentor is for the purpose
of assisting their development. Recall Sonja’s acknowledgment of Karen and Jennifer’s
conversations about her. At the very core, mentors must trust that principals will not use

information about the new teacher to do harm, or as Jennifer puts it, “to fink ” on the new

197

teacher. Part of this is understanding and respecting the boundaries of their respective
roles and responsibilities. In the excerpt below, Jennifer reflects on the ease with which
she can talk to James about new teachers — a comfort level that he helped to create
through his words and actions.22
It’s like the way James always said it... I know you ’re not in the position to give
me evaluative feedback, I know it ’s not your role to give me evaluative feedback.
But I ’m wondering if you can let me know how it ’s going so I can best support
this teacher. That was always so perfect. It was like he was saying, don ’t worry,
I ’m not going to take what you say and go slam this teacher. I’m not going to
write it up in their files. I’m trying to hear from you what you see because you see
them more often. It always made me feel really comfortable because he was

sa in , un ers an re oun arieso our r0 e. ’m no tn in on is eac er.
ygldtdtlbd y l] tkgthth

But please give me some insight... so I can do my job to support this teacher
( 4/02 ).

In this excerpt we can identify three essential features of the principal/mentor
relationship: mutual understanding of and respect for one’s role; open and honest
communication; and a trusting professional relationship where the new teacher’s best
interests are central.

Knowledge of Good Teaching

As much as strong relationships are critical, they are not sufficient to support
collaborative work between principals and mentors. Also needed is a shared public vision
of good teaching with student learning as the bottom line. In absence of this, new teacher
understandings of principal and mentor expectations are likely to appear idiosyncratic
and unpredictable. The goal must be to articulate and make public what counts as
effective, quality teaching so that it can be part of the ongoing discourse among all

teachers in a building, not just those who are new. The fact that all four principals in this

 

22 Jennifer was first interviewed as the mentor paired with Karen; however, in this interview she reflects on
her work with various principals, including James. I include this reference because of its relevance to the
issue discussed.

198

 

study have adopted the use of the California teaching standards has helped provide a
common language around which good teaching can be discussed in their buildings.

Equally important, as these cases illustrate, the more sophisticated a principal’s
understanding of teacher development is, the more productive joint problem-solving can
be. As we see with Ramon, a limited understanding of good teaching prevents the kind of
sophisticated exchange around issues of teaching and learning that Rebecca hopes for. In
place of joint work, Rebecca is left coaching Ramon in what it means to support and
develop a new teacher’s budding practice.

Commitment to Assistance with Assessment

Finally, these cases highlight the importance of both support and evaluation to
novice development. We see this most clearly in the example set by Maria, James and
Karen where the evaluation process is framed as a learning opportunity that is
purposefully designed a) to link with the new teacher’s individual goals and b) to extend
the work of the mentor. Here, assistance in the form of ongoing formative assessment is
combined with formal evaluation. Notably, both functions — assistance and assessment -—
are shared or “distributed” across the principal and mentor.

Importantly, opportunities to combine assistance with assessment are not limited
to the formal evaluation process. As Maria notes, mentors like Kathryn are careful to
support new teachers in ways that are rigorous and responsible. Not all beginning
teaching is effective, and not all novice goals are worthy. Using ongoing formative
assessment as their guide, good mentors help move new teacher development toward a

shared public vision for good teaching.

I99

True of all four principals, the combination of support and evaluation (or
assistance and assessment) is considered a necessary means of promoting teacher
development and ensuring professional accountability. This conviction was most evident
as principals responded to a series of three vignettes in the third interview. Each vignette
presented a situation where the mentor was aware of a problem with the new teacher, but
the principal was not. After hearing the vignette read aloud, principals were asked
whether or not they would expect the mentor to share what they know. In each case, their
responses were unanimous. When student learning or professional ethics were at issue,
principals wanted to know so that they could respond proactively in a manner that would
protect students, while at the same time facilitate the novice’s development. Only when
reasonable assistance was offered would a negative evaluation outcome be realized.

Principals Complement and Enhance Mentors Role

This study argues from the premise that principals’ efforts to support new teachers
are no better than or more important than those of the mentor. Rather, principals’ efforts
complement and enhance that of the mentor. To illustrate, despite all that Maria reports
doing for Sharon, the new teacher, her efforts are overshadowed by the efforts of
Kathryn, the on-site mentor. Perhaps the real question, then, is not what principals do
better than mentors, but: What do principals do that enhances, adds to, or complements
the work of mentors?

As this analysis has shown, there are good reasons for principals and mentors to
work collaboratively in the support and development of new teachers, provided that
certain basic conditions are met: a trusting professional relationship; a shared knowledge

of good teaching; and a combination of assistance with assessment. Although respect for

200

 

 

the “rule of confidentiality” pervades this data, a new understanding of shared or

 

distributed responsibility for new teachers is emerging in their reported day to day efforts,
thereby suggesting a revision to traditional thinking on what constitutes effective

professional practice by principals when working with new teachers and their mentors.

 

201

Chapter 6:
Bringing the Support Triad Together

One of the ways that BTSA program has changed our culture is that it’s really
caused us to take a look at the role of the administrator. What we’ve changed
from is the traditional supervisory role into a more collegial support role. Just as
our teachers are collaborative working with each other, the administrators have
now adopted that collegial support system. They are much more interested in
[asking], how do I coach that new employee to excellence?

~ Assistant Superintendent (CTE/CDE, 1997)

Chapter Overview

Whereas previous data chapters described the principal and his or her relationship
with novice teachers and their mentors, this chapter looks specifically at the support triad
as a unit of analysis. Two distributed models of principal support for new teachers and
their mentors emerge from this analysis, each with implications for principal
effectiveness. In concluding, I address the final research question posed in this study:
Does principals’ work with new teachers and their mentors change or alter how they go
about their work with teachers more broadly? Although the data are sketchy on this
point, I argue that there is good reason to be hopeful. The active presence of skilled
mentors effectively puts new teachers and their development on principals’ list of things
that matter. This gives principals a reason to pay attention to teacher development writ
large, as well as an opportunity to develop professional working relationships that last
long after the novice has arrived.

Introduction

Chapters three, four and five presented a descriptive account of how four

202

 

 

elementary principals — Maria, James, Karen and Ramon — understand and report
enacting the support, development and evaluation of new teachers and their mentors.
Chapter three highlighted the similar and yet different paths each individual took to the
principalship. All four have significant teaching experience in the district and a well-
documented history of promoting quality teaching and learning for its large number of
English Language Learners. However, their backgrounds differ with respect to the
knowledge and skill they bring to the task of new teacher development.

As former BTSA mentors, Maria and Karen have an extensive background in
mentoring new teachers. They know what is likely to be difficult and when for the
novice. They understand the importance of developing a trusting relationship in which
the new teacher is comfortable learning and growing as an early-career professional.
They also have an intuitive understanding of when to directly guide the novice and when
to sit back and let the learning unfold. James and Ramon, on the other hand, do not come
to the principalship with this set of experiences. Interestingly, James has figured his way
around this dilemma by getting out of the mentor’s way. Instead, he concentrates his
efforts on creating structures that support novice development. Ramon, a new principal at
the time of this study, has yet to discover what new teachers need to learn, how they learn
that, and who might be in the best position to guide that learning. In an interesting twist,
Ramon ends up being coached by mentors in his building.

Notably, there is alignment and coherence between what these principals believe
and reporting doing (Argyris & Schon, 1974), suggesting each operates from his or her
own theory of practice. However, it is also apparent that not all four theories of practice

are equal. Based on self-report, Maria, James and Karen might be considered more

203

 

 

 

“effective” than Ramon with respect to new teacher support and development. One
reasonable explanation for this contrast may be the depth of knowledge and skill in new
teacher development that each brings to the principalship. When the principal has a
robust vision of what good teaching can be, as well as a sense for how to move new
teachers in that direction, the potential for success is enhanced. It might be further argued
that a sophisticated understanding of what good teaching is begets more elaborate
practice. Thus, it is hard to enact a well-developed practice as an instructional leader
when your vision of what is possible remains limited. Arguably, Maria, James and Karen
each possess rich understanding.

In the case of Ramon, I argue that two additional factors — one personal and the
other contextual — further limit his ability to do more. First, Valley Elementary is an
under-performing school under threat of state takeover. As a result, most of his
instructional leadership time is spent trying to reverse that trend. Finding time to attend to
the needs of new teachers is improbable. Second, Ramon’s preferred leadership style - at
least in curricular and instructional matters — is hands-off. Keeping his distance from
teachers and this form of “teachers’ work” is a choice he makes.

Any further discrepancy in reported practice among the four principals shows up
most clearly in chapter four. Although each principal approaches the task of new teacher
support in different ways, the end result for Maria, James and Karen — as judged by the
new teachers and mentors they work with — is effective practice. For each, the little things
they do add up to something significant. This includes the desire to get to know the new
teacher and to lay the foundation for a sound working relationship. Equally important,

these principals are observant of new teachers’ learning needs. Likewise, they are skilled

204

 

 

 

in turning the teacher evaluation process into a learning opportunity for the novice. With

 

more coaching from mentors and an improved professional climate at Valley, we might
reasonably expect Ramon to grow in effectiveness over time.

The discussion continues in chapter five with a focus on principals’ work with
mentors. After arguing the value-added nature of working together, especially when the
novice struggles, I identify a set of three pre-conditions, each essential in supporting
collaborative work between principals and mentors. First and foremost, the principal and
mentor must have a trusting professional relationship, one where they rely on the other to
“do no harm.” Also important is a shared knowledge of what good teaching is, as well as
a mutual commitment to both assist and assess, support and evaluate. In concluding, I
argue that when these pre-conditions are met, the possibility is increased that principals
and mentors can work together in ways that complement and enhance each other’s role.

This brings us to the final data chapter, a synthesis of the three that preceded it,
where the unit of analysis has been broadened to include the full support triad. In doing
so, two models of professional practice (Argyris & Schon, 1974) emerge, both of which
are examples of shared or distributed leadership (Spillane, et a1, 2001). In the section that
follows, I elaborate on these points.

Two Models of the Support Triad
A careful look at the data reveals subtle differences in how each of these
individuals approaches the support and development of new teachers and their mentors.
Most alike are Maria, James and Karen. Although faced with the unique circumstances of
their respective schools, each similarly describes working with mentors to provide

coordinated assistance to the novice. This is particularly true when the novice struggles to

205

teach well. Nonetheless, Maria and James describe a more nuanced understanding,
largely drawn from experience, of how to work with mentors in a truly collaborative
manner. Karen aspires to this, but is still in the process of learning how to enact such a
practice. Ramon remains an unknown. Despite a reported interest in supporting new
teachers, his efforts tend to fall short. Notably, it is the mentor, Rebecca, who
instrumentally coaches him in the intricacies of principal support. Only time will tell
whether or not the combination of personal commitment and outside coaching will lead
to more effective enactment.

An examination of the support triad in each of these instances provides us with an
explanation for why these cases differ. By looking across the two distributed support
models, we are better able to see the distinct advantages and disadvantages of each. We
begin with Maria and James.

Maria and James: Coordinating Assistance

Maria and James share a commitment to supporting and guiding new teachers, as
well as assessing their developing practice. Both report coordinating their efforts with the
mentors in their buildings. However, what this looks like in practice differs somewhat
between their two buildings. Maria is fortunate to have Kathryn, a full-time
mentor/professional development coordinator on site; whereas James works with three
different mentors, only one of whom works out of his building.

For Maria and Kathryn, this arrangement makes it easy for the two to talk
informally on a daily basis. Their ease with communicating likely stems from their
teacher days when Shining Star was first named a professional development school.

Today they both share a passion for creating a school where issues of diversity and equity

206

 

 

are central. Although Kathryn does not carry the title of assistant principal, she operates
with the authority and respect of one. To an outsider, the two seem an inseparable pair.

James must work around the inconvenience of not having on-site mentors. In
recent years he has worked with as many as three mentors in the building. Fortunately,
one is a former teacher in the building, another remains on staff as a part-time literacy
specialist, so they have comfort and familiarity with school operations. Typically, each
stops by James’ office periodically to check in, to ask if anything new is happening, or to
recount what they have been working on of late. Sometimes these meetings are scheduled
in advance, but they are just as likely to occur informally as they pass each other in the
halls. When circumstances demand it, James reports being able to have “closed door”
conversations with two of the three mentors. The third is new to the building, so she and
James have not had as many opportunities to develop rapport that would support

collaborative work.

These two instances, one with on—site mentor support and the other with off-site
mentor support, both illustrate a model of coordinated assistance (see Figure 3) where the
principal and mentor communicate openly and freely to share information relevant to the
support, development and evaluation of the novice (represented by a solid line). As a
result, the mentor is able to offer timely and appropriate one-to-one assistance (also
represented by a solid line), knowing that the principal is there to affirm the work and
provide back up as needed (represented by a hatched line). Because the principal is kept
abreast of the new teacher’s unique learning needs, as worked on by the mentor, they are
better able to offer assistance to the novice. This may occur in a variety of ways. The

principal may help access needed resources or intentionally link the evaluation process

207

 

with the mentor’s work goals. The principal may even give direct support to the novice.

All of this works to the new teacher’s benefit.

Figure 3:

 

Model #1:
Coordinated Assistance

Principal 9—" Mentor

\
'\
.\
‘\

a

New Teacher

 

 

 

Karen: Overlapping Assistance

Karen provides a subtle contrast to Maria and James. As experienced principals,
both Maria and James are comfortable taking a backseat to the mentor in charge. Karen,
on the other hand, is eager to step up and play the role of mentor. As a former support
provider, this is her comfort zone. It is what she enjoys and feels good doing. However, it
is also the source of some tension in her work with new teacher mentors. Invoking the
unspoken “rule ofconfidence Karen is hesitant to talk too much with the mentors in her
building. Her ultimate concern is for protecting the novice. Therefore, by offering support
directly to the new teacher Karen is able to avoid conversations where problems and
concerns are openly shared.

Although this appears to be changing some as she gains experience, Karen falls
prey to duplicating or overlapping the services of the mentor. Because her

communication with mentors remains somewhat guarded, she is unable to learn from

208

 

 

their experience and insight. While her support efforts may be coordinated with the
mentor, they are just as likely to overlap with that of the mentor. The end result is good
for the confident novice who receives double offers of support. For the novice who
struggles, however, any conflicting messages may be difficult to interpret. Not only is

this approach inefficient for a busy administrator, it may be unnecessarily confusing to

 

the novice. ,4

This case suggests a model of overlapping assistance (see Figure 4) where

 

sometimes the mentor leads in providing offers of support, and sometimes the principal
leads (represented by the solid lines). The new teacher benefits from a dual support
system where assistance comes from both mentor and principal. However, because the
communication between principal and mentor is inconsistent (represented by the hatched
line), the new teacher may suffer from unclear and even competing expectations.
Moreover, this approach is prone to duplicating support efforts — an unnecessary use of

time for an already busy principal.

Figure 4:

 

Model #2:
Overlapping Assistance

Principal """““" Mentor

New Teacher

 

 

 

209

Learning from Ramon

Finally, the case of Ramon is important for what it teaches us about the potential
for mentors’ influence on principals. Here we see an overwhelmed beginning principal
who wants to be supportive of his newest recruits, but lacks the knowledge and skill
needed to do so in a meaningful and sustained way. Enter Rebecca, a well-trained and
supported mentor, who gradually and gently tries to steer both Ramon and the new

teacher toward more effective practices.

