New Directions in Teacher Induction: A Continuation of a ComprehensiveUniversity’s Response to the Teachers for a New Era Initiative

Arlinda J. EatonAssociate Dean and Professor, Michael D. Eisner College of Education

arlinda.eaton@csun.edu

Sandra B. ChongAssociate Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Elementary Education

Katherine Ramos BakerAssociate Professor, Department of Music

Nancy BursteinChair and Professor, Department of Special Education

Marilynn FilbeckCoordinator of University Assessment and

Professor, Department of Family and Consumer Sciences

Christine C. SmithProfessor Emeritus, Department of Secondary Education

ofCalifornia State University, Northridge

and

Stephanie PennimanTeacher, Plummer Elementary School, Local District 1

of

Los Angeles Unified School District

American Educational Research AssociationMontreal, Canada

April 14, 2005

Permission to quote from this paper must be requested.

New Directions in Teacher Induction: A Continuation of a Comprehensive University’s Response to the Teachers for a New Era Initiative

In this article, we describe the efforts of a large public institution, California State University, Northridge (CSUN), to develop an induction program that reflects state standards and effective practices in supporting beginning elementary and secondary school teachers. First, we discuss how the Teachers for a New Era (TNE) Initiative and state legislation influenced our work. Second, we describe the process in designing and gaining approval of the first portion of the program, reported in more detail in Baker, Burstein, Chong, Eaton, Filbeck, Smith, & Dewey, 2004. Third, we discuss the impact of legislative changes on the program. Finally, we describe how these changes were addressed and present issues and challenges in program design, approval, and moving toward implementation.

The TNE Initiative

CSUN was one of four universities selected nation-wide to participate in the Carnegie Corporation’s Initiative in 2002, Teachers for a New Era (TNE), a reform effort to establish exemplary teacher education programs. This initiative is organized around three major principles: reliance on research-based evidence for improving student achievement through instruction; active engagement of arts and sciences faculty in teacher preparation; and close collaboration between colleges of education and K-12 schools. The initiative emphasizes that an exemplary teacher education program is involved in the induction of teachers during their first two years of teaching. Induction through TNE is referred to as residency, reflecting a medical model in which newly licensed professionals practice their craft under the guidance and support of experienced veterans in their field. Faculty, including those in the arts and sciences, are expected to provide mentorship and supervision, confer with the teacher on a regular basis, arrange for observation of teacher’s clinical practice, and provide guidance to improve practice. Unlike traditional induction programs, the university is expected to play a major role, expanding its responsibilities beyond initial teacher preparation to include the induction of new teachers.

The California Context

The emphasis on induction at CSUN through TNE is consistent with a new credential structure in California in which graduates of preliminary credential (first-level credential) programs are required to enroll in a program to clear the credential (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2003). In 1998, the Governor of California signed legislation (SB 2042, Alpert/Mazzoni, Ch. 548, Statutes of 1998) that led to the restructuring of teacher credentialing in California. One of these restructuring efforts included a new requirement for earning a Professional Teaching Credential (second-level credential) as outlined by the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs (2001). Under the new legislation, candidates with preliminary teaching credentials were required to complete a two-year induction program

1

of support and formative assessment during their first two years of teaching in order to earn a Professional Teaching Credential. Furthermore, the California Education Code Section 44279.2c allowed only local education agencies (LEA) to apply for and receive state funding to support induction programs through the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) System, a jointly administered program by the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC).

It was initially believed that the districts were to design, sponsor, and administer two-year induction programs based on the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs. Induction programs were to include an assigned support provider for each beginning teacher and provide support services appropriate to the working conditions experienced by the beginning teacher at his/her school/district site. Furthermore, based on the beginning teachers’ annual Individual Induction Plan (IIP), the programs were to provide comprehensive, extended preparation and professional development to support participating teachers in their attainment of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) (1997) in relation to the state-adopted academic content standards and performance levels for students and state-adopted curriculum frameworks. Upon verification of completion of the professional teacher induction program, the districts were allowed to recommend for the Professional Clear Credential those teachers who had completed and met all induction program requirements and demonstrated their knowledge and ability to teach state-adopted academic content standards and competencies in the five specified areas of advanced studies: using technology to support student learning (Standards 16); equity, diversity, and access to the core curriculum (Standard 17); creating a supportive and healthy environment for student learning (Standard 18); teaching English learners (Standard 19); and teaching special populations (Standard 20).