 

At the time data collection ended the results of Rebecca’s influence was not clear.
To be sure, her efforts ensure that new teachers experience timely and appropriate
instructional guidance through thoughtful one to one mentoring. We also have reason to
believe that Ramon is paying attention to and learning from her. Nonetheless, her actions
could ultimately prompt quite different responses from Ramon. On the one hand, he
could intentionally step aside, further limiting his interactions with new teachers on the
grounds that Rebecca has more expertise and time to give to the task. On the other hand,
he could continue learning from Rebecca, gradually taking on greater responsibility for
new teacher support as trust emerges alongside a shared vision.

Given Ramon’s interest in “doing more ” for his new teachers, we have reason to
believe that as Ramon gains confidence in his ability to manage the school, he will
increasingly be able to focus on developing this critical aspect of his practice as a school
leader — especially if Rebecca continues in her position as mentor teacher at Valley
Elementary. If not, Ramon will have more or less delegated the entirety of new teacher

support to Rebecca, a task she is willing and able to assume. However, while the novice

210

is not left feeling isolated and alone, any opportunities for sharing sights and mutually
supporting each other’s efforts are lost between mentor and principal in this arrangement.

Arguably, stepping aside is a reasonable response for an overwhelmed principal
with little expertise in instructional development. In this case, allowing the mentor to
assume full responsibility for new teacher support and development has clear advantages.
This is particularly true when the principal cannot be trusted to work collaboratively and
professionally. The inherent risk, however, is that the principal fails to acknowledge the If
importance of his or her position and authority in creating a system that supports the new 1
teachers’ development. Additionally, it places the burden on the mentor of educating the
principal and keeping him or her in the loop. At the same time, it leaves the mentor alone
in their work, without the benefit of the principals’ opinion and insight.
Identifying Effectiveness: The Situated Nature of Principal Support

Based on these two models, a clear preference for the first, “Coordinated
Assistance,” emerges. Coordinated assistance benefits the novice by providing one-to-
one mentoring support with principal backup. The principal gains from knowing that the
novices needs are being met, thus freeing the principal to attend to other pressing matters.
Together, the principal and mentor share information that can help each do their
respective work more effectively — an example of distributed leadership in action. Model
two, “Overlapping Assistance,” represents a reasonable alternative, even though it may
not be the most efficient approach to new teacher support, development and evaluation.
Regardless, both require that principals and mentors are able to work collaboratively and

professionally together around shared goals.

211

 

When collaborative work between principals and mentors is not possible, it may
be best for the principal to step aside completely, thereby providing the mentor with time
and space to work. This way the new teachers’ needs are addressed and in the process,
the principal may actually grow in his/her capacity to provide effective support.

This discussion highlights the situated nature of principal support for new
teachers and their mentors. While the “Coordinated Assistance” model may present itself
as the idea], it cannot be viewed as the only possible and desired approach without taking
into account who the principal is, who the mentor is, and in what setting they work
together. The bottom line must be what is best for students’ learning.

Cross-Case Findings: Reinforcing the Triad

I now look across the four cases to a set of cross-case findings relevant to the
support triad. Although each is distinct from the other, together they represent a more
systemic approach to new teacher support that is not just concerned with what principals
do, but how they come to think that way, and what enables or constrains that
contextually. The following findings are discussed. First, principals’ attentiveness to new
teacher learning needs is likely shaped by their prior knowledge, skill and experience.
Second, mentors help to focus principals’ attention on new teachers and their learning
needs in significant ways. Third, mentoring can be a pathway to the ideals of instructional
leadership for both principals and teacher leaders. Fourth, the presence of a well-defined
mission allows principals to focus attention on teacher development. In other word, the

setting matters.

212

 

 

 

Prior Knowledge and Skill Help Frame Principal Attention

The four principals in this study followed a similar path to the principalship; still,
their commitments and practice differ in subtle ways. Prior experience and/or training in
teaching, mentoring and administrative work are likely influences on what a principal
pays attention to. To illustrate, each of the principals in this study began teaching in
South County with a commitment to serving bilingual children. Each taught for seven or
more years at the elementary level. When asked how long it takes to become a master
teacher, they responded with answers that ranged from three to eight, maybe ten years.
While Ramon was reluctant to claim classroom instructional expertise; Maria claimed to
know teaching as well as any teacher in the building.

Moreover, each of the principals in this study had experience as a mentor: James
and Ramon under the now defunct California Mentor Teacher Project; Maria and Karen
through BTSA. Notably, only the former BTSA mentors had significant and ongoing
training for this new mentor role. Of additional interest, although Karen and Ramon had
been assigned a leadership coach to assist them through the first years of being a
principal, not one of the four experienced mentoring as a beginning teacher.

As well, each of the principals in this study made a gradual transition from
teaching to administration, encouraged by former colleagues and driven by a desire to
impact change on a larger scale. James spent several years as a lead teacher in his
building. Ramon spent his vacation time in the role of summer school principal. Maria
left teaching to work at the university in teacher preparation, then returned to teaching a
second time before deciding to give the principalship a try. Karen gained confidence in

an administrative career through her years as a BTSA mentor. Although each found

213

 

things useful in their various administrative preparation programs (e.g. budget and
finance, school law), all four credit much of what they know to learning on the job.

Despite these varied experiences, Maria, J arnes and Karen are the ones who are

 

more likely to share a common understanding of good teaching and teacher development.

Although Ramon professes the same end-goal, he lacks the knowledge and skill to

consistently enact such an understanding. Notably, James is in the same position; j

1
I

it...

however, he understands his limitations and proactively seeks help from those who can
“share” the leadership load.
Mentors Focus Principals’ Attention on New Teachers and their Needs

It is assumed that principals do not have the time or the expertise needed to lend
support to their new teachers. Certainly, there are few formal expectations for them doing
so. That principals spend their time doing other things is not surprising. Others have
suggested that the mere presence of mentors will encourage principals to direct their time
and attention elsewhere, believing someone else will pick up the pieces. Yet, this was not
the case for our four principals. The presence of well-trained mentors actually drew
principals’ attention toward new teachers and their needs. Periodic meetings between
principals and mentors to review the novice’s progress serve as a reminder that the novice
is a learner and a beginner. Through ongoing conversation, a shared discourse focused on
improved teaching and learning begins to be articulated. Mentor assistance with the goal-
setting process, as well as mid- and end-of—year reviews, highlights the importance of
routine and required events as learning opportunities. Rather than stepping out of the

picture, mentors have actually helped to bring these four principals into the viewfinder.

214

 

The research reported here counters prevailing thought in that principals are
drawn in to the work of new teacher support through the work of mentor teachers, as
opposed to cast aside. While the data is silent on the issue of retention, we have some
reason to hope. If the mere presence of mentors focuses principals’ attention on new
teachers and their needs, then it may also get them thinking about what they can do to
address the problem of working conditions. The combination of close to the classroom
mentoring, coupled with a principal who is attentive to new teacher needs, willing to
garner resources to positively impact the new teacher’s experience, and to facilitate a
school environment where teachers and students learn together is a potentially new and
powerful combination.

Of late there has been ample talk about the problems of retaining teachers in the
profession. Research suggests that poor working conditions are a factor in why many
leave the profession so quickly. Although mentoring has been proven to be an effective
strategy for retaining novice teachers, it is not the panacea. New teachers will continue to
leave the profession if we do not address the issue of work conditions with greater
urgency.

Mentoring as an Apprenticeship in Instructional Leadership

All four principals in this study are committed to impacting social change in their

local schools. Further, each wants to bring a teacher development focus to their buildings.

As former teachers, these principals understand the importance and value of focusing
their efforts on teacher knowledge, skill and attitudes. However, as the cases of Maria
and Karen illustrate, a teaching background is not sufficient for close—to-the—classroom,

hands—on instructional leadership. Maria and Karen know and understand the mechanics

215

 

of teaching in ways that James and Ramon do not. Both taught in the classroom for
significantly longer periods of time. In addition, their training and experience as mentors
and teacher educators taught them how to examine the teaching process; first breaking it
down into understandable steps, then putting it back together again. In Karen’s words,

I think it has helped me a whole lot. It would be really wonderful if all principals

had mentoring experience because then you really do see the benefits and you do

understand the needs of teachers. I think it’s made me more understanding of new
teachers. When I do see them, you know, there are kids all over the place. I know,
it ’s “oh my god, they are still struggling with management.’ But they will get that.

We will have a seminar. We ’11 get past this (Karen, 6/01).

A strong background in teaching and mentoring can be a real help to the new
principal. It can also get in the way. As we see with Karen, her tendency to want to coach
and nurture obstructed her ability to be direct and authoritative when necessary. Being a
principal means many things, including public relations, budgeting, and facility oversight.
Principals who know teaching deeply may have less to learn initially. However, keeping
the vision focused on instruction over time takes skill and commitment that go beyond
what a former teacher and mentor might bring to the principalship. Mentoring is clearly a
promising pathway to administrative work, but is not sufficient in and of itself. Being a
site administrator draws on what a good teacher and mentor knows and does, but at the
same time it encompasses a body of knowledge unique to the principalship. Of equal
importance, mentoring serves as an apprenticeship in instructional leadership that will
serve any mentor well as he or she moves on to other leadership roles.

Importance of the Setting
Maria and James both lead schools with a clear and focused mission. This mission

guides who gets hired, how they are oriented and why they teach as they do. In both

schools a strong sense of professional community ties teachers together, new and

216

 

 

 

experienced. Importantly, the presence of a functioning, articulated and shared school
mission affords these two principals the time to focus more deliberately on teacher
development, specifically that which addresses new teacher needs. For Karen and
Ramon, dealing with multiple demands, internal and external, is enough to keep them
busy. In these two cases, we see how the tasks of developing professional community and
raising test scores compete with time principals might otherwise have for new teacher
support. For new or challenged principals, teacher support is a luxury they may not have
the time or resources for.

This finding suggests an interesting notion: place new principals in protected
settings. Karen and Ramon, as new principals, have their hands full. In addition to
learning how to lead, each has the enormous added responsibility of caring for a cadre of
new and beginning teachers. Ramon has the additional challenge of raising test scores in
a building that reportedly resists his efforts to work collectively. Because the central
tasks of learning to lead, and supporting (new) teachers are demanding, districts must
think carefully about where they place new principals. Principals assigned to effective
schools with large numbers of master teachers have the advantage of learning how to lead
in protected settings. Principals assigned to under-achieving schools with large numbers
of new and inexperienced teachers face an uphill battle that few would succeed in doing.

Parting Thoughts: The Big Ideas Within

Clearly, new teachers deserve focused and intensive instructional support and
development. In the same vein, the public is right to demand accountability for competent
practice. It makes sense to continue supporting the critically important work that well-

trained and supported mentors can provide. However, new teacher support is not the sole

217

responsibility of a mentor. Effective support comes through multiple means. It also

makes sense to see the principal, however peripheral, as part of the new teacher support

 

crew as there are aspects of support that only a principal can provide. Raising principal
consciousness about those aspects is critical if we are to jump the hurdle currently facing

induction today — poor working conditions and unsupportive workplaces. Offering

 

monthly seminars and providing mentors will not take care of all new teacher needs. A

systemic approach, one that includes the principal, is needed.

 

Despite the limitations of self—report interview data with a small sample of
subjects, this study has noteworthy implications for our understanding of new teacher

learning; induction and mentoring; and instructional leadership as conceived by

 

principals. By getting inside the thinking of four individuals, each with varying degrees
of success in supporting, developing and evaluating new teachers, we are able to see a
glimpse of the possible. In this concluding section, I take the opportunity to highlight
what I see as the big ideas that emerge from this study. In doing so, I want to once again
emphasize that while this study cannot make claims about principals’ practice, it does
contribute to our understanding of why principals might act as they do, as well as how
they might have come to such understandings.
Mentor as Colleague and Coach

This data shows that the presence of strong mentors can raise principal
consciousness, force their attention, and shape their guidance in the area of new teacher
support and development. Moreover, this research challenges the notion that principals
are not interested in new teacher support and will use the presence of mentors to justify a

minimal role. Further, we saw from the cases of Maria and James the power of a model

218

that featured coordinated and shared assistance between the mentor and principal.
Provided that the necessary conditions have been met — a trusting relationship; a solid
understanding of what good teaching entails, and a commitment to ensuring quality -
coordinated assistance appears to be an ideal worth striving for. Coordinated assistance,
whether with exemplary or struggling newcomers, has the further advantage of modeling
truly collaborative working relationships that can facilitate opportunities for meaningful
conversations about good teaching and student learning, and target individual needs
within a given context.

Much of the discussion to this point has presumed that the new teacher is
struggling. Working together around shared concerns legitimately draws principals and
mentors together. But what happens when the new teacher does well? Arguably, the
principal can benefit from knowing what is going well in order to build on the novice’s
strengths in ways that improve the entire educational program in a school. It can also be a
way of identifying leadership capacity in a given area. At the very least, it is a means of
sharing “good news” — something all of our schools can do more of.

If I feel the teacher needs some support, I want the advisor to know what areas I

am concerned about so that they can work with the new teacher. The same with

areas where they are doing really well. I want to make sure the advisor has seen

that as well. Vice Versa, I ’d like them to point things out to me in case I haven ’t

seen it. Mostly in the areas where the teacher is doing really well (Karen, 6/01).

This said, a caution is in order. If induction and mentoring programs want to
attract and use principals more effectively, they must be willing to develop and refine
understandings about principal roles and responsibilities. Equally important, if we expect

mentors to work more closely with principals, then both will need to learn new skills,

adopt new perspectives, define new expectations, and negotiate new roles.

219

 

 

Worth noting, these four principals did not immediately begin supporting new

teachers, but learned the ropes through experience. Realistically, for most principals, the

 

needs of new teachers will not emerge on their radar screen until other more pressing
demands are met; specialized knowledge and skill are acquired; and their own confidence

in this work is elevated. If this is a phenomenon of more sophisticated principal practice,

 

then ongoing training and support for principals in working effectively with new teachers

and their mentors should be timed appropriately.

 

Mentors as 3 Catalyst for Attention to Teacher Learning and Development

We must also address the question of how principals’ work with new teachers and
their mentors might shape their support of teacher development more broadly. This study,
however small its sample size, suggests that the presence of well-trained mentors can
help to focus principals’ attention on issues of teacher learning. Moreover, as we saw in
the case of Ramon, well-trained mentors can model for principals a set of effective

teacher development strategies. If this claim holds true in other settings, it would be

 

worthwhile to follow principals and mentors over an extended period of time. In what
ways does their presence act like a reform intervention? And are there ways that mentor
skills become a professional resource to the principal? The actual experience of
mentoring may serve as an apprenticeship to instructional leadership. For those without a
mentoring or teacher development background, perhaps it is mentors themselves who will
help to guide principal learning on the job, one new teacher at a time.

An alternate take on this question is to imagine the professional culture that new
teachers are being socialized into. In the best case scenario, we might ask: What do

beginning teachers learn when they are encouraged and supported as Ieamers to reflect on

220

 

their teaching and inquire about their students’ learning? What do they learn from
watching the example set by their principal and mentor who work collaboratively to
ensure that they are provided with meaningful learning opportunities and supportive
workplace conditions? When principals support new teachers they are helping to create a
professional culture. Since many of these newcomers will stay in the profession, the work
a principal begins during those critical early years will continue long after tenure is
offered. More importantly, new teachers will come to expect this from their principals.

Importantly, mentoring appears to be a useful pathway for training future
principals. Although missing knowledge and skill in crafting budgets, managing public
relations and knowing the intricacies of school law, it does provide focused training and
experience in teacher education/teacher development that future administrators and
teacher leaders, alike, would benefit from.
Principals’ Role in Facilitating Supportive Working Conditions

Clearly, principals do have an important role to play in induction, both in
developing new teachers and supporting their mentors. Simply put: effective principals
actively support new teachers and their mentors. But the data surfaces an additional
thought worth considering. If the mere presence of mentors focuses principals’ attention
on new teachers and their needs, then it may also get them thinking about what they can
do to address the problem of unsuitable and unsupportive working conditions — a problem
that mentoring alone cannot be expected to address. In fact, in the presence of well-
trained mentors, advocating and facilitating supportive working conditions may be

principals’ first and foremost role in supporting new teachers.