The legislation not only gave provisions for districts to design and implement induction programs for beginning teachers but also allocated resources for the districts to support the program implementation. The district induction programs were to be free of charge to the participating teachers; however, the resources were not to be transferable to subsidize the cost of university coursework should any participating teachers decide to take courses at an institution of higher education to satisfy the five specified areas of advanced studies outlined in Standards 16 through 20. Therefore, the initial understanding was that districts and local education agencies would be the only institutions providing induction programs to beginning teachers in the State of California.

In September, 2003, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing issued Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for Advanced Course Work for the Multiple Subject and Single Subject Professional Clear Teaching Credential and Submission Guidelines for Approval of the Fifth Year of Study Program (2003). This authorized institutions of higher education (IHE) to seek approval of a program for the Fifth Year of Study (including Advanced Study Courses), providing another option for candidates to earn the SB 2042 Professional Clear Credential. Now beginning teachers will elect to complete a Commission-approved Fifth Year of Study Program at an institution of higher

2

education or a Commission-approved Induction Program sponsored by a local education agency.

An IHE- or university-sponsored Fifth Year of Study Program was defined by the Commission as a program of coursework consisting of a minimum of 30 semester units beyond the bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree. Candidates were required to complete the advanced study coursework in the same four areas as the induction program: health education, teaching special populations, using technology, and teaching English learners. Teachers who completed and met all program requirements for the Fifth Year of Study program would be recommended for the Professional Clear Credential by the IHE. However, unlike the district- or LEA-sponsored induction programs for the Professional Clear Credential, the university-sponsored Fifth Year of Study programs received no allocation to support their implementation. Thus, teachers would need to bear the cost of a university program.

Designing the CSUN Residency Program

An Induction Committee was formed in 2002 to design a program that reflected the TNE initiative and was aligned to state standards. The Committee was comprised of faculty in the College of Education, arts and sciences, and the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). A first step in designing the program was to gather information on best practices in the induction of beginning teachers. To this end, the Committee conducted a needs assessment of beginning teachers and reviewed the literature on induction programs.

To assess the needs of beginning teachers during their first or second year of teaching, the Committee developed a questionnaire, along with an interview protocol. Focus group meetings were conducted with recent CSUN graduates, master’s students, faculty in education and in the arts and sciences, and administrators and program directors in several neighboring school districts. Data from the interviews were examined for common themes and findings were summarized. In addition to the needs assessment, the Committee reviewed the body of literature on beginning teacher induction programs and visited numerous new teacher websites nationwide to identify salient program features. The literature confirmed the beginning teacher needs that were delineated in the focus group meetings.

Based on the needs assessment and literature findings, the Committee developed guiding principles (see Table 1), which were used as the foundation to the development of CSUN’s Teachers for New Era (TNE) Residency Program.

Table 1Guiding Principles

This program is designed as a two-year program for new teachers with a Preliminary Multiple Subject, Single Subject or Education Specialist Credential. The program focuses on supporting and preparing a diverse group of teachers to function effectively with a diverse community and society to facilitate/enhance student achievement. Teachers earn a Professional Clear Credential,

3

a Residency Certificate, and units that can be applied toward a master’s degree and advanced credential.

Collaborative Teaching and Learning Community University and K-12 faculty collaboratively develop and implement the program with an

emphasis on the diverse urban learner. Students, wherever possible, progress through the program as a cohort with activities and

assignments designed to facilitate collaboration, problem solving and inquiry.

Supportive Learning Environment Initial and ongoing advisement, monitoring development of competencies. Support by multiple mentors that may include university faculty, experienced teachers, and

peers. Professional growth facilitated by arts and sciences faculty, education faculty, and P-12

educators.

Developmental Approach to Teaching Curriculum that is responsive to the needs of new teachers and relevant to their teaching

assignments. Seminars/courses designed with themes/strands that are revisited, building on previous

exposure and providing opportunity for reflection and application. A core curriculum that is developmentally appropriate for all teachers and also coursework

tailored to meet individual interests/needs. A series of seminars, one each semester across two years, that provides the opportunity for

self-assessment and reflection through the development of an Individualized Learning Plan and a portfolio.

Evidence Driven Preparation Emphasis on excellence in teaching, drawing upon research Coursework that focuses on using pupil learning/student achievement data in instructional decision

making aligned with state and national content standards. Opportunities for new teachers to observe and analyze the practices of veteran and peer

teachers.

Access to Coursework Alternative scheduling options (weekends, evenings, at school site) and delivery of

instruction (face-to-face, online) Exposure to a variety of teaching styles in university courses

Linkages among Coursework and Programs Linkages between the residency program with preservice and master’s/advanced credential

programs. Link/pair some courses in subject matter and pedagogy

The CSUN TNE Residency Program was conceptualized as a two-year program for beginning teachers. Two models were designed: Model A for traditional teacher candidates and Model B for interns, teacher candidates who obtain a Preliminary Credential while on the job. Each of these models is described below.

4

Model A. Model A of the Residency Program (Figure 1) includes 10 courses spanning two academic years and one summer. Reflecting the guiding principles developed by the TNE Induction Committee, the model was created to provide a collaborative learning and teaching community in which teachers progress through the program together in four residency seminars that are designed to provide developmentally appropriate curriculum and classroom support. In addition, the program provides opportunities for new teachers to focus on their needs and interests through individualized instruction and flexible scheduling and course options.

Figure 1

Cohorted and Individualized. The program is partially cohorted in that a group of beginning teachers starts together in Residency Seminar (RS) 1 and stays together throughout Residency Seminars (RS) 2, 3 and 4. Thereby, the four Residency Seminars provide a natural vehicle for novice teachers to form a learning community and sustain it over the duration of the two-year program and ideally, beyond the program.

At the same time, the program is individualized in that each teacher develops an Individual Residency Plan that is addressed throughout the four seminars. Also, teachers select their own additional subject matter course in accordance with their teaching assignment and individual needs as well as an elective course. If selected carefully with an advisor, these courses may be applied to some master’s degree programs.

5

Content for the four prescribed advanced areas of study (English learners, health education, special populations, technology) is configured in four separate courses. This particular design makes it possible for beginning teachers participating in district-sponsored induction programs who might opt to take some university coursework to do so. Additionally, these four classes provide occasions for the teachers in the cohorted Residency Seminars to widen their circle of friends to include colleagues in other induction programs. In that the Residency Program has been conceptualized to include some distance learning components, participants are afforded yet another opportunity to expand their learning community.

Four Residency Seminars. The foundation upon which the four Residency Seminars are built is the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. In that district-sponsored induction programs are built on these same standards, our candidates will find themselves sharing with teachers prepared in school districts the same academic language to describe student learning, best practices, and their professional growth. This common language should facilitate the establishment of learning communities at school sites.

A developmental approach has been taken in the creation of the four Residency Seminars that span four semesters. Teachers become more proficient as skilled practitioners on the continuum of learning to teach as they address their Individual Residency Plans and regularly reflect on their students’ achievement and their own teaching effectiveness. With a spiraling curriculum they have the opportunity to return to previous topics and deepen their understandings of teaching and learning. For example, in RS2 teachers modify the plan for an effective environment for student learning that they developed, implemented, and analyzed during RS1 based on evidence gathered while using the original plan.

Teachers begin the development of their Residency Portfolio, which is structured around the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, in RS1. The individual learning plan they bring from their initial teacher credential program is used as the basis for developing an Individual Residency Plan (IRP) specific to their teaching context. They develop the IRP with their mentors -- the university faculty teaching the RS and the mentor teacher at the school site. Across the four Residency Seminars teachers collect evidence that they are developing their competencies, analyze student work samples, self-assess and reflect on their ability to promote student achievement, and revise their IRP accordingly. They obtain formative assessment, individual feedback, and coaching from the university mentor and school site mentor through classroom visits and/or videotapes of their classroom instruction.

Team-taught by education and arts and sciences faculty and K-12 educators, the new teachers benefit from multiple perspectives presented in the seminars. National Board-type activities are infused in the seminars, and teachers are required to make use of a Virtual Professional Development Center (VPDC) with the hope that they will continue to use the VPDC once they have completed the Residency Program. Through the VPDC,

6

teachers interact with CSUN education and arts and sciences faculty as well as experienced K-12 practitioners and their peers.

RS1 focuses on the context of the new teacher’s teaching assignment, lesson study, and classroom management, while RS2 emphasizes assessment-driven decision making, differentiated instruction, and pedagogical content knowledge. During RS3 teachers are preparing to become peer coaches and gaining familiarity with qualitative and ethnographic research. By the end of RS3, teachers have identified a research question from their classroom and prepared a research proposal including a literature review so that they are ready to conduct the action research/ethnographic study in RS4. Also during the final seminar, teachers identify the role of descriptive research and engage in instructional leadership activities. Across all four seminars, novice teachers reflect on ways to improve their own teaching practices through observations of experienced and peer teachers.