221

 

 

 

 

This study takes a hard look at an important issue and yet, the sample size is
small. Some will ask, what can we learn from four principals, doing exemplary work, in a
supportive context? The intent of this research, as an exploratory case study, was never to
generalize to a larger population; rather, to better understand a highly-situated, local
phenomenon with the hope that it will reveal new questions, prompting further empirical
study, deeper conceptual work, and contribute to thoughtful professional practice. I hope
it has done that for the reader.

The question opening this study remains: Given the emergence of induction and
mentoring programs, what role should principals play in new teacher support? By now
the answer should be clear. Principals have a professional obligation to support new
teachers and their mentors. But being supportive can mean a variety of things: from
taking an active, hands-on role as instructional leader, to stepping aside and allowing the
mentor to emerge in a leadership role; and from being protective of the confidential
nature of mentors’ work with new teachers, to going beyond the “rule of confidence” to
collaboratively support new teacher development in ways that serve children best. A wise

principal and instructional leader understands the difference.

222

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Literature Review

Appendix B: Interview Protocols

Questionnaire

Principal #1

Principal #2

Principal #3

Principal #4

Mentor Teacher

New Teacher

Appendix C: NUD*IST Coding Tree

223

 

 

Appendix A:

Review of the Literature

Introduction

We live at a time when standards for teaching and learning have never been
higher. The past decade has seen one state after another implement high-stakes tests as a
measure of what K-12 students know and can do. Recent passage of the federal “No
Child Left Behind Act” (2002) ensures that standardized tests are here to stay - at least
for the near future. Professional groups, like the National Council for the Teachers of
Mathematics and the National Council for Teachers of English, have contributed to the
fervor with their own widely-regarded standards documents. Other professional
organizations, such as the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, have
followed suit with complementary teaching standards. All of this is supported by public
opinion that argues the centrality of teachers in developing and sustaining high-
performing schools (RNT, 1998). Increasingly, the public is demanding more and better
teachers.

At the same time, we are facing a serious teacher shortage in this country. It is
estimated that up to 40% of our current workforce — the so-called baby boomer era — will
turn over in the next ten years. Moreover, if precedent holds, we know that the mostly
novice teachers who fill these open spots will be clustered in our poorest schools
(Shields, Esch, Humphrey, Young, Gaston, & Hunt, 1999). Further challenging matters,
up to one half of these new teachers will leave the profession within their first three to
five years, just as they are getting their professional feet wet (Darling-Hammond, 1997).

For many, the job will become impossible and the demands too great. Recent studies

224

 

 

 

suggest that new teachers leave the profession because of poor working conditions,
including low pay and status. Still others leave because of a lack of support from
administrators, colleagues, students and their parents (Ingersoll, 2001a; Ingersoll, 1999).

The recent widespread interest in new teacher induction — with mentoring as a core
strategy — is not a surprise. A tenable solution to multiple problems, induction is seen as a
means for improving teaching; increasing retention; eliminating the unfit; and increasing
student achievement (Huling-Austin, I990; Fideler & Haselkom, 1999). Missing,
however, is a strong and extensive research-base on induction and mentoring. Early
empirical work is limited in scope and rigor (Zeichner, 1982; Little, 1990; Fideler &
Haselkom, 1999). Few studies go beyond program features, early implementation and/or
global mentoring practices, and the method of choice is often limited to surveys with
some anecdotal self-report. Given the interest and rapid growth in induction
programming, research is needed that looks beyond the surface to the subtleties of new
teacher development within this unique context.

This study contributes to that much needed research base. Principals’ role in new
teacher support is grossly under-conceptualized in the literature. Recommendations are
limited to principal support of local mentor programs and beginning of the year
orientations. The studies that have been reported are small in scope, limited to the first
year of implementation, and there is no mention of principals’ relationship with mentors.

What follows is a select review of three distinct sets of literature: new teacher
learning; induction and mentoring; and principal instructional leadership. Rather than
provide a comprehensive survey of each strand, my intent in this appended review is to

look across the three bodies of literature to find areas of overlap that simultaneously

225

 

 

 

support and inform this work, both conceptually and methodologically. My goal is not to
learn all that is known, but to “develop sharper and more insightful questions about the
topic” of new teacher support by principals (Yin, 1994, p. 9). I begin by highlighting
issues pertinent to this study, as found in the literature on new teacher learning; induction
and mentoring; and principal leadership. Next, I summarize how previous studies of new
teacher support by principals have approached the problem, what they found and what
questions remain uncovered. I conclude by arguing the need for further study in this area.

New Teacher Learning: New Teachers Matter

 

Victims of our own prestige, we often fight the good fight, on our own,
without seeking support. I was a hotshot new teacher — I didn ’t need
help. But I did, and I was afraid to ask. When we finally do ask, there
is a degree of shame. Either things have gotten so crazy that we
should never have let them get this far along, or the problem that we
observe is so banal that to mention it is to whine. As a first-year
teacher there are many understanding nods, and often there is sound
advice. But when you are stuck behind a pile of philosophy journals
and your F block thinks that it is fun to torture the different kid, words
do not assuage one ’s despair. To invite the department chair into my
room or call in a dean was tantamount to admitting defeat. I didn’t
want to be perceived as a quitter; I was worthy to work at Brookline
High.

~ New Teacher (Donaldson & Poon, 1999, p. 26)

 

 

Teacher expertise is considered one of the most important factors, next to small
schools and class sizes, influencing student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1999;
Haycock, 1998). In one of the most widely-regarded reports of the past decade, What
Matters Most: Teaching and America ’s Future (NCTAF, 1996) the authors convincingly
argue that teachers and teaching matter. At the same time we invest in creating learning

opportunities for our students, so we must do likewise for teachers. Schools need to be

226

 

 

transformed into places where teachers learn alongside their students. Notably, this report
helped shift the national reform agenda toward issues of teacher recruitment, preparation,
induction, and professional development.
The Challenge of Teacher Preparation

With respect to teacher preparation, the traditional and still most common route into
teaching, various critiques have been waged through the years (e.g. Conant, 1963;
Koemer, 1963; Silberman, 1970; Goodlad, 1994). These arguments range from course
fragmentation and inadequate time, to uninspired teaching methods within a superficial
curriculum for traditional school settings (NCTAF, I996). The most recent of these
reports, issued by the Abell Foundation, asserts that teacher effectiveness is not improved
through teacher education; therefore, barriers to the profession, i.e. certification
requirements, ought to be lifted (Walsh, 2001).

However, there is equally strong research suggesting that teachers who enter the
profession without thoughtful teacher preparation may learn to teach in counterproductive
ways (Grossman, 1990). Areas of difficulty include long-term curriculum planning,
effective classroom management, the diagnosis of student learning needs, and skill in
adapting instruction to meet student needs. Not surprising, those without teacher
preparation report feeling less prepared (Shields et al., 1999). In a rejoinder to the Abell
report, Linda Darling-Hammond (Darling-Hammond, 2002) takes issue with Walsh’s
findings, citing numerous studies that support the influence of teacher preparation on
improved student achievement.

I raise the issue of teacher preparation as background for the question: What do

new teachers need to know and be able to do? My assumption is that teachers do have

227

 

 

things to learn during their early years on the job; things that can be targeted through
thoughtfully planned induction and mentoring programs. But what those “things” are
continues to be part of public debate (see Reynolds, 1992). As Zeichner (1999) recently
noted, the historical development of teacher education programs has been more a reaction
to mandates than a “thoughtful, analytic and forward-looking process based on the
attempt to implement a coherent, well-thought out set of principles and ideas about what

teachers need to know and need to be able to do (p. 12). ” If new teacher induction

 

programs are to avoid this pitfall, we would be wise to proceed slowly and cautiously.
The Nature of Beginning Teaching

It has been said that beginning teachers have two tasks: to teach and to learn to
teach (Wildman, Niles, Magliaro, & McLaughlin, 1989). This understanding underscores
the obvious. Regardless of how good one’s preservice preparation was, no beginner is
fully prepared for the demands of teaching. As Veenman (1984) reminds us, beginning
teaching is a time of “reality shock.” Suddenly, the new teacher has sole responsibility

for the intellectual development of an entire classroom of students. For the novice this

 

can be exhilarating, overwhelming or a dizzying combination of the two. Further
complicating matters, on top of instructional planning, delivery and assessment, there is
always one more errand to run, problem to solve, parent to call, paper to grade. Teaching
is a time of relentless doing.

This wouldn’t be so hard if teaching itself were easier, but it is not. Teaching is
uncertain work. It leaves one tired and exhausted at the end of the day. It requires deep
subject matter knowledge and skill in teaching it to others; it requires an understanding of

all students, including those who are different from us; it demands organizational skill

228

and the ability to manage large groups of children for extended periods of time (Shulman,
1987). It is estimated that it can take anywhere from three to seven years to become an
effective teacher (Berliner, 2000). Much of what new teachers need to learn comes on the
job, through trial and error (Lortie, 1975). And while much of this learning will be
helpful; some of it may not be (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1985). Thus the paradox:
new teachers are expected to perform that which they do not yet understand (Schon,
1983).

Further complicating matters, the system works under the assumption that novices
will know what it is that they need to learn and get better at. Yet, like the new teacher
quoted at the beginning of this section makes clear, revealing one’s failures and
inadequacies is not easy. For new teachers to take this risk, they must feel safe as
learners.

The Influence of Working Conditions

It is estimated that between thirty and fifty percent of new teachers leave the
profession within the first three to five years (Darling-Hammond, I997; Schlecty &
Vance, 1983). Based on an interview survey of one hundred ten first year teachers in
New Jersey, forty-three percent reported plans to leave classroom teaching, suggesting
that many teachers enter the profession tentatively or conditionally (Johnson & Kardos,
2002). Richard In gersoll’s (2001) widely reported research on teacher retention finds that
teachers leave the profession due to low salaries, problems with student discipline, a lack
of support from building administrators, and the lack of input into decision-making — all

issues beyond the realm of effective induction and mentoring.

229

___._;I
D.

it."

 

The dilemma of poor working conditions and unsupportive workplaces is not
new. In the late 1980’s, Susan Rosenholtz (1989) examined the relationship between
school workplaces and beginning teacher needs. Her review of the literature prompted the
following set of policy recommendations. It is important to note that all remain applicable
today.

V Avoid placing novices in the most difficult schools, or with the most difficult
students.

Give novices discretion and autonomy to participate in classroom-based decision-
making.

Goals, developed with the novice ’s assistance, must be clear.

Give novices clear, frequent and helpful feedback on their progress.

Be encouraging of novice efforts.

Establish a school culture or ethos that encourages advice-seeking and giving.
Provide novices with opportunities to talk frequently with and observe their more
expert peers.

Encourage novices to experiment continuously with new teaching ideas.

Set schoolwide standards for student conduct.

Provide novices with opportunities to work with and involve parents.

\\\\'\ ‘\

\'\'\

As Huling-Austin (1992) warned, our efforts to create strong induction
programming and effective mentoring practices must not preclude the need to also pay
attention to the problems of poor working conditions and unsupportive work
environments. Beginning teachers need opportunities to practice what they have been
prepared to do; not to have their learning impeded by multiple preparations and out-of—
subject placements.

Defining New Teacher Learning Needs

Over the past thirty years, researchers have attempted to answer the question:
What do new teachers need to Ieam? Historically, the literature represents an eclectic
mix of real and perceived needs and concerns based largely on survey and self-report data

(Fuller, 1969; Veenman, 1984). Moreover, this literature tends to treat all new teachers as

230

 

 

if they came to teaching with the same understandings and skills. Increasingly, new
teachers arrive on the job via alternate routes with little or no formal preparation. For
those who do come with preservice training, experiences vary widely from state to state
and institution to institution.

Once on the job, we know that some contexts, e.g. inner city classrooms with
large numbers of poor and minority students, can be more challenging than others, e. g.
well-resourced suburban classrooms (Haberman, 1995). We also know that the subject
matters (Shulman, 1987). Teaching children how to read is significantly different from
teaching them mathematical concepts. Finally, our understanding of learning to teach
during the early years is complicated by the intensely personal, even idiosyncratic nature
of that learning (Bullough, 1989; Bullough & Baughman, 1997). Featherstone’s (1992)
observation of a beginning teacher study group illustrates how one’s personal need for
support and reassurance is intertwined with a corresponding need to demonstrate
instructional skill and fluidity.

To our credit, more recent conceptions of teacher learning (Featherstone, 1992;
Grossman, 1990) have begun to remedy the shortcomings found in earlier prescriptive
approaches, based largely on self-report data. Drawing on qualitative methods such as
case studies, stories and narratives, these accounts of new teacher learning provide fresh
perspectives on what novices need to learn and how they best learn it. At the same time,
they help shift the focus from generic needs, broadly construed as worries and concerns,
to the potentially rich idea of learning needs. This shift in emphasis pushes us to think
harder about what it might mean to help a new teacher develop his or her practice during

the critical early years of teaching. Underlying this perspective are a set of beliefs about

231

 

 

 

learning to teach as a process that continues into the early years of teaching, that is
grounded in deep subject matter understanding, and aligned with professional standards
of teaching and learning.
Begmd Support: Toward a Curriculum of Induction

It is from this stance that we might begin to draft a framework for induction that
goes beyond support. If we want induction to be more than a random, shot-in-the-dark

opportunity at improving teaching, better theories of what new teachers most need to

 

learn will be necessary. It will require us to ground our understandings in the authentic
and dynamic contexts in which new teachers are likely to find themselves. Like our
growing understanding of on-going professional development, “one size fits all”
induction is not sufficient for the task. Because new teachers are in the unique and
difficult position of having to both teach and learn to teach, any formal induction
program must be attentive to both.

Clearly, the early years of teaching are important in the life of the novice. Feiman-

 

Nemser (2000) notes the complexity of what needs to be learned, including the
importance of tapping into the novice’s prior understanding, acknowledging the reality of
individual contexts, and being patient with the extended time this learning requires.
Ultimately, she stresses that learning during the induction phase “unfold in ways that
strengthen the beginning teacher’s capacity for further growth (p. 23). ” She identifies the
following as central tasks of a well-conceived induction curriculum.

Gaining local knowledge of students, curriculum and school context.

Designing responsive curriculum and instruction.

Enacting a beginning repertoire in purposeful ways.

Creating a classroom learning community.

Developing a professional identity.
Learning in and from practice.

\'\\'\\'\

232

The demanding and rigorous curriculum proposed here implicates the need for a
variety of support activities, including assistance, development, ongoing assessment and
evaluation. This re-conceptualization of the work of beginning teaching opens the door to
new roles and responsibilities among all actors with respect to new teacher support.
Principal Understanding of New Teacher Learning Needs

This research is an attempt to understand principal perspectives on new teacher
learning needs. This inquiry is significant. Principals, as site—based instructional leaders
and evaluators, exert a powerful influence on the novice by the way classroom
placements are made, resources distributed and a school-wide culture established —
decisions that shape what the novice ultimately has an opportunity to learn (see Kardos,
et al 2001; Grossman, et al, 2001). However, the literature on induction and mentoring is
essentially void of reference to principals’ role (Scott, 2001). Unanswered are questions
such as: How do principals think of new teachers as beginners and Ieamers? Do
principals view new teacher learning needs in generic or subject specific terms? What do
principals believe new teachers learn from experience?

Ultimately, new teacher learning should lead to changes or improvements in the
ways beginning teachers think and act as educators, particularly as reflected by the state
and national teaching standards advocated by reformers. These changes can be supported
through targeted interventions, such as those offered by high quality induction and
mentoring programs. This research further argues that principals need to be considered a

key player in that process.

233

 

 

Induction and Mentoring: The Need for a School-wide Approach

 

Overburdened principals charged with the supervision
and evaluation of all teachers, along with their other
responsibilities, have typically been unable to provide the
intensive mentoring and oversight that novices require.
(Wise, Darling-Hammond, McLaughlin & Bernstein,
1984, cited in Darling-Hammond et a1, 1999, p. 216)

 

 

Formal induction programs are sweeping the country. In the 1980’s, only fifteen
states had passed legislation authorizing induction programming (Hirsch, Koppich, &
Knapp, 2001). Currently, over thirty states have induction policies and most urban
districts offer some kind of support to beginning teachers (Fideler & Haselkom, 1999).
Programs include California’s Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA)
program, C onnecticut’s Beginning Educator Support and Training (BEST) program,
Kentucky’s Teacher Internship program and North Carolina’s Beginning Teacher
Induction program. Legislative statutes in twenty—nine states require that mentoring be
included as a core component, with an average program length of one year (AFT, 2001).

This rapid growth, born out of the realization that new teachers need more than
their schools (e. g. principals) can reasonably provide, has led some to claim induction as
the fastest growing educational reform movement today (Huling-Austin, 1990). Various
reasons account for this development including a projected teacher shortage, alarmingly
rates of attrition during the early years of teaching, and a growing realization that even

the best pre-service program cannot complete the job of preparing someone for teaching.

234

 

 

 

Induction Goals and Purpose

Induction has been described as “the process of socialization to the profession,
adjustment to the procedures and mores of the school site and system, and development
of effective instructional and classroom management skills that take place during the first
three years of teaching ” (Fideler & Haselkom, 1999, p. 9). In addition to viewing
induction as a process, induction can also be thought of as a phase and program (Feiman-
Nemser, Schwille, Carver & Yusko, 1999). Induction as a phase highlights the importance
of new teachers’ transition from student of teaching to teacher of students. Induction as a
process implicates the various types of learning that characterize this transition, e.g.
professional socialization into established norms of practice, growing intellectual
confidence in one’s subject matter understanding, increasing skill in meet the needs of
diverse Ieamers. Induction as a program describes the formal set of learning opportunities
offered to new teachers during their early years on the job. Examined separately, each of
these perspectives or definitions puts the spotlight on a unique set of issues. To illustrate,
in this study a formal induction program is an important component of the setting. But the
issues underlying the study are focused less on programmatic issues, as they are the
process of new teacher learning and socialization which occur during a critical phase or
time in a teacher’s career.

Commonly recognized goals for induction include slowed rates of teacher
attrition, elimination of the unfit and retention of the competent, extension of the teacher
preparation and learning period, overall improved school climate, and increased student

achievement (Huling-Austin, I990; Fideler & Haselkom, 1999; Humphrey, Adelman,

235

I"? $3 litany-T -1
't.

 

Esch, Riehl, Shields, & Tiffany, 2000). It has also been suggested that new teacher
induction can play a critical role in promoting equity by supporting stronger teaching and
learning in urban and rural schools where new teachers tend to be concentrated.

Given the nature of beginning teaching and the multiple learning needs of new
teachers, formal induction programming — with mentoring as a core component — is a
natural response. Still, despite recent interest and activity, existing research is thin. Most
empirical studies are limited to program analyses and self-reports of impact — a problem
long noted in the field (Zeichner, 1982; Little, 1990; Fideler & Haselkom, I999).
Principals: Missing in Action

One particular area of omission has been principals’ role in induction. To
illustrate, Scott’s (2001) review of the induction literature found few references to
principals. When they were mentioned, it was limited to the traditional role of principal
as evaluator. Scott concludes that insulating principals from the induction process impairs
the potential for program success. She states:

A truly successful program requires close cooperation and mutual understanding

of all those at the school site — the principal and other administrators, the

mentors, the more experienced faculty members, the support staff and the new
teachers (Scott, 2001, p. 25 ).

There is some reason to believe this trend is reversing. Recruiting New Teacher ’s
survey of urban teacher induction programs and practices in the United States concludes
with six policy recommendations, one of which highlights the principal’s role in
induction: “Ensure that school site administrators understand how to orient inductees,

create supportive working conditions for them and effectively meet their professional

needs. ” The report continues:

236

 

L-
I

Principals should be trained to be knowledgeable about and alert to inductees ’
needs and concerns and should convey to the entire staff the importance of
welcoming, guiding and assisting them. Buddy teachers in the same hall, grade
level, or department can be asked to be available for emergencies arising in
between scheduled mentor visits. Site administrators and department heads
should also refrain from nus—assigning inductees to classes they are not qualified
to teach or loading them up with extra duties ( F ideler & Haselkom, 1999, p. 116).
Portner (2001) issues a similar plea by arguing for a system-wide approach to
induction programming that is more structured and inclusive of administrators and
classroom colleagues. Gradually, the realization that sound induction policy requires
district and school-wide involvement seems to be taking hold. Nonetheless, this is not
meant to imply that principals appropriate responsibility for support from mentors. On
the contrary, as the quote opening this section suggests, principals do not have time or
expertise to do it all. Rather, we must concentrate our efforts instead on identifying what
roles and responsibilities principals can and ought to reasonably play in new teacher
support.
Balancing Assistance with Assessment
One explanation for why principals have been left out of the literature has to do
with their traditional role as formal evaluators. Underlying a more inclusive, school-wide
approach to induction, one that includes the principal as a key player, is the tension

between new teacher support and assessment — a tension that also weaves throughout the

literature on principal instructional leadership. It has long been thought that new teachers

will be afraid to take risks and learn if they are also being evaluated. For this reason, most

mentoring programs prohibit mentors from assuming an evaluative stance, believing that

induction perceived as a test of competence, and not learning, is equivalent to leaving the

237

 

learning to mere chance (Tickle, 1994). Thus, there is a valid reason for why principals
have been systematically silenced in the literature.

Reform reports during the 1980’s, including the Carnegie Forum on Education and
the Economy (1986) and the work of the Holmes Group (1986), urged that teachers be
encouraged to take on leadership roles and to see themselves as professionals. What these
reports were missing, however, was a “clear definition of the new role of principals or
guidance about how teachers and principals ought to work together as school leaders”
(Shulman, 1987, p. 12). Drawing on her work with the California Mentor Teacher Project
at the time, Shulman asked:

What kinds of tensions and dilemmas arise when teachers and principals are

suddenly put in situations where both parties are responsible to assert

leadership? What happens when the constraints of their respective roles limit

their opportunities for working together (p. 2)?

In the years hence, the question of how principals work with teacher leaders, such
as mentors, has not been resolved. While there is evidence to suggest that the functions of
support and evaluation are often combined in practice (Fideler & Haselkom, 1999),
including a few states (e. g. California and Connecticut) and districts (6. g. Toledo,
Rochester, Columbus, Cincinnati), prevailing opinion continues to advocate that the two
functions be kept separate (Huling-Austin, 1990). Although more recently this perspective
has been challenged (Feiman-Nemser, et al, 2000), the tension between assistance and
assessment remains a persistent dilemma with implications for induction policy and
programming. If principals were to play a larger role in induction, what are likely

implications for the practice of new teacher support, development and evaluation; for

their work with mentors; and for new teachers’ developing practice?

238

 

L.
I

The Limits of Induction and Mentoring

New teacher induction and mentoring are easy concepts to embrace. Who among
us has not wished for a guide, coach or teacher, someone to walk with us along the rocky
path to professional competence? However, in our zeal to “solve” the problems of
beginning teaching through the creation of induction and mentoring programs, it is wise
to remind ourselves that new teachers do not enter the profession in a protected bubble,
but are fully immersed in real schools. Induction and mentoring programs can only
realize a part of the dream. Individual schools and their leaders must do their part, as
well.

Ken Zeichner was one of the first to make this point in an AERA panel discussion
on the topic. His purpose was not to argue against the logic of induction, but to point out
that not all causes of teacher discontent, e.g. low salaries, the lack of job autonomy and
authority for decision-making, can be ameliorated by induction and mentoring.

The period of induction is clearly important and merits greater attention, but

unless this greater attention to beginning teachers is coupled with systematic

efforts to reform the structure of teaching and workplace characteristics affecting
the development of all teachers, the consequences of additional allocation of

resources to the induction period will be minimal... problems related to teaching
effectiveness, teacher morale, and longevity are probably more closely related to

conditions of schools afiecting the development of all teachers (such as the lack of

teacher autonomy) than to problems that are unique to the induction period
(Zeichner, 1982, p. 26).

Once decade later, Leslie Huling-Austin (1992) reminds us that common
workplace conditions, e. g. passing the most challenging students to the novice or
demanding time—consuming committee work during the beginning years, “not only add
stress but also hinder the process of learning to teach ” (p. 179). She continues,

It is crucial that research on learning to teach focus on the conditions of schools
as well as on the individuals entering them. If schools operate in ways that are

239

 

 

unresponsive to the needs of students, it is unreasonable to expect novice teachers
to learn to operate effectively in them (p. 178-179).

Judith Warren Little ( 1990) makes a similar claim when she reminds us that mentoring
cannot be expected to overcome problems of nus-assignment or work overload.

Ultimately, an effective blending of new teacher support, development and
evaluation will require a broader view than currently exists, and this will necessitate the
re-definition of roles and relationships as beginning teachers, mentors and principals
adopt new ways of working together. As Ganser reminds us, simplistic viewpoints are no
longer sufficient.

The increasingly sophisticated research on schools as learning communities

reveals that previous views of mentoring may have failed to take into account

schools as organizations, thereby presenting an overly simplistic view of

mentoring and mentoring programs (Ganser et al., 1998, p. 20).

In summary, induction programs need to contribute to teacher development and
not just teacher support (Feiman-Nemser, et a1, 1999). Quality induction programming
recognizes that new teachers are Ieamers, thereby offering meaningful learning
opportunities that facilitate professional growth and development. Access to induction
support and guidance should make a difference in new teachers’ instructional practice,
their understanding of teaching and learning, and their commitment to the needs of all

students. But such changes will require everyone’s help: principals, mentors and new

teachers working together.

240

1.

‘.
l

 

Principal Leadership: Supporting New Teacher Development

 

The challenge for principals is to continue fulfilling their responsibilities for
the instructional supervision of teachers while taking advantage of mentoring
as a professional development activity. This may place principals in a
quandry, since the best source of information regarding the progress of a
beginning teacher — the mentor — may not be available because of
confidentiality considerations... mentoring creates new roles which may not
correspond to the traditional roles and responsibilities of principals (Ganser,
cited in Fideler & Haselkom, 1999, p. 18).

 

 

The past two decades have been a time of discontent in the field of educational
administration. New understandings of teaching and learning have prompted a strong
critique of traditional, top-down managerial approaches to school leadership (Murphy &
Forsyth, 1999). In response, new twists on the instructional leadership theme continue to
emerge, including recent discussion around the notion of shared or distributed leadership
(Elmore, 2000; Houston, 2001; Spillane et al., 2001). Understanding the possibilities and
limits of these new conceptions, however, requires an acknowledgement of the “density
and busyness” of principals’ lives and work (Cusick, 1992).

The Nature of Principals’ Work

A fictitious job description for principal reads as follows:

Wanted: Exceptional School Leaders. Must know how to implement change that

helps ensure the academic success of all students. Must be an instructional leader

and have the ability to promote teacher growth. Must be dedicated to creating a

shared vision of an outstanding school through collaboration with faculty,

parents, and community members. Must have strong interpersonal skills, excellent
communication skills (ASCD, 2000, p. I).

241

“I.

Iiggia.‘ a nu..-

r...:— .-.
a

 

Today’s principal, often looked to as the resident expert on a wide range of matters, is
expected to take on the role of superhero — doing it all, in limited time with few
resources. Copland (2001) refers to this as the “myth of the superprincipal. ” Principal
guru, Roland Barth (1990), describes work in schools as being a lot like a tennis shoe in
the laundry dryer.

Probably no image captures so fully for me the life of an adult working in an

elementary, middle or senior high school. For educators, schoolwork much of the

time is turbulent, heated, confused, disoriented, congested, and full of recurring

bumps (p. 1).

A number of studies through the years have pointed out the obvious: principals’
work is not only unending, it is also highly interpersonal. As Wolcott (1978) described in
the now classic ethnography, The Man in the Principal ’s Office,

The greatest part of a principal ’s time is spent in an almost endless series of

encounters, from the moment he arrives at school until the moment he leaves.

Most of these encounters are face-to-face, tending to keep the principalship in a

highly personal role (p. 88). ”

Although principals’ responsibilities have always been divided between
managerial and instructional demands (Greenfield, 1987), it wasn’t until the effective
schools movement (Edmonds, 1979; Purkey & Smith, 1983) that instructional leadership
became a focus of national attention and discussion. Among five correlates of effective
schools, number one is strong principal leadership (Edmonds, 1979). While both
management and instructional leadership continue to be viewed as critically important,
striking a balance between the two — rather than letting one dominate the other —
continues to be a pervasive dilemma in the field.

While many principals might dream of being effective instructional leaders by

enhancing the activities of teaching and learning in their schools, in reality, their

experience is shaped by the press of administrative and managerial functions that
mitigate against that dream becoming fact (Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980, p. 24).

242

 

 

 

Principals and Teachers

The nature of principals’ relationship with teachers, as reported in the literature, is
often tenuous and fleeting (Blase & Kirby, I992; Lortie, 1975; Sarason, 1997; Smylie &
Brownlee-Conyers, 1992). A preference for separateness pervades their work. As Cusick
(1992) describes it, neither principal nor teacher really wants the other looking over their
shoulder.

Principals want teachers to get along with students, to take care of their own

problems and to leave them (the principal) alone. Teachers want principals to

manage the organization, to maintain an orderly and supportive atmosphere, and

to leave them (the teachers) alone (p. 80).

However, in the past decade there has been a growing acknowledgment that the
work of principals and teachers, especially teacher leaders, is funneled in the same
direction: improving student achievement. This has led to an ongoing discussion in the
field around the need for stronger and more collaborative ties between principals and
teachers (Barth, 1990; Donaldson, 2001; Lambert, Walker, Zimmerman, Cooper,
Lambert, Gardner, & Stack, 1995; Sergiovanni, 1994). Common to all of these
perspectives is a shared commitment to instructional leadership.

The Challenge of Instructional Leadership

Among a long list of principal duties and responsibilities is the enormous and
unwieldy task of instructional leadership. Considered by many to be their most crucial
responsibility, principals have been called to be “head learners” (Barth, 1990) and “lead
teachers ” (Shulman, 2001).

My own view is that principal is the lead teacher. The word principal is not only a

noun, but also an adjective, the first word of a two-word title, principal teacher.
Principals, therefore, should be highly accomplished teachers who have the

243

“‘1

.rvf

 

capacity to manage, organize, lead, and develop the capabilities of other teachers
(Shulman, 2001, p 7).

Still, experience has shown the difficulty of enacting idealized impressions of
instructional leadership. Years of trying have left us in a befuddled mess, wondering:

What does instructional leadership look like? What sustains it? How do principals learn

 

to do it? And, does it look different for new teachers? As Spillane and colleagues (1999)

remind us,

We know relatively little about the how of school leadership; that is,
knowledge of the ways in which school leaders develop and sustain those
conditions and processes believed necessary for instructional innovation.
While there is an expansive literature about what school structures,
programs and processes are necessary for instructional change, we know
less about how these changes are undertaken or enacted by school leaders

(p. 2).