Model B. Model B of the Residency Program, depicted in Figure 2, represents a modification of Model A. It is modified for teachers who prepared for their Preliminary Credential on the job while enrolled in an Internship Program, that is, an alternative certification program. Because RS 1 and 2 focus on the same competencies that were emphasized in their Internship Program, enrollment in these first two seminars would be duplicative. Therefore, Interns who have earned the Preliminary Credential begin their first semester in the Residency Program in RS 3 followed by RS 4.

Figure 2

7

This developmental approach to the design of the Residency Program results in teachers who had been Interns being able to take advantage of making further progress on a master’s degree program by enrolling in other MA-level course work during semesters 3 and 4.

Curriculum Process

When the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC) issued standards and guidelines for developing a Fifth Year of Study Program (FYSP) at the end of September, 2003, eight submission dates spanning from January, 2004, to August, 2004, were offered. CSU Northridge committed to the June 1, 2004, program document deadline. Within this truncated time line of eight months, faculty conceptualized the two-year Residency Program; developed three new course outlines for the FYSP that is embedded in the Residency Program; consulted with the TNE Steering Committee, the Deans and Associate Deans of the six colleges on campus involved in teacher education, and 39 departments regarding the curriculum proposals; and sought special permission to expedite the curriculum process, which normally is a two-year process.

To facilitate successful passage of the curriculum at the university level, TNE Induction Committee members met with each of the six college curriculum committees to explain the proposed program and the two experimental course outlines*, Residency Seminar 1 and Residency Seminar 2, that would provide a vehicle for arts and sciences, education, and veteran K-12 faculty to team teach. All six of the college curriculum committees voted approval of the proposal. However, in one college a large, influential department voiced opposition. In an attempt to resolve the issues that had surfaced and avoid confrontation later on at the Graduate Studies Committee (university level), TNE Induction Committee members met with representatives from the one dissenting department. Concerns centered around the two experimental Residency Seminar courses that were based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, written in more general terms than the typical experimental course outline, and designed to be offered by colleges, not departments. The fact that these two courses were developed to be team-taught by faculty from the arts and sciences, education, and K-12 elicited further opposition and a criticism regarding the less than adequate time period for consultation. TNE Induction Committee members assured the hostile faculty that the reason the Residency Seminars were going through the curriculum cycle as experimental course outlines was to offer the additional time to fully conceptualize the curriculum. The goal was to: (1) invite teams of faculty with representation from the arts and sciences, education, and K-12 to develop comprehensive syllabi over the summer, with compensation from the grant; (2) team-teach the two Residency Seminars in Fall 2004 and Spring 2005; and (3) revise the syllabi based on their experiences prior to putting permanent course outlines through the curriculum cycle. The meeting concluded with the TNE Induction Committee members believing they had reached an understanding.

*not permanent course outlines; courses may be offered the semester after they have been approved rather than a year later; courses may be offered up to four times to provide faculty the opportunity to modify and refine them prior to putting them through the curriculum cycle as permanent new course outlines

8

At the university-level curriculum committee (Graduate Studies Committee) meeting, all members except one recognized the innovative work that had gone into the proposal and fully supported the program. Despite the extensive ground work that had been done to consult with the one department initially opposing the proposal, a member of that department who served on the Graduate Studies Committee at the time spoke vehemently against the proposal, citing information the TNE Induction Committee members had provided in the consultation meeting. Nonetheless, with one dissenting vote, the Graduate Studies Committee approved in May, 2005, the Professional Clear Credential curriculum proposal, the first portion of the conceptualized Residency Program.

Subsequently, a program document was written that included responses to four standards and a description of the curriculum a new teacher would experience at CSUN in order to earn the Professional Clear Credential. This document, referred to as the Fifth Year of Study Program document, was submitted by the June 1, 2004 deadline to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CCTC).

Moving Forward with Program Development: Intensive Summer Work

Hoping to receive CCTC program approval by August, 2004, so that the new program could be implemented in Fall 2004, a series of informational meetings was held in June and July to explain the proposed program to our candidates who had recently earned the Preliminary Teaching Credential. More than 300 teachers indicated an interest in enrolling in the program.