 

Leamingto Lead

Most states and districts regulate who can be a principal, with the most
traditional route into the profession being through a university—based
administrative credential program. Still, the role of informal learning while “in
the trenches” is tremendous in terms of its ability to shape and influence principal
practice.

The informal learning that occurs as people enact these various roles is

probably a major influence shaping their capabilities as a principal

(Blumberg & Greenfield, 1980, p. 258).

The frequent mismatch between what a principal reports believing and
what he or she subsequently does can likely be traced back to how principals’
learn their craft. Like learning to teach, learning to lead involves gaining mastery

over a set of skills that are perhaps best acquired in the context of doing. Of

course, what gets learned is of critical importance.

244

As in the case of classroom teaching, the spectrum of knowledge and
skills that school administrators must be able to bring into play are not
easily learned in a classroom setting; they are learned in practice.
Administrators, unlike most teachers, have nothing like a student teaching
experience. A student teacher serves a sort of apprenticeship, working
side by side with a master teacher, receiving daily modeling and
feedback. Administrators, while they typically move through positions of
increasing responsibility, step into those positions with very limited
practical preparation (Bloom, 1999).

In recognition of the multiple demands placed on principals today,
coupled with the reality of learning while on the job, the National Staff
Development Council (Sparks & Hirsch, 2000), the National Association for
Secondary School Principals (Tirozzi, 2001), the National Association for
Elementary School Principals (Ferrandino, 2001), and the American Association
for School Administrators (Houston, 2001) have all issued policy statements
which support high quality, ongoing professional development opportunities for
all school leaders. Approaching the problem from a different angle, others have
argued the importance of creating mentor programs specifically designed around
the needs of new principals (Bloom, 1999).

Notably, most agree that today’s principals must learn how to motivate
and lead instructional change through the creation of strong learning
communities where leadership is shared between principals and teacher leaders —
no easy task.

Better professional development can help leaders learn to lead teams in

distributed leadership, which is very different from the traditional, top-

down style of authoritative leadership. They must learn how to build
support for change, motivate teachers to become leaders and take charge
of their own projects, and provide reasons for people to want to change.

They need to learn how to let go of some authority and controls so

teachers also have opportunities to become leaders (Sparks & Hirsch,
2000, p. 15).

245

 

 

Arguably, another area of learning revolves around the needs of new teachers. Not
yet armed with the knowledge and skill of their more experienced peers, new teachers
deserve the attention of the principal — not as a manager, but as a strong instructional
leader — alongside their mentors. With no known studies of principal learning in the
context of new teacher induction programs to draw from, I look to related studies of
principal learning in the context of instructional reform for guidance and insight (Elmore l-
& Burney, 1997; Elmore & Burney, 2000; Nelson, 1999; Nelson & Sassi, 2000; Nelson
& Sassi, 1998; Prawatt & Peterson, 1996; Spillane et al., 2001; Stein & D'Amico, 2000).
Using Subject Matter to Raise Student Achievement

Two dimensions of instructional leadership that have drawn attention recently
include principals’ role in promoting subject matter understanding and raising student
achievement. Increasingly researchers are arguing that principals’ understanding of
subject matter is critically important if they are to effectively lead curriculum reform

efforts (Nelson, 1997, 1999; Nelson & Sassi, 1998). In the words of one of these

 

researchers, “a responsible reply to recent calls for more instructionally relevant models
of school leadership must face the analytic and pragmatic challenges of making subject
matter visible in and useful to theories of school leadership” (Stein & D’Amico, 2000, p.
1). An interesting practical approach to this problem is being examined at the
Educational Development Center in Boston where principals are experiencing first hand
the learning and teaching of reform-minded mathematics with the hope that they will be
in a better position to assess teachers’ mathematics instruction (Nelson, 1999).

Related to this are efforts to focus leadership around raised student achievement

(Newmann, 1996; Sparks & Hirsch, 2000; Houston, 2001). The current movement toward

246

distributed leadership is one example of how policymakers and researchers are
attempting to re-conceptualize the territory of school leadership with an explicit focus on
improving student achievement (Spillane et a1, 2001; Neuman & Simmons, 2000;
Elmore, 2001). Efforts to link stronger subject matter knowledge by principals with a
shared focus on leadership for student learning have important and potentially powerful
implications.
Principals’ Role in New Teacher Support

It is appropriate to look to the principal literature for a description of the
principal’s role with respect to new teacher support. What we find, however, is
disappointing. Rather than distinguishing among the various needs, concerns and interests
of new and experienced teachers, the tendency in the principal literature is to group
teachers together as one. Recommendations that are directed toward principals’ work
with new teachers tend to over-simplify the nature of the work by focusing on discrete
tasks as opposed to discussing broader issues, such as leadership style (see Brock &
Grady, 2001; Portner, 2001).

Certainly, identifying the discreet tasks of effective leadership for new
teachers (as contrasted with their more experienced peers) is warranted. After all,
“instructional leadership involves creating the conditions necessary for teachers
to be eflective and satisfied, and focusing teachers and instructional programs on
the purposes and objectives to be achieved” (Pounder, 1987, p. 295). As an
example, principals should show care in creating optimal working conditions for
new teachers. Hiring and placement, as a particular kind of working condition, is

widely discussed in the policy literature connected to new teachers and induction

247

I

i

- » ..mm

 

(NCTAF, 1996; Fideler & Haselkom, 1999; Ingersoll, 2001). As Leithwood

(1990) reminds us,

Principals have the opportunity to prevent painful beginnings. They are
preventable through such interventions as realistic classroom assignments in
combination with ongoing assistance in the development of classroom
management skills, provision of a supportive mentor close at hand, and the
avoidance of heavy-handed supervision practices (Leithwood, 1990, p. 81).
However, limiting the discussion to the mere identification of tasks does not
address the deeper issues at play. Also needed by principals is a stance toward leadership
on behalf of new teachers that is proactive and visionary, rather than heavy-handed and
bureaucratic. The right kind of support, early in one’s career, may be the difference

between mediocrity and excellence.

What too many educators fail to understand is that money and time
invested in developing new teachers is money and time saved in the
future. Indeed, much of the time that principals spend dealing with
problems could be saved if experienced teachers had been given the
training, support and opportunity to solve these problems when they were
new to the system. The alternative to careful induction into the occupation
is tight, bureaucratic supervision. Bureaucratic structures can guarantee
a relatively decent level of mediocrity, but excellence requires a more

liberating and inviting leadership style (Schlecty & Whitford, 1989,
p. 448).

Principals’ Role in New Teacher Development and Evaluation

When a difference between novice and veteran needs are noted in the literature, it is
often in the area of teacher supervision and evaluation. Prevailing views see the purpose
of new teacher evaluation as different from that of established veterans. In other words,
teacher assessment should have as a priority removal of the unfit and incompetent (e. g.
teacher evaluation as gate-keeper) and should be about promoting growth (e. g. teacher

evaluation as professional development through formative assessment). According to this

248

L“. I- i imam. gas-{.9 .3
. .-- _ .

line of thinking, as a teacher gains skill and demonstrates competence the evaluation
process can gradually assume a heavier emphasis on learning (versus accountability).

While some argue for an expanded role set where principals engage in new

teacher support and assessment, others take the issue further by suggesting that principals
step back from assuming primary responsibility for new teacher evaluation by promoting
a team-based approach to support and assessment (Duke, 1995; Duke & Stiggins, 1990;
Wise, Darling-Hammond, McLaughlin, & Bernstein, 1984b). According to this view,
evaluation by team is more advantageous for three reasons: a) it allows principals time to
devote to more pressing matters, b) it tempers the role conflict many principals feel as
they try to be both an evaluator and a supporter, and c) it avoids putting principals in the
position of having to be an expert in all subjects.

Freeing principals of the primary responsibility for evaluating new and marginal

teachers accomplishes several things. It relieves them of a time-consuming

obligation and allows them to direct their energies at more general, school-wide
improvement efforts, including the less onerous task of regular (interim) teacher
evaluation. It tempers the role conflict experienced by principals who must
maintain school morale and cohesion while enforcing standards of accountability.

And it encourages a closer match between the teaching skills of the evaluator and

evaluatee than would be possible if principals were sole evaluators of all

personnel in their buildings (Wise, Darling-Hammond, McLaughlin &

Bernstein, 1984, p. 121).

The onset of induction and mentoring opens the door to one kind of team, i.e.
principal and mentor. As Ganser (cited in Fideler & Haselkom, 1999) notes in the
opening quote to this section, the challenge for principals is in learning how best to
capitalize on the presence of mentors as a new and valued resource in the building.
Even when the principal remains the sole evaluator, however, the evaluation process

can still be used as a diagnostic tool for identifying teacher development “starting

points” (Leithwood, 1990). It is hoped that when teacher evaluation is adapted to

249

 

 

conform to teachers’ needs, teacher learning opportunities in a school will be
increased (Rosenholz, 1989).
Themes across the Literature
Looking across the literature on new teacher learning; mentoring and induction;
and principal leadership, several themes seem apparent. First, mention of principals in
relation to new teachers is infrequent and scattered, which suggests that the principal’s
role is scarcely more than peripheral. Yet we know from new teachers that they
desperately want administrative approval and affirmation (Peterson, 1990; Brock &
Grady, 1997). Moreover, it is widely believed that the principal plays a central role in
establishing a building-wide culture of learning and in setting expectations for student
achievement and teacher performance — each of which directly impacts the new teacher.
Thus, we might assume that the principal’s role in new teacher support and development
does matter, although we have little empirical data on which to base this understanding.
These sets of literature leave us asking: What about principal support matters?
Secondly, the influence of working conditions on new teacher learning and
experience pops up in all three strands of literature. As the new teacher learning literature
highlights, poor working conditions and non-supportive work places mediate against
keeping novices in the profession. Although improved working conditions are widely
argued as critical in the induction and mentoring literature, little to date has been done to
adjust on-the-job demands to meet the unique learning needs of new teachers. Clearly, it
is outside the boundaries of the mentors’ role to create meaningful change in working

conditions. This is not true of the principal. Unlike mentors, principals have the power

250

IFS: Tr“ 9'? Eva

 

and authority to make needed changes, accommodations, adjustments. Thus, we might
ask: What role can and should principals play in new teacher support?

Third, the principal literature — with few exceptions — makes only passing
reference to the challenges of beginning teaching and mentoring. This body of literature

generally lacks a sophisticated understanding of what it means to teach and learn to teach

 

at all phases of a teacher’s career, including the induction years. This brief summary

across the strands helps to highlight the ways in which one strand, e.g. new teacher

 

learning can significantly enrich the other, e. g. principal leadership. This raises an
interesting question: What do principals need to know (and how to they come to know
that) in order to be strong instructional leaders?

Finally, the tension between new teacher assistance and assessment shows up in
all three literatures, lending strength to the notion that the contraries of assistance and
assessment cannot be easily separated in practice, therefore may as well be embraced as
complementary functions (Elbow, 1983). Examining this tension from the unique
perspectives of new teacher learning; induction and mentoring; and principal leadership,
we ask: How do principals manage and embrace the contraries of assistance and
assessment in the context of new teacher induction .7

In a continuing effort to understand the topic of principal support for new teachers
and their mentors, I now turn to a small set of empirical studies that pave the way for the
research efforts reported here.

Learning From Others: A Summary of Earlier Studies
How are principals’ roles changing with the introduction of mentoring and

induction? To date, I have been able to locate four published research studies that have

25]

 

explored principal’s role in new teacher support. Two of these studies draw on mixed
methods (survey and interview) while the other two rely on interviews, observations
and/or narrative accounts. Of the four, two draw their data exclusively from principals,
the other two look across principal, mentor and/or novice data, although the principal
continues to be the focus. Sample sizes are small and drawn from a variety of contexts,
including elementary and secondary, mentoring and no mentoring, urban and rural, public
and non-public, United States and Canada. Notably, all are set within the early years of
program implementation. Listed in chronological order, I summarize each study briefly.

Study #1: Supervisory roles and responsibilities of principals to teacher leaders and
novice teachers in four Connecticut schools: A close-up look (1990). Joseph J. Caruso.

This study took place in the early days of the Connecticut Beginning Educator
Support and Training (BEST) and Cooperating Teacher (CT) programs, both of which
featured a collaborative leadership model where principals and teachers were to share
responsibility for novice support and evaluation. Caruso’s study design reflected his
observation that principals and teacher leaders were “experiencing role conflict and
ambiguity as they struggled to re-conceptualize their roles in terms of their personal
expectations and the expectations of state policies ” (p. 3). Importantly, Caruso saw
mentor/novice confidentiality, as well as teacher assessment and evaluation, as
problematic issues. He suggests:

The ways in which principals sort out, re-align, and enact their roles and

responsibilities with respect to instructional supervision will be critical toward

developing a new definition of principal and teacher instructional leadership in

schools (p. 5).

Research questions included: 1) What are the supervisory roles and

responsibilities of principals to mentors and novices? 2) What is the nature of the

252

 

In

 

5‘

 

principal’s supervision of mentors and novices? 3) What is the difference between
principal and mentor supervision of novices and do they ever share supervisory duty?
The primary source of data consisted of single interviews with four principals and
multiple interviews with six mentor/novice pairs across four pilot schools.

Caruso found that principal attitudes played a key role in whether or not the
program was considered successful. For example, principals’ mindset toward supervision
and knowledge of the program influenced their support of program participants, e. g. a
commitment to instructional supervision and leadership led to stronger support practices.
Although there was disagreement as to the nature and extent of shared responsibility for
new teacher supervision, principals universally welcomed mentor involvement. However,
any resulting shared or overlapping supervisory responsibility for new teachers was not
formally discussed or planned, “principals and teacher leaders simply carried out their
supervisory roles and responsibilities based on their own perceptions of the job " (p. 93).
Finally, principals did not view these programs as impacting their supervisory roles, nor
did they see either program as part of a long-term plan for school improvement.
Principals were universally viewed positively by mentors and novices. Caruso concludes
that the presence of mentors and teacher leaders does not diminish, but enhances
instructional leadership by principals.

Study #2: The perceptions of school principals about a mentoring program for newly
hired urban school teachers ( 1993). Tom Ganser, Melissa Freiberg & John
Zbikowski.

This study looked at principals’ direct and indirect role in a newly implemented

urban mentor teacher program. Unique to this site, principals were not responsible for

mentor selection and matching, nor were they expected to facilitate mentoring activities —

253

.".1

Si... _A AIL

 

 

such duties were assumed by a collaborative mentor board. Researchers were thus
interested in how the principal’s role as educational leader may have changed, and how
they felt about such change, given the presence of a mentor.

As mentors assume a significant role in teacher induction, principals may view
them as supplementing or even replacing them in some supervisory tasks. The
dilemma for principals is to avoid shirking their responsibilities for the
instructional supervision of teachers working in their building, while taking
advantage of mentoring as perhaps a better way to foster professional
development. This may place principals in a quandary, since the best source of
information regarding the progress of a beginning teacher—the mentor — may not
be available because of confidentiality considerations. As is true with other
educational innovations, mentoring creates new roles which may not correspond
to the traditional roles and responsibilities of principals (p. 6).

 

 

Findings were based on two sets of data. First, all district principals were surveyed using
a nineteen-item questionnaire. Second, an additional eighteen principals volunteered for a
short phone interview (approximately fifteen minutes) designed to elaborate on survey
responses. Worth noting, data collection was limited to the early months of program
implementation.

Among relevant findings, researchers found that principals’ view mentors as

 

“helpful supplements” to their staff. Several principals viewed mentors as an extension of

their own role, someone who could fill in the gaps for teacher supervision when the

principal lacked time. When asked about the degree to which they wanted to be involved

in the mentoring program, principals were split in their responses. While some preferred

staying in the background, others desired more contact. There were unified, however, in

wanting information about program goals and design. The authors conclude by noting,
With rare expectation, principals readily acknowledge the centrality of

confidentiality in the mentoring relationship, yet they desire to have the important
insights of mentors to better meet the needs of new teachers on their staff (p. 15).