While the Fifth Year of Study Program document was under review, faculty, both arts and sciences and education, continued to work with our K-12 partners throughout the summer months to:

develop comprehensive course syllabi from the two approved experimental course outlines – Residency Seminar 1, Entering the Teaching Profession, and Residency Seminar 2, Developing Best Practices as a Beginning Teacher,

complete the development of two experimental course outlines – Residency Seminar 3, Making Sense of Learning and Teaching through the Research Process, and Residency Seminar 4, Improving Learning and Teaching through Research and Leadership, that will constitute the latter portion of the Residency Program, and

conceptualize blended Residency/Master’s Degree programs.

Let us briefly explain this summer work.

Development of Residency Seminar Syllabi: One and Two. Two committees were formed to develop syllabi for the Multiple Subject Professional Clear Credential Program (elementary), one committee working on Residency Seminar 1 (RS1) and the other working on Residency Seminar 2 (RS2). Similarly, two committees were initially formed to develop syllabi for the Single Subject Professional Clear Credential Program (secondary); however, due to the subject matter emphasis that needed to be given in each

9

of these seminars, nine subcommittees were created to develop the RS1 syllabi (Art, Business, English, Foreign Language, Kinesiology, Math, Music, Science, Social Studies) and another nine subcommittees (same subject areas mentioned above) were established to develop the RS2 syllabi. The composition of the committees included faculty from the arts and sciences, education, and K-12. The estimated time commitment to complete the task was 45 hours, and faculty were compensated for their time.

The charge of the committees was to:

1. review documents (e.g., Carnegie Prospectus, California Standards for the Teaching Profession, Commission on Teacher Credentialing Induction Standards, Salient Features of Effective Teacher Residency/Induction Programs, etc.);

2. develop a comprehensive syllabus (should be ready to use) from the newly approved course outline that included the College of Education Conceptual Framework; topic(s) to be covered, required reading, assignment due, and in-class activities for each class meeting; an Individual Residency Plan (IRP); a Residency Portfolio; etc.;

3. attach to the syllabus guidelines for constructing the Residency Portfolio, a rubric for assessing the Residency Portfolio, guidelines for required assignments and in-class activities, etc.;

4. consult with the other Residency Seminar Committee throughout the development of the course syllabus (RS2 needs to build upon RS1); and

5. consult with the TNE Induction Committee.

A syllabus from each of the committees was due August 13, 2004.

The Multiple Subject Residency Seminar 2 (RS2) Committee provides an example of the way in which the work was realized to meet the charge. RS2 emphasizes assessment-driven decision making, differentiated instruction, and pedagogical content knowledge. Embedded in the assignments are grade level and/or subject specific dialogue opportunities for teachers to share ideas and best practices to enhance student learning. All course requirements, discussions, assignments, and in class-activities are connected directly with the beginning teacher’s own classroom.

One challenge immediately noted by the committee was the abbreviated time period for the task. It was difficult to build a team relationship and engage in the number of conversations needed for curriculum development of this sort during the summer. Some university faculty were determined to retain their favorite assignments and in-class activities regardless of the on-going changes in the K-12 content standards. Collaboration helped both arts and sciences and education faculty as well as K-12 instructors to realize the need for developing strong content for teachers within the areas of science and mathematics, while still addressing rigorous state standards and methods of teaching these concepts to all students, including English language learners and special needs children.

10

Major successes included the completion of a course syllabus for RS2, as well as the development of positive relationships and collaboration between university and K-12 faculty. Course assignments, professional readings, and reflective questions were compiled and are ready for implementation. Best Practice lessons have been outlined. Careful attention was given to address appropriate state and national standards, while considering local classroom materials, needs, and assessments.

Development of Portfolio Guidelines for Residency Seminars 1 and 2. As mentioned above, part of the charge given to the Residency Seminar 1 and 2 Committees was to develop guidelines for constructing the Residency Portfolio as well as a rubric for assessing the Residency Portfolio. The TNE Induction Committee that issued the charge had determined the portfolio would be the culminating document for each of the seminars and also the culminating document for the residency. It would address the California Standards for the Teaching Profession in an authentic manner. New teachers would place artifacts in the portfolio to illuminate their best practice and professional growth as called for by each Standard. Potential artifacts included assignments from the Residency Seminars, such as lesson study, reflection on practice, videotaped classroom lesson assessed in seminar, and multiple analyses of student work samples.

Because many individuals involved in our summer work had been collaborating together for sometime, either as a part of the TNE Initiative or through other kinds of activities (e.g., student teaching supervision), it was assumed that we all held a relatively similar view of what constitutes a portfolio. It was during our small group discussions, small group and large group email, and then large group discussion that we came to realize the members of the multiple committees did not necessarily share the same perspectives regarding the purpose of the portfolio or its development. The view an individual had about portfolios seemed to be heavily influenced by the faculty’s discipline. Therefore, we recognized the need to form a Portfolio Committee with representatives from each of the Residency Seminar Committees as its membership. Several challenges emerged:

level of prescription for the portfolio that should be provided by faculty, a working document vs. a showcase document, scope of assignments vs. practical application in the classroom, elementary content and scope vs. secondary content and scope, state requirements for the Professional Clear Credential vs. CSUN requirements

for residency/induction, an appropriate number of assignments during the Residency Seminar vs. an

appropriate number of artifacts to meet the state standards, an appropriate number of assignments for inclusion in the portfolio, recognizing

the schedules of beginning teachers, and use of a rubric for assessing the portfolio.

The summer came to a close and consensus had not been reached on the Residency Portfolio. Faculty were energized by the conversations they had engaged in and were prepared to continue their work once the fall semester of 2004 commenced.

11

Development of Residency Seminar Course Outlines: Three and Four. The TNE Induction Committee refined and completed the development of two additional experimental course outlines: Residency Seminar 3, Making Sense of Learning and Teaching through the Research Process, and Residency Seminar 4, Improving Learning and Teaching through Research and Leadership. In the former course, the curriculum builds upon the foundation established in Residency Seminar 2 and includes emphases in peer coaching, critical friends groups, teacher as researcher, and qualitative research. Residency Seminar 3 lays the ground work for the fourth and final Residency Seminar with emphases in instructional leadership, teacher researcher projects, and quantitative research. In both courses beginning teachers are visited in their classroom by the designated school site support provider. The candidate, the university instructor, and the designated school site support provider collaborate in the development of an Individual Residency Plan (IRP) for the support and professional development of each beginning teacher.

It was critical to complete these outlines early in the summer as they were reviewed and considered for inclusion in the blended Residency/Master’s Degree programs that several committees conceptualized during the summer of 2004. Additionally, the plan had been to package the coursework already approved for the Professional Clear Credential program together with Residency Seminars 3 and 4 as a Residency Certificate Program proposal that would go through the curriculum cycle in Fall 2004.

Conceptualization of Blended Residency/Master’s Degree Programs. According to TNE, an exemplary teacher education program should provide mentorship and supervision to teacher candidates during their residency period, the first two years of full-time teaching. In addition, teacher candidates should be encouraged to participate in professional growth activities, including further graduate study and activities that lead to certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). To this end, the Induction Committee in 2003-04 focused on the development of a Residency Program that would provide support to new teachers during their induction period and offer a California Professional Clear Credential. In developing this program, needs assessment data from credential graduates and district personnel indicated a high level of interest in a Master’s Program in which much of the induction program would be “blended.” It was anticipated that teachers, who could participate at no cost in a district induction program, would be attracted to the CSUN Residency Program if they could also earn a Master’s Degree.

In spring 2004, faculty in the College of Education and other colleges at CSUN who were interested in developing a blended residency/master’s degree program were asked to form a committee that included faculty from education and arts and sciences, and to work in consultation with appropriate public school representative(s). Committees were expected to commit a minimum of 32 hours to this effort and met during the summer of 2004. The following committees based in seven different departments participated in developing blended residency/master’s degree programs: 1) Chicano/a

12

Studies, 2) Elementary Education, 3) Family and Consumer Sciences, 4) Health Sciences, 5) Kinesiology, 6) Secondary Education, and 7) Special Education.The charge of the committees was to:

review documents (e.g., Commission on Teacher Credentialing Induction Standards, NBPTS, Carnegie prospectus, Salient Features of Effective Teacher Residency/Induction Programs, etc.);

develop learning outcomes for the blended residency/master’s degree program, conceptualize the new program option including an advanced study component

and other residency requirements; a core, if appropriate; a specialization or strand; electives, if any; a culminating experience; subject matter and pedagogy linked and/or blended; infusion of National Board activities; and any TNE issues that needed to be addressed;

consult with the TNE Induction Committee; seek approval for the conceptualized program option; and consult with the TNE Induction Committee regarding the possibility of seeking

funding for the development of M.A. course outlines.

Reports from each of the Committees describing their activities were due August 13, 2004. The plan, then, was for faculty to present the conceptualized blended Residency/Master’s Degree programs to their respective departments in Fall 2004 so that curriculum proposals could be developed and put through the curriculum cycle as early as Spring 2005.