254

This study raises questions about the relationship between principals and mentors,
particularly the degree to which principals and mentors communicate with one another
about new teacher development. As plausible as these tentative findings might be, a lack
of methodological rigor (limited sample, brief data collection points during early months
of implementation) leaves them suspect.

Study #3: Problems and paradoxes in beginning teacher support: Issues concerning
school administrators (1993). Ardra Cole.

Unlike the other two, this study was conducted in Canada. The context is familiar,
however, as the research was done with principals in the process of implementing a
school-based induction program. The purpose of this analysis was to explore principal’s
role in NT induction and support. In the author’s words,

Much of the literature advocating school-based support efforts identifies, and in

some cases defines, the roles of school administrators in new teacher induction

and development... Also apparent in most of this work is the lack of formalized
attention to those roles. The research on which this paper is based was conducted
in response to a need for clarification and more in-depth understanding of the
roles and responsibilities of school administrators identified in literature on the
subject and, more pragmatically, for those in schools involved in beginning

teacher support efforts (p. 4).

In this report, Cole describes how administrators in one district perceive and carry
out their roles in relationship to new teacher support. More importantly, she highlights
issues identified by the principals as problematic. Data for this analysis, drawn from a
larger research and development project on which the author acted as a consultant,
consisted of six to eight interviews with four principals as well as focus group discussion
with twenty-three elementary and secondary administrators. Analysis was done by first

identifying themes and patterns within topic areas and then juxtaposing these against

relevant literature in teacher induction, teacher learning and school improvement.

255

 

 

 

 

 

{/1

Findings suggest that principal’s responsibilities for new teacher support includes
establishing a school climate that recognizes and values new teacher support. While
principals often lack the time for day-to-day involvement, they can indirectly support
induction by facilitating induction activities, taking care with new teacher placements,
articulating a school-wide vision for teaching and learning, and providing information,
advice and emotional support. Cole concludes that these principals conceptualize their
role as a facilitator of new teacher support.

Cole identifies a number of problems inherent to principals’ role vis a vis new
teachers. Among them are 1) coming to terms with the dual roles of helper and evaluator,
2) treading the fine line between intervention and support, 3) respecting individualism
while encouraging openness, and 4) responding to needs and concerns of beginning
teachers without jeopardizing the professional well being of other staff.

In summary, Cole suggests that principals can manipulate two factors, school
culture and leadership style, to minimize the effect of these problematic issues.

School culture and leadership style were critical factors contributing to and/or

helping to resolve most of the dilemmas, particularly those associated with

evaluation, intervention, fairness, and sensitivity to individual differences. For
these four administrators, facilitating new teacher support was (and is) integrally
connected to the broader issue of school-wide professional development.
Providing beginning teachers with a facilitative induction to teaching in all cases
meant significant changes within the schools. In some cases, the changes involved
reallocation of space, time, and resources; in others, changes represented
challenges to traditional isolationist norms and patterns of professional
interaction. It is this latter kind of change that seems fundamental to the

realization of the broad potential of teacher induction and to diminishing the
problematic and paradoxical nature of school administrators’ roles (p. 31).

She adds,

When helping, sharing, supporting, and working together become the accepted
way of doing things; that is, the natural way for people to relate to and work with

256

 

 

 

one another, many of the dilemmas identified by the school administrators in this
study become non-issues (p. 34).

In conclusion, Cole makes several recommendations. First, many of these dilemmas
can be resolved with close attention to leadership style and norms of professional
interaction in a building. Second, evaluation practices need to be growth-oriented and

encourage shared decision-making. Third, work environments that support learning and

 

risk-taking are necessary. Finally, new teacher support needs to be seen as a natural part

of school practice so that it is not seen as adding duties to already busy teachers and

 

administrators.

Study #4: Public and parochial school principals’ perceptions of beginning teachers
and the principal’s role in the induction process (1996). Barbara Brock and Marilyn
Grady.

Grady and Brock collaborated on a mixed method study (using survey and
interview data) with new teachers and principals in public and private schools (with and
without mentoring) that explores principals’ role in beginning teacher support. The study
was guided by three research questions: 1) What differences exist between reports of
beginning teachers and principals regarding the problems that first-year teachers
experience? 2) What role expectations do beginning teachers and principals have for
each other? and 3) What differences exist between the kinds of assistance that beginning
teachers want and the kinds of assistance that principals provide?

To summarize, they found that principals expect their first-year teachers to exhibit
a professional attitude, be knowledgeable in their subject area, have good classroom
management skills, communicate well, believe all children can learn and have a desire to

help all students succeed. On the flip side, new teachers see the principal as the most

important person‘ in the school; their greatest expectation is that the principal will guide

257

 

them through the first year. Additionally, despite fall orientations, assignment of mentors
and evaluation reports, new teachers report wanting a more serious and sustained
induction program that includes mentoring and extends through their entire first year.
Brock and Grady report on this study and other related research in their popular
Corwin Press publication, From F irst- Year to F irst-Rate: Principals Guiding Beginning

Teachers, now in its 2nd edition. Their work stems from the premise that principals play a

 

central role in the professional development of beginning teachers. They write in the

introduction:

 

Although principals are called on to be instructional leaders, the literature
provides little direction for principals in their efforts to help beginning teachers.
Not much attention has been paid to the basic needs of beginning teachers, the
challenges that principals face in working with them, or the design of eflective
assistance programs. Without quality induction programs, many novice teachers
become frustrated. Their enthusiasm and dreams give way to disillusionment and
despair. Feeling that they have failed, they leave the profession with the first two
years. The consequences of this action for administrators are continual rehiring
and a disruption in the quality and continuity of their school programs (p. 2).

Like the Ganser study, these findings need to be read cautiously given

 

the unclear nature of data collection (e. g. broad sample with need for disaggregated data
points) and subsequent data analysis (e. g. lack of theoretical or conceptual framing).
Implications for Continued Research
Collectively, these studies refute any claim that principals feel threatened by the
presence of mentors (Shulman, 1987). Rather, these principals welcome and appreciate
the time and help mentors are able to offer. These studies also offer new dimensions to an
otherwise rudimentary understanding of principals’ role. For example, Cole’s (1993)

principals saw themselves as “facilitators ” of new teacher support, a term that suggests a

258

powerful, but peripheral presence. Notably, Caruso’s (1990) principals enacted this role
independent of teacher leaders, a tendency he coined “parallel supervision

These studies also point to tensions or dilemmas that principals are likely to
experience as they enact their role vis a vis new teachers and their mentors. First among
these is the ongoing challenge of balancing between being supportive and holding
novices accountable for good work. A second dilemma revolves around the issue of
confidentiality. Although principal and mentor alike argue the importance of maintaining
confidentiality in helping to create a safe space for novices to grow and develop,
principals also want to be trusted to use critical information wisely and professionally.
Lastly, principals are always juggling between what they perceive as good for new
teachers and what they perceive as good for all remaining teachers. Interestingly, Cole
(1993) suggests that these tensions diminish over time when principals adjust school
culture and their leadership style in order to “provide beginning teachers with a
facilitative induction to teaching

Without diminishing the contribution of each, however, it is important to note
limitations of the existing body of research. Methodologically, five key differences
emerge between these studies and my work. 1) They look across the K-12 spectrum to
include principals and assistant principals, whereas I focus exclusively on elementary
principals. 2) They explore principals’ changing roles during the early phases of
induction programming, whereas I look at this issue in the context of a well-established
induction program. 3) They rely on principal self-report to derive an understanding of
practice, whereas I offer mentor and new teacher accounts of principal work to strengthen

my claims. 4) None of these studies look at how principals perceive their role with

259

 

 

respect to new teacher mentors. 5) Only the Cole (1993) study offers a theoretical
framework for explaining the data, whereas I draw equally on the literature in new
teacher learning, induction/mentoring, and principal leadership to conceptualize this
work. In summary, my study has the methodological rigor and theoretical insight to

contribute toward a broader and deeper understanding of the topic.

260

. L S ._
jf‘l- _. \‘_.._‘n It

 

 

Appendix B:

Interview Protocols

 

Principal Questionnaire

Principal Interview #1: Professional Background and Experience
Principal Interview #2: Working with New Teachers & Mentors
Principal Interview #3: Pulling it all Together

Principal Interview #4: One Year Later

Mentor Teacher Interview

New Teacher Interview

261

 

It’s the Principal that Matters: A Look at Principals’ Understanding of their
Roles and Responsibilities vis a vis New Teachers and their Mentors

 

Principal Questionnaire

This questionnaire has been designed to provide a foundation from which to begin our
first interview. Please respond to the questions with brief written answers and return to
me in the enclosed stamped envelope. If you prefer, attach a resume rather than
responding to the questions about professional experience and educational background.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (517) 339-8001 or carvercy@msu.edu.
I look forward to visiting with you soon! Cindy Carver

 

Contact Information

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Full Name Date
School Address

School Phone
School Fax E-mail
Home Address

 

Home Phone

 

 

What is the best way to reach you?

 

Professional Bacggoung (attach current resume if available)

How many years (total) have you been employed in school administration?
How many of those years have been in this district?

How many of those years have been in this school?

How many years (total) of teaching experience do you have?
How many of those years have been in this district?

How many of those years have been in this school?

List all administrative positions held (including any outside this district) as well as the
number of years you held each position and your major responsibilities.

262

Position Title

District/School

Dates

Responsibilities

 

 

 

 

List all teaching positions held (including any outside this district), as well as the number
of years you held each position and your major responsibilities.

Position/Title

School/District

Dates

Responsibilities

 

 

 

 

List all teaching and administrative credentials or certificates attained, including any that

may have lapsed.

263

 

ill—“Ru!
Ic-

 

List all post-secondary degrees held, including year and institution.

Degree Institution Dates

 

 

 

 

Briefly describe significant education-related work experiences.

Personal Background and Interests
Are you: single married or partner

Do you have children? yes no

If yes, what are their ages?

How do you prefer spending your free time?

Your School

264

 

 

Being as accurate as you can, complete the following:

Student enrollment

 

Total teachers on staff

 

First year teachers on staff

 

Second year teachers on staff

 

How many of your first and second year teachers are NOT fully credentialed?

What three words characterize the students in this school?
1.

2.
3.

What three words characterize the teachers in this school?
1.

2.
3.

What word or phrase best describes you as a school leader?

What is one goal you are working on with your staff this year?

Thank you for your time!

265

 

 

 

It’s the Principal that Matters: A Look at Principals’ Understanding of their

Roles and Responsibilities vis a vis New Teachers and their Mentors

 

Introduction: (5 minutes)

\/

Principal Interview #1: Professional Background and Experience

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. Before we begin, I need your
written consent. Please read the following consent form carefully and sign at the
bottom if you agree to these terms. Please keep a copy for your own record. Do you

 

have any questions before we begin? 1
Today’s interview looks across your professional career. For example, I want to know ‘
why you became a principal and how you see your work at [school name]. I also E
want to know more about your own experiences as a teacher. Your responses will

serve as a foundation for our continued conversations. In May we’ll talk more
specifically about how you think about your work with new teachers and their
advisors. Later this summer (perhaps by phone?) we’ll talk about your work more
broadly within the context of the school, as well as with the NTP.

As a reminder, you are free to pass on any question or discontinue participation at any
time during the interview. To ensure that I hear your responses correctly, I ask your
permission to audiotape our conversation today. Would you also like a copy of the
tape when we are done?

Learning to Lead
These first questions are focused on how you learned to be a principal. When we talk
about NTs, I ’m referring to those who are in their first years of teaching.

Why did you become an elementary principal?

What do you like most about the work?
What do you find most challenging?

Think back to your formal administrative training.

What did this training or background most prepare you to do as a principal?
Is there something you wish you would have learned during this training?
If yes, describe.

Once on the job, what kinds of things did you have to learn your first years?

How did you get better at that?
Did you have a (formal/informal) mentor?

Are there things you are still learning? If yes, tell me about them.

What helps you learn that?

Have you received training for your work with NTs?

266

What was that like?
Is there some kind of training that would be helpful?

Have you changed as a principal since your first year? If yes, describe.
What/who most influenced those changes?
What changes lie ahead for you as a principal?

Describe how you see yourself as a leader.
Is this how your staff sees you?
Is this how new teachers see you?

Learning to Teach
You were a teacher before you were a principal. This next set of questions asks you to

reflect on your own learning to teach.

Why did you become a teacher?
What did you most enjoy about classroom teaching?

Let’s talk briefly about your teacher preparation: What did it help you know or do as a
beginning classroom teacher? Were there aspects of teaching that it didn’t prepare you
for?
Now think about your first year of teaching. What was your experience like?
What did you most need to Ieam?

How did you learn that?

Who helped you learn that?

How do you think your experience as a first year teacher is like the first year teachers you
work with? Is it different?

How would you characterize your relationship with other teachers?

What was your relationship with the principal like?

Shared Understandings

Our entire conversation presumes we share an understanding of what new teacher

induction means.

In our last interview, you said that principals play a central role in inducting new teachers
to a school. What does “inducting NTs to a school” mean to you?

267

 

b-

 

Clarifying Background Information
Did you receive and complete the biographical questionnaire, mailed earlier?

Last time we spoke you had beginning teachers in the building, and this year
you have . What do you anticipate for the coming year?

Are there new or important developments or happenings (e. g. losing charter school status
due to test scores; piloting a new curriculum; preparing for dramatic increase in student
pop for upcoming year) at the school that I should be aware of?

Next Steps
Before wrapping up today, we need to do the following:

\/ Stipend paperwork.
/ Identify a novice/advisor pair to a) interview and b) get copies of evaluation records.

/ Schedule next visit, week of May 14. (Ideal would be a 90 minute slot in order to
review evaluation records.)

/ What about a final phone interview this summer? Optional observation/case
review/focus group in October?

/ I would like to correspond with you periodically between now and October to a) stay
abreast of current happenings, b) seek clarification as I read the data and reflect on
our interviews and c) occasionally send you a “problem” or “task” to respond to, e.g.
Imagine NT “x” did “y”. What would be your response? Would you tell his/her
advisor? Why/why not? Can we do this via email?

\/ Last time we spoke, you expressed interest in findings from our work. I’m currently
writing a paper that contrasts principals in SC and Cincinnati that I’m willing to share
when done. Also, I would like to share a draft case from this set of interviews with
you this fall for feedback. I’d like you involve you in this research process to the
extent that you are willing and able.

268

_ 3.5.!

II'
to!
1

 

 

It’s the Principal that Matters: A Look at Principals’ Understanding of their
Roles and Responsibilities vis a vis New Teachers and their Mentors

 

Principal Interview #2: Working with New Teachers and their Mentors

Introduction:

/ This second interview asks you to elaborate on your work with new teachers and their
mentors. Today I will be encouraging you to recall specific examples that illustrate
your work as a principal. We’ll also review evaluation records from a new teacher.

‘/ As a reminder, you are free to pass on any question or discontinue participation at any
time during the interview. To ensure that I hear your responses correctly, I ask your
permission to audiotape our conversation today. Would you also like a copy of the
tape when we are done?

Last time we met we talked about how you became a principal and how you see your
work as a principal. Today let’s talk more specifically about your involvement with new
teachers and their mentors. We’ll start with the beginning of the year and the hiring
process.

Principal Beliefs about New Teacher Support and Development
[ Some questions have already been asked in earlier interviews; edit appropriately]

What role do you play in the hiring process?
How are classroom placements and extra duties assigned?
Is this the same for all teachers? Why/why not?

When you hire a beginning teacher, what are you expecting them to know and do?

What do beginning teachers in your school most need to learn in their first years on the
job to be effective?