Although several departments embraced the idea of developing blended Residency/Master’s Degree programs, they found themselves faced with a set of complex issues: 1) the impact the blended Residency/Master’s programs would have on existing master’s programs, 2) beginning teachers not having taken the prerequisite courses attached to subject matter courses that seemed appropriate for their current teaching assignments, and 3) the number of induction program courses that could be applied towards a master’s degree. One college in the arts and sciences, initially interested in developing a college program that would include coursework across three of its subject matter departments as well as the College of Education, found the task to be overwhelming. They regrouped to consider one department at a time blending with the induction coursework offered by the College of Education.

Stopping in Our Tracks: New California Legislation

When August, 2004 arrived and our Fifth Year of Study Program document had not yet been reviewed by the CCTC, it became apparent that we would not implement the Professional Clear Credential Program in Fall 2004. Furthermore, the Governor signed urgency legislation, Assembly Bill 2210, that became effective as of August 30, 2004. This assembly bill was put forth to offer clarification for Senate Bill 2042, the 1998 legislation that called for a learning to teach continuum with a designated period of induction for beginning teachers. AB 2210 makes it clear that beginning teachers can no longer choose to earn the Professional Clear Credential through either an Induction

13

Program or a Fifth Year of Study Program. They must participate in an Induction Program provided they have access to one. Only in circumstances where they do not have available to them an Induction Program can they participate in a Fifth Year of Study Program. Beginning teachers required by federal law to complete subject matter courses may participate in a Fifth Year of Study Program.

In that all nearby school districts had implemented induction programs in academic year 2003-04, we recognized there would be an extremely limited number of new teachers who would be eligible to enroll in our Fifth Year of Study Program. Those charter school teachers without access to a district induction program would be prospective candidates as well as private school teachers who may or may not be required to earn a Professional Clear Credential. A third and final prospective pool of teachers for the Fifth Year of Study Program would be teachers needing to take additional subject matter coursework in order to meet the No Child Left Behind federal requirements.

In California it is common practice for the CCTC to develop an official Coded Correspondence for legislation concerning credentialing that details the implementation of the legislation. It was projected that the Coded Correspondence for AB 2210 would be available in the spring of 2005. In the meanwhile, many uncertainties regarding the interpretation of AB 2210 immediately came to the fore:

It was unclear how individuals holding the Preliminary Teaching Credential who were not employed as teachers, or who were employed as substitute teachers would be able to earn the Professional Clear Credential. Some people thought it would be impossible for them to do so.

Although Education Code 44259 is cited within the text of AB 2210, many individuals interpreted the legislation as saying that all new teachers would have to participate in district induction programs. However, Education Code 44259 identifies an institution of higher education (IHE) as a possible provider of induction.

For teachers who were participating in district induction programs, it was unknown if the districts could allow them to take university coursework and apply it towards the induction requirements.

Furthermore, it was reported that the Superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District had mandated that all district initiatives be infused in the district’s induction program. Hence, there was another reason to wonder whether or not new teachers in LAUSD’s Induction Program would be able to transfer university coursework into the district’s Induction Program.

Because the Fifth Year of Study Program that CSUN had submitted to the CCTC for approval was designed as a cohorted program, we quickly realized we might never have the critical mass to offer the program. As a result, the Fall 2004 work of the TNE Induction Committee came to an abrupt halt.

14

We requested that the Commission not move forward with the review of our Fifth Year of Study Program document. It would not serve us well if approved as submitted.

Having not implemented the program in Fall 2004 as we had planned, all of the assessment and evaluation activities that had been scheduled for Fall 2004 and Spring 2005 were cancelled.

The development of the Residency Certificate Program proposal was put on hold as a portion of it would have included coursework in the Fifth Year of Study Program.

All seven departments that had conceptualized blended Residency/Master’s Degree programs during the summer of 2004 were asked not to advance to the development stage of the process since their conceptualized programs contained some of the Fifth Year of Study coursework and there now was a question about whether or not CSUN would even offer a Fifth Year of Study Program.