How do they best learn that?

How would you describe your role in helping them learn these things?

How long does it take for someone to get to be a really good teacher?

What do you do early in the year to support new teachers?
Does this change as the year progresses?

What role are you likely to play when the new teacher seems to be doing well?
When might you intervene?
Can you tell me about a time when you did this?
Is this something you discussed with the NTP advisor?

What'role are you likely to play when the new teacher seems to be struggling?

269

 

 

 

When might you intervene?
Can you tell me about a time when you had to do this?
Is this something you discussed with the new teacher’s advisor?

Are you familiar with the formative assessment activities that NTP advisors do, e.g. ILP
and analysis of student work?

How is this the same or different from what you do with NTs?

Principal Beliefs about New Teacher Assessment and Evaluation

 

As principal, you are responsible for conducting new teacher evaluations.
What counts as evidence of growth or learning in the evaluation process?
Can you give an example?
Is this the same criteria or process you use with experienced teachers? If no,
what’s different?
Do you find the teacher evaluation process helpful? Why? Who benefits?

 

The new district evaluation process asks you, as principal, to both support NT’s learning
and also evaluate their effectiveness. Some argue that the same person cannot do both
functions — support and evaluation.

Do you agree or disagree? Why?

Was there a time when you felt some tension between your support role and your

evaluation role?

How did you balance between these two functions?

What do you find most difficult about the evaluation process?

New Teacher Evaluation Up-Close
To put all of this into context, let’s take a look at an evaluation record for one novice.

The ILP states the following as goals. How were these determined?
Did you have any additional goals, perhaps unstated, for [novice]?
If yes, did you share these with [advisor]?

What evidence of progress toward these goals did you see this year?
What role did you play in helping [novice] meet her goals?

Did the NT advisor play a role in helping [novice] meet her goals?
Did you and the advisor ever talk about [novice]?

Would you consider this a learning opportunity for [novice]?

If yes, what did she Ieam?
How useful was this process for you? Did you learn something?

270

Working with Mentors
This next set of questions focuses on your work with advisors.

How often have you observed advisors and new teachers working together?
What types of things have you seen?
What is your understanding of their work?
How would you characterize their relationship with one another?

What are your expectations for an advisor’s work with new teachers?
What are your expectations for an advisor’s work with you?
What are your expectations for an advisor’s work with staff in the building?

Have you ever disagreed with an advisor over a new teacher’s progress or needs?
If yes, tell me about what happened.
If no, can you imagine under what circumstances this might happen?

When might you intervene between the new teacher and advisor?
Have you ever needed to do this?

Imagine that your duties suddenly expand and you are unable to fulfill your

responsibility for NT evaluation. The superintendent asks for your opinion. Would

you recommend that the NTP advisors fill the role of evaluator in an emergency?
Why or why not?

271

 

I-‘. m “

 

It’s the Principal that Matters: A Look at Principals’ Understanding of their
Roles and Responsibilities vis a vis New Teachers and their Mentors

 

Principal Interview #3: Pulling it all together
Introduction

V In this final interview I want to put your work with new teachers into a broader
context. First I’ll ask you about your work at the school level, then with the NTP.
Next we’ll look at some vignettes of actual practice. In addition, we’ll look broadly at
questions of impact. This interview also gives us a chance to clarify or add to things
said in earlier conversations.

V As in our previous interviews, you are free to pass on any question or discontinue
participation at any time during the interview. To ensure that I hear your responses
correctly, I ask your permission to audiotape our conversation today. Would you also
like a copy of the tape when we are done?

Being a School Leader

1 ’d like to begin by talking generally about your work in this school. In a moment we ’11
talk about the question I e-mailed to you last week. But first, I want to know what gets
your time and attention as a principal.

What do you spend most of your time doing?
If you had more time, would you do anything differently? Explain.
Roughly, how much time do you work in an average week?
Is this more than you worked as a teacher?

In a recent e-mail I asked you to describe the invisible or “behind the scenes” things
you do to support teaching and learning in your school. Let’s talk more about that.
What are the invisible and indirect ways you support teaching and learning in
your building?
Is it a problem that teachers don’t see this level of involvement? Explain.

You’ve often said the bottom line is student achievement. What do you do to focus
teachers’ attention on student learning?

How would you describe or characterize the type of teacher community you hope for
at your school?

Is this what happened this year?

Are there things you did to facilitate that community?

What about next year?

What role do you like to see NTs play in the building?

272

 

 

 

How are they perceived by other teachers in this school?
Is your relationship with NTs different from or the same as veteran teachers?
Why is that?

How long does it take to get to be a really good master teacher? (James, Karen)

Learning to Teach (Ramon, James)
You were a teacher before you were a principal. This next set of questions asks you to
reflect on your own learning to teach.

Let’s talk briefly about your teacher preparation. What did it help you know or do as
a beginning classroom teacher?
Were there aspects of teaching that it didn’t prepare you for?

Now think about your first year of teaching. What was your experience like?
Do you remember wishing you’d learned something different in your preparation?

What did you most need to Ieam?
How did you learn that?
How do you think your experience as a 1St year teacher is the same or different
from the lSt year teachers you work with?

How would you characterize your relationship with other teachers?
What was your relationship with the principal like?

Working with the NTP
As a principal, how would you describe your role (or responsibilities) in relationship
to the NTP?

Where does this understanding come from?

Are there things about your role that you would change if you could?

What are your expectations of the NTP?

Have these expectations been met over the years?

Have you ever disagreed with a NTP policy?
Does the project have an effect on the building overall, e. g. on the way teachers talk
about teaching or the things they do with children? [Probesz climate, school

language]

Has the project had an impact on you? How?

273

 

 

 

Vignettes of Practice: Maintaining Confidentiality

To make things more concrete, I’d like to share 3 vignettes - each drawn from actual
conversations with principals. As you’ll soon see, this work is tricker when the beginning
teacher is struggling. After I read each vignette, I’ll ask a few questions.

Case #1: Weak Content Knowledge

You’ve hired a new and credentialed 4th grade teacher who came with strong personal
recommendations. Your informal observations of her work suggest that she’s doing well
and you’re feeling satisfied. Your first formal observation of a literacy lesson confirmed
this. However, by late fall it’s becoming increasingly clear to the NTP advisor that this
BT has a poor grasp of the math and science she’s teaching. While her background in
bilingual literacy is commendable, her conceptual understanding of mathematics is weak
— as evidenced by her inability to answer student questions — and in a couple of science
lessons she has presented false or misleading information. Based on the advisor’s weekly
observations, it’s clear that students are struggling to make sense of their learning in math
and science. As principal, you were not aware there was a problem.

What do you expect the advisor to do in this case?
Would it be appropriate for the advisor to bring this to your attention? Why/why not?

Case #2: Disparaging remarks about students’

It was a fairly good year from your perspective. Your new 3rd grade teacher adjusted
quickly to the school, kids were happy in his classroom and your formal observations,
complete with pre and post-conferences, went better than you had anticipated. Yet you
have a gut-feeling that this BT is putting on a show when you’re around and telling you
what you want to hear. You’re beginning to wonder how to crack through this facade in
the coming year. Unbeknownst to you, the NTP advisor had similar feelings throughout
the year, but had been reluctant to share them without more concrete evidence. Now, in
their final meeting of the year, the BT let down his guard and spoke quite openly and
disparaging about his students, describing them as lazy and unmotivated. Reflecting back
on the year, the BT comfortably rationalizes his students’ low academic performance as
an inability to learn. The advisor is stunned. Has she heard him correctly? If so, her fears
are confirmed. The BT has convinced himself that his students not only don’t want to
learn, but can’t learn. She wonders how this will influence his expectations for students
next year.

What do you expect the advisor to do in this case?
Would it be appropriate for the advisor to bring this to your attention ? Why/why not?

Case #3: Unclear Self-Understanding

It’s quickly becoming clear to those who teach near her — your new 1SI grade teacher is
struggling with the subtleties of classroom organization and management. The kids still
aren’t lining up properly and are often direspectful to one another in and out of the class.
A close look at their papers suggests that they take more care in socializing with one
another than in doing careful written work. Learning centers are often haphazard

274

 

171-
:

 

arrangements. It’s hard to imagine quality learning occurring in this environment. The
NTP advisor, along with grade level colleagues and yourself, have all been working
independently of one another to help the BT overcome these challenges. However,
despite everyone’s best efforts, things aren’t getting much better and it’s now November.
Surprisingly, the BT seems to be encouraged by her slow progress. Day after day she
greets you, the principal, with a smile and says things are going really well. You’re not
sure what to believe since your own observations are infrequent and quick — perhaps
things are going better. Her grade level colleagues haven’t said much recently and her
advisor tells you they are working on addressing the problem. Still, you’re wondering:
What’s the next step?

What do you expect the advisor to do in this case?
Would it be appropriate for the advisor to bring this to your attention ? Why/why not?

Learning Opportunities, Revisited

Think about your work with new teachers over the years. What are the critical events
or persons that have shaped how you think about your work with new teachers?

Can you think of other things? [Probez experience mentoring, experience as NT,
administrative training]

If you were to give a novice principal advice about working with NTs and their
mentors, what would you say?

275

 

 

 

It’s the Principal that Matters: A Look at Principals’ Understanding of
their Roles and Responsibilities vis a vis New Teachers and their Mentors

 

Principal Interview 4: One Year Later

[NOTE: Approximately 2 weeks ahead of my scheduled visit, each principal received a
copy of a 10-12 page descriptive case based on our earlier interviews. Participants were
asked to read and reflect on the case, noting any questions or concerns with the text as
written, identify areas of the text that needed clarification, as well as note the things that
stood out as they read.]

As you know, the purpose of this final interview is to get some feedback on my
understandings of your work and clarifying some of the issues that have emerged as I

read and work with the data. But first, let’s start with an update...

News/Update
How was your year? Any interesting new developments?

Maria: Have you made a decision regarding SJS? Have you told the staff yet?

James: When we last spoke in August, you were contemplating a meeting with
advisors at the beginning of the year. Did this ever materialize?

Ramon: How are things in the building this year as the plan for raising test scores
is implemented?

Karen: Are things falling into a routine? What about plans for developing a
schoolwide mission?

Reactions to the Case

What stands out, for you, from this case?
What surprised you?
Are there things that bothered you?

Are there aspects of your work with new teachers or new teacher mentors that are not
represented here? If yes, tell me about them.

Are there aspects of your work with new teachers that I might have misrepresented or
aspects of your professional background that I didn’t get right?

F ollow-up Questions

Influence of Teachinglixperience

276

-_-,.
r' .

 

In what ways did your background as a classroom teacher prepare you for the
principalship?
Do you still draw on this background in your work as a school principal?
Can you give me an example?

Influence of Mentoring
How did your training and experience as a new teacher mentor prepare you for the
principalship?

Do you still draw on this background in your work as a principal?

Can you give me an example?

Did your background as a mentor/teacher present challenges to your work as an
administrator? If yes, explain.

Influence of Experience:

Karen/Ramon: As a 3rd year principal, is your approach to NT support the same or
different from your 1” year. Why/why not?

Maria/James: As principal, you’ve learned a great deal over the years. What lessons
have you learned about the nature and importance of NT support?

Relationships:
On this sheet of white paper, draw your relationship in this building to both new

teachers and their mentors.

Closing
Any thoughts you’d like to add about your experience as a participant in this study,
e.g. what you might have discovered about yourself, new teachers and/or mentors?

Any questions you have?

277

 

 

 

Mentor Teacher Interview Protocol

[The following questions were asked in the context of a larger interview for New
Teacher Induction: Promising Policies and Practices. The novice in question was
now in their second year of teaching]

Principal Leadership

Did you talk often to [principal] about [novice]? Why or why not?
What kinds of things did you talk about?
How often did this happen?
Are there things you don’t talk to principals about? Why?

Did you participate in the summative evaluation process (i.e. ILP development)
this year?

If yes, what role did you play? Was this the same as last year?

If no, why not? Was this the same as last year?

Was evaluation a learning opportunity for [novice]? Why or why not?
If yes, what did he/she Ieam?
What role did [principal] play? Did this change over the two years?
Could [principal] have done something different to make it a better
learning opportunity?

Looking back over the two years, are there things [principal] did to support
[novice] that only he/she — as principal — could do?

Are there things he/she did to support you?

278

 

 

New Teacher Interview Protocol

[The following questions were asked in the context of a larger interview for New
Teacher Induction: Promising Policies and Practices. The novice in question was
now in their second year of teaching]

Relationship with Principal
What was your relationship with [principal] like this year?
Did you have much contact?

How does this compare with last year?

Were there specific things [principal] did to support you the past two years?
How important were these things to your learning to teach?

How did your principal evaluation work this year?
Was it helpful to you? How and why?
Would anything have made it better?

How is the principal evaluation different from or similar to your advisors
formative assessment?

Did you ever disagree?
How was that resolved?

279

 

‘1 .A- “I"
.L '
4

I

 

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Appendix C: NUD*IST Tree Index

LEADERSHIP BACKGROUND

1010
1020
10 30
1040
1050
1060

Why a principal?

Rewards and challenges of being a principal
Administrative training

Responsibilities outside of instruction

Early experience as a principal

Learning needs as a principal

TEACHING BACKGROUND

20 10
20 15
20 20
20 30

Teaching experience

Why a teacher?

Relationship with colleagues, principal
Rewards and challenges of being a teacher

20 40 Experience as a mentor

SCHOOL

30 10
30 15
30 20
30 30
30 40
30 50

School mission

Principal vision

School history and background
Student population and needs
Relationship to the induction program
Relationship to the district

NEW TEACHER SUPPORT TASKS

40 10
40 20
40 30
40 40
40 50
40 60

Recruitment, hiring and placement

Relationship building

Resource (human, material) assistance
Managing the teaching and learning environment
Instructional development

Evaluation

“OTHER” CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO NT SUPPORT

50 10
50 20
50 30

Building a professional teaching culture
Induction program advocacy
Principal professional development

WORKING WITH MENTORS

6010

Coordinated talk and work

WORKING WITH NEW TEACHERS

70 10
70 20

New teacher earning needs
New teacher expectations

280

 

 

80

UNDERLYING CONCEPTIONS

80 10
80 20
80 30
80 35
80 40
80 50
80 60
80 70
80 80
80 85

The nature of support

Induction as a program, phase, process
The nature of beginning teaching

The nature of “good” teaching

The mentor’s role in new teacher support
The principal’s role in new teacher support
Balancing assistance/assessment

The purpose of evaluation

The nature of leadership, broadly defined
The nature of instructional leadership

28]

 

 

 

REFERENCES

American Federation of Teachers. (2001). Beginning teacher induction: The essential
bridge. Educational Issues Policy Brief. Washington, DC: Author.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bartell, C. A. (1995). Shaping teacher induction policy in California. Teacher Education
Quarterly, pp. 27-43.

Bartell, C. A., & Ownby, L. (l994). Report on the implementation of the beginning
teacher support and assessment program, l992-l994 . Sacramento, CA: California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of Education.

Barth, R. S. (1990). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents and principals can it.
make the difference. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. ‘

Berliner, D. C. (2000). A personal response to those who bash teacher education. Journal
of Teacher Education, 51(5), 358-371.

Blase, J ., & Kirby, P. (1992). Bringing out the best in teachers: What effective principals
do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Bloom, G. (1999). Sink or swim no more. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 20(1), pp.
20-24.

Bloom, G., & Davis, B. (2001). Supporting new teachers: A fundamental responsibility.
Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center at the University of Santa Cruz
[http://www.newteachercenter.org/ article I .html].

Blumberg, A., & Greenfield, W. (l980). The effective principal: Perspectives on school
leadership. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bridges, E. M. (I986). The incompetent teacher. Philadelphia: Falmer.
Brock, B. L., & Grady, M. L. (1996). Beginning teacher induction programs. Paper
presented at the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration,

Corpus Christi, TX.

Brock, B. L., & Grady, M. L. (1998). Beginning teacher induction programs: The role of
the principal. The Clearing House, 71(3), 179-183.

Brock, B. L., & Grady, M. L. (2001). From first-year to first-rate: Principals guiding
beginning teachers, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

282

 

 

Bullough, R. V., Jr. (1989). First year teacher: A case study. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Baughman, K. (1997). First year teacher eight years later: An
inquiry into teacher development. New York: Teachers College Press.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (1998). California '3 future: Highly
qualified teachers for all students. The final report of the advisory panel on
teacher education, induction and certification for twenty-first century schools (SB
1422). Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of
Education. (1998). BTSA Support Provider Training Video. Santa Cruz, CA: John
Silver Productions.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of
Education. (l997a). California standards for the teaching profession: A
description of professional practice for California teachers. Sacramento, CA:
Author.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of
Education. (l997b). Standards of quality and eflectiveness for Beginning Teacher
Support and Assessment programs: A description of professional induction for
beginning teachers. Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of
Education. (1992). Success for beginning teachers: The California New Teacher
Project, 1988-1992. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Caruso, J. J. (1990). Supervisory roles and responsibilities of principals to teacher
leaders and novice teachers in four Connecticut schools: A close-up look. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Boston.

Carver, C. L. (2001). Prinicpals and mentors: Crossing the firewall ? Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle.

Carver, C. L. (2000). It's the principal that matters: Principals understandings of their
roles and responsibilities vis a vis new teachers and their mentors. Dissertation
proposal. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Carver, C. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2000). The Santa Cruz New Teacher Project.

Report prepared for the National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in
Teaching. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

283

 

 

 

Chester, M. D. (1992). Alterable factors that mediate the induction-year experience of
teachers in urban schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Clandinin, D. J ., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in
qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cole, A. L. (1993). Problems and paradoxes in beginning teacher support: Issues
concerning school administrators. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.

Colley, A. C. (2002). What can principals do about new teacher attrition? Principal
Magazine[http://www.naesp.org/comm/p0302b.htm].

Conant, J .B. (1963). The education of American teachers. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc.

Copland, M. A. (2001). The myth of the superprincipal. Educational Leadership, 82(7),
528-533.

Costa, A., & Garmston, R. (1994). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance
schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Cusick, P. A. (1992). The educational system: Its nature and logic. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Danielson, C., & McGreal, T. L. (2000). Teacher evaluation: To enhance professional
practice. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.
Kutztown, PA: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of
state policy evidence (R-99- l ). Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and
Policy.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2002). Research and rhetoric on teacher certification: A response
to "Teacher Certification Reconsidered". Education Policy Analysis Archives,
10(36), 1-50.

Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B. T., Haselkom, D., & Fideler, E. (1999). Teacher
recruitment, selection, and induction: Policy influences on the supply and quality
of teachers. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning
profession (pp. 183-232). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

284

 

 

 

 

Denzin, N. (1984). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.

DePaul, A. (2000). Survival guide for new teachers. Washington, DC: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, US. Department of Education.

Donaldson, G. A., Jr. (2001). Cultivating leadership in schools: Connecting people,
purpose, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Donaldson, M. L., & Poon, B. (Eds). (1999). Reflections of first-year teachers on school
culture: Questions, hopes, and challenge. New Directions for School Leadership
(Vol. 11). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Donmoyer, R. (1990). Generalizability and the single-case study. In E. W. Eisner & A.

Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 175-
200). New York: Teachers College Press.

Duke, D. L. (1995). Teacher evaluation policy: From accountability to professional
development. New York: State University of New York Press.

Duke, D. L., & Stiggins, R. J. (1990). Beyond minimum competence: Evaluation for
professional development. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new
handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school
teachers (pp. pp. 116-132). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Durbin, D. (1991). Review of pre-I 980 and post-I980 induction programs. Induction
Program Review, Information Analyses #070. ERIC ED 338 562.

Edmonds, R. R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, pp.
15-24.

Elbow, P. (1983). Embracing contraries in the teaching process. College English, 45, pp.
327-339.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. A paper prepared
for the Albert Shanker Institute. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Stafl development and
instructional improvement in Community School District #2, New York City. A
report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future and by the
Consortium for Policy Research in Education. New York: National Commission
on Teaching and America's Future.

Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (2000). Leadership and leaming: Principal recruitment,
induction and instructional leadership in Community School District #2, New

285

 

York City. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center,
University of Pittsburgh.

Featherstone, H. (1992). Learning from the first years of classroom teaching: The
journey in, the journey out. East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on
Teacher Learning, Michigan State University.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1983). Learning to teach. In L. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.),
Handbook of Teaching and Policy (pp. 150-170). New York: Longman.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Linking mentoring and teacher learning. VELUM.

Feiman—Nemser, S. (2000). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to
strengthen and sustain teaching. A report of the Strengthening and Sustaining
Teaching Project, Bank Street College.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Combining assistance and formative assessment. The case of
the Santa Cruz New Teacher Project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Seattle.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1985). Pitfalls of experience in teacher education.
Teachers College Record, 87, pp. 49-65.

Feiman-Nemser, S., Carver, C., Schwille, S., & Yusko, B. (1999). Beyond support:
Taking new teachers seriously as learners. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better
beginning: Supporting and mentoring new teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Feiman-Nemser, S., & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. B.
Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator's handbook: Building a knowledge base for
the preparation of teachers (pp. 63-89). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Ferrandino, V. L. (2001). Challenges for let century elementary school principals. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82(6), 440-442.

Fideler, E. F., & Haselkom, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction
programs and practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New

Teachers, Inc.

Fuller, F. F. (1969). Concerns of Teachers: A Developmental Conceptualization.
American Educational Research Journal, 6(2), 207-226.

Ganser, T. (2001). The second generation of mentoring. Paper presented at the Annual
meeting of the National Staff Development Council, Denver.

286

Ganser, T., Bainer, D. L., Bendixen-Noe, M., Brock, B. L., Stinson, A. D., Giebelhaus,
C., & Runyon, C. K. (1998). Critical issues in mentoring and mentoring
programs for beginning teachers. Paper presented at the Mid-Westem
Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Ganser, T., Feiberg, M., & Zbikowski, J. (1993). The perceptions of school principals
about a mentoring program for newly hired urban school teachers. Paper
presented at the Diversity in Mentoring Conference of the International Mentoring
Association, Atlanta.

Greenfield, W. (Ed.). (1987). Instructional leadership: Concepts, issues and
controversies. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Goodlad, J. I. (1994). Teachers for our nation's schools. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational it ,
Management Administration (3) 317-338.

Grossman, R, Thompson, C., & Valencia, S. (2001). District policy and beginning
teachers: Where the twain shall meet. A report for the Center for the Study of
Teaching and Policy. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher
education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Haberman, M. (1995). Star teachers of children in poverty. West Lafayette, IN: Kappa
Delta Pi.

Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters... a lot: Teaching and California's Future. A
report for the Center for Teaching and Learning. Washington, DC: The Education
Trust.

Hirsch, E., Koppich, J ., & Knapp, M. (2001). Revisiting what states are doing to improve
the quality of teaching. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for the Study of l
Teaching and Policy.

Houston, P. (2001). Superintendents for the 2lst century: It's not just a job, it's a calling.
Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 428—433.

Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In W. R. Houston,
M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education
(pp. 535-548). New York: Macmillan.

Huling-Austin, L. (1992). Research on learning to teach: Implications for teacher
induction and mentoring programs. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 173-
180.

287

Humphrey, D. C., Adelman, N ., Esch, C., Riehl, L. M., Shields, P. M., & Tiffany, J.
(2000). Preparing and supporting new teachers: A literature review. Report
prepared for the US. Department of Education Planning and Evaluation Service.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Ingersoll, R. (2001a). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages. American Educational
Research Journal, 38(3), 499-534.

Ingersoll, R. M. (1999). The problem of under-qualified teachers in American secondary
schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37.

In gersoll, R. M. (2001b). A different approach to solving the teacher shortage problem.
Teaching Quality Policy Brief No. 3. Seattle: University of Washington, Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Johnson, S. M., & Kardos, S. M. (2002). Keeping new teachers in mind. Educational
Leadership, 59(6), 12-16.

Kardos, S. M., Johnson, S. M., Peske, H. G., Kauffman, D., & Liu, E. (2001). Counting
on colleagues: New teachers encounter the professional cultures of their schools.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 250-290.

Koemer, J. D. (1963). The miseducation of American teachers. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin.

Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D. P., Cooper, J. E., Lambert, M. D., Gardner, M.
E., & Slack, P. J. F. (1995). The constructivist leader. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Leithwood, K. A. (1990). The principal's role in staff development. In B. Joyce (Ed.),
Changing school culture through staff development. 1990 Yearbook of the
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (pp. 71-90).
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Leithwood, K. A. (1992). The principal's role in teacher development. In M. Fullan & A.
Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher development and educational change (pp. 86-103).
Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.

Little, J. W. (1990). The mentor phenomenon and the social organization of teaching. In

C. B. Cazden (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 297-351). Washington,

DC: American Educational Research Association.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

288

a

M’
_ ._ o:

1"

 

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data
analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mischler, E. G. (1991). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard.

Murphy, J ., & Forsyth, P. B. (Eds.). (1999). Educational administration: A decade of
reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for America 's future. New York: Author.

Nelson, B. S. (1999). Building new knowledge by thinking: How administrators can learn
what they need to know about mathematics education reform. Newton, MA:
Center for the Development of Teaching, Education Development Center, Inc.

Nelson, B. S., & Sassi, A. (2000). Linking ideas to practice: How administrators connect
new ideas about learning, teaching and mathematics to the actions and decisions
that constitute administrative practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.

Nelson, B. S., & Sassi, A. M. (1998). Cultivating administrators' professional judgment
in support of mathematics education refonn: The case of teacher supervision.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Neumann, M. & Simmons, W. (2000). Leadership for student learning. Phi Delta
Kappan, 82 (1) 9-12.

Newman, F. A. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual
quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Norman, P.A. & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2002). Mind answering mind in teaching and
mentoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans.

Odell, S. J ., & Huling, L. (2000). Quality mentoring for novice teachers. Washington, DC
& Indianapolis, IN: Association of Teacher Educators and Kappa Delta Phi.

Peterson, K. D. (1990). Assistance and assessment for beginning teachers. In J. Millman
& L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation:
Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 104-1 15). London:
Sage Publications.

289

 

Polanyi, M. (1969). Knowing and being. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Portner, H. (2001). Training mentors is not enough: Everything else schools and districts
need to do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Pounder, D. G. (1987). The challenge for school leaders: Attracting and retaining good
teachers. In W. Greenfield (Ed.), Instructional leadership: Concepts, issues and
controversies (pp. 287-301). Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Prawatt, R. S., & Peterson, P. L. (1996). Total Quality Management meets whole

language reform: A site for investigating administrators' learning. Journal of
Educational Policy, 11(4), 441-464.

Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. The Elementary
School Journal, 83, 427-452.

 

Recruiting New Teachers. (1998). The essential profession: A national survey of public
attitudes toward teaching, educational opportunity and school reform. Belmont,
MA: Recruiting New Teachers.

Reynolds, A. (1992). What is competent beginning teaching: A review of the literature.
Review of Educational Research, 62 (1) 1-35.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. New
York: Teachers College Press.

Sarason, S. B. (1997). How schools might be governed and why. New York: Teachers
College Press.

Schlecty, P. C., & Vance, V. S. (1983). Recruitment, selection and retention: The shape
of the teaching force. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 469-487.

Schlecty, P. C., & Whitford, B. L. (1989). Systemic perspectives on beginning teacher
programs. The Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 441-449.

Schofield, J. W. (1990). Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In E. W.

Eisner & A. Peshkin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp.
201-232). New York: Teachers College Press.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schwille, S. A. & Wolf, N. (1995). Forms of mentoring practice. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

290

Scott, L. D., Hendrick, I. G., Mitchell, D. E., & Mitchell, T. K. (1999). Evaluation study
of the beginning teacher support and assessment training for school principals
and site administrators: A technical report conducted for the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of Education.

Scott, L. H. (2001). Friend or foe? The role of the school principal in beginning teacher
induction . Riverside, CA: Paper prepared for the RIMS BTSA Program,
University of California, Riverside.

Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shields, P. M., Esch, C. E., Humphrey, D. C., Young, V. M., Gaston, M., & Hunt, H.
(1999). The status of the teaching profession: Research findings and policy
recommendations. A report to the Teaching and California 's Future Task Force.
Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.

Shulman, J. H. (1987). Expert witnesses: Mentor teachers and their colleagues. Paper
presented at the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.

Shulman, L. S. (2001). Appreciating good teaching: A conversation with Lee Shulman.
Educational Leadership, 58 (5) 6-1 1.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1-22.

Silberman, C. E. (1970). Crisis in the classroom: The remaking of America '3 education.
New York: Random House.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text and
interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smylie, M. A., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1992). Teacher leaders and their principals:
Exploring the development of new working relationships. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 28(2), 150-184.

Sparks, D., & Hirsch, S. (2000). Learning to lead, leading to learn: Improving school
quality through principal professional development. Oxford, OH: National Staff

Development Council.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership
practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), pp. 23-28.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

291

Stein, M. K., & D'Amico, L. (2000). How subjects matter in school leadership. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 273-285). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Strong, M. & St. John, L. (2001). A study of teacher retention: The effects of mentoring
for beginning teachers. Research Working Paper #3. San Cruz, CA: The New
Teacher Center at the University of California Santa Cruz.

Tickle, L. (1994). The induction of new teachers: Reflective professional practice. New
York: Cassell.

Tirozzi, G. N. (2001). The artistry of leadership: The evolving role of the secondary
school principal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 434-429.

Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 54(2), 143-178.

Villani, S. (2002). Mentoring programs for new teachers: Models of induction and
support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Walsh, K. (2001). Teacher certification reconsidered: Stumbling for quality. Baltimore,
MD: Abell Foundation.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Wildman, T. M., Niles, J. A., Magliaro, S. G., & McLaughlin, R. A. (1989). Teaching
and learning to teach: The two roles of beginning teachers. The Elementary
School Journal, 89(4), 471-493.

Wise, A. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Bernstein, H. T., & McLaughlin, M. W. (19843).
Teacher evaluation: A study of effective practices. A report for the National
Institute of Education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Wise, A. E., Darling—Hammond, L., McLaughlin, M. W., & Bernstein, H. T. (1984b).

Case studies for teacher evaluation: A study of eflective practices. A report for the
National Institute of Education. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

292

Wolcott, H. (1995). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and
interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wolcott, H. F. (1978). The man in the principal 's office: An ethnography. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.

Wong, H. K. & Wong, R. T. (1998). The first days of school: How to be an effective
teacher. Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications, Inc.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods, 2nd Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Youngs, P. (2001). District organizational conditions and induction support for
beginning teachers: New evidence from three school districts in Connecticut.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Seattle.

Yusko, B. (2001). Paradoxical coherence: Combination of new teacher assistance and
summative assessment in the Cincinnati Peer Assistance and Evaluation Program.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association.

Zeichner, K. (1999). The new scholarship in teacher education. Educational Researcher,
28 (9), 4-15.

Zeichner, K. M. (1982). Why bother with teacher induction? Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Zeichner, K. M., & Gore, J. M. (Eds.). (1990). Teacher socialization. In W. R. Houston,

M. Haberman & J. Sikkula (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education.
New York: Macmillan.

293

     
   

   

  

RAH

Hill

07_

lll'l'lllllllll

02

   

V

lllll