Moving Forward Again: Clarification of New Legislation

In December, 2004, the CCTC held a meeting for the purpose of clarifying the language in AB 2210. Subsequently, the Commission issued a communication that specified the following:

AB 2210 applies to all SB 2042 preliminary credential holders whose credential issuance date is August 30, 2004 or later. As a result of this legislation, the population of preliminary credential holders eligible to participate in an approved Fifth Year program has been considerably reduced. The chart below shows the various categories of preliminary credential holders and their options for obtaining a clear credential, consistent with the provisions of AB 2210:

Preliminary Credential Holder Clear Credential Option(s)

Employed Teacher (public private, charter) BTSA Induction Program* IHE-sponsored Induction Program

Substitute Teacher IHE-sponsored Induction Program

Not Employed Teacher IHE-sponsored Induction ProgramEmployed Teacher who needs NCLB subject matter coursework Fifth Year Program

Induction-eligible Teacher but Induction program not available Fifth Year Program

*Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Programs (voluntary for new teachers, grant funded) that have responded to the 20 Induction Standards and been approved by the CCTC are now BTSA Induction Programs (mandatory for new teachers not enrolled in IHE-sponsored Induction Programs, state funded)

CSUN now had to decide which type(s) of programs to develop:

15

a CSUN Induction Program (a revision of the Fifth Year of Study Program developed last year aligned with the 20 Induction Standards),

a CSUN/District Joint Induction Program (a District BTSA Induction Program plus some university coursework), and/or

a CSUN Fifth Year of Study Program (all university coursework).

In an effort to make this decision and continue to explore collaborative possibilities around the induction of new teachers, the TNE Induction Committee members, along with the Provost, TNE Project Director, and one of the two Co-Associate Directors, held a meeting with representatives from the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) in early February, 2005. During the meeting, TNE Induction Committee members explained the changes in policy and legislation concerning new teacher induction in the state of California as they relate to the previously conceptualized and designed CSUN Fifth Year of Study Program. UTLA representatives also presented their work at the Institute for Standards, Curricula and Assessment, specifically their work on Lesson Study.

Representatives from both CSUN and UTLA acknowledged the importance of CSUN-UTLA collaborative efforts focused on the induction of beginning teachers in order to meet the needs of some 2,000 new teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). Therefore, both groups agreed to continue to work together to further define the collaboration within the committee structure that had already been established at CSUN to revise the Residency Program.

When the nine members of the TNE Induction Committee who had worked on the Residency Program in academic year 2003-04 were notified that we were ready to reconstitute the committee in February 2005, two members had already been reassigned to other responsibilities and therefore had to discontinue their service on the TNE Induction Committee. The seven returning members (four from education and three from the arts and sciences) were joined by six new members -- two from the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), two representing K-12 from LAUSD Local Districts 1 and 2, and two faculty from the arts & sciences.

New Issues and Challenges

Once the Induction Committee was reconstituted, it began its work to explore the development of all three types of programs specified above: 1) CSUN Induction Program, 2) CSUN/LAUSD Joint Induction Program, and 3) CSUN Fifth Year of Study Program.

CSUN Induction Program. First, the Committee attempted to align the CSUN Fifth Year of Study Program that had been conceptualized and partially developed last year with the twenty California Induction Standards by focusing on key standards that are unique to induction programs:Standard 7 – Coordination and Communication,

16

Standard 8 – Support Provider Selection and Assignment,Standard 9 – Support Provider Professional Development,Standard 11 – Roles and Responsibilities of K-12 School Organizations,Standard 13 – Formative Assessment Systems for Participating Teachers, andStandard 17 – Supporting Equity, Diversity and Access to the Core Curriculum.

This approach will allow the Committee to recognize whether or not the CSUN program as currently designed meets these standards. If program revision is imminent, a series of questions will need to be addressed and answered in order to determine the feasibility of CSUN offering an induction program.

Will program revision be accomplished by minimally modifying the existing courses in the program?

Will new courses need to be added in order to meet the requirements of the twenty Induction Standards?

Will the four Residency Seminars designed to be team-taught by education, arts and sciences, and K-12 faculty be negatively impacted?

Will the self-selected subject matter course related to the new teacher’s teaching assignment need to be deleted?

Will CSUN be able to identify support providers for beginning teachers employed by LAUSD and not interfere with LAUSD’s selection of support providers for the district’s induction program?

Will assessment courses need to be added to the program as a way to absorb the costs affiliated with the required formative assessment system and cadre of support providers? (This consideration presents a significant challenge to an IHE in that state funding is allocated to local education agencies to offer induction programs, not to IHEs.)

Will the number of courses in the Induction Program that can be applied towards a master’s degree be reduced significantly?

Does one induction program, even though an Individual Induction Plan is required, fit all? This is an important question that has not yet received enough attention. Do new holders of the Preliminary Credential who earned it as an Intern need the same Induction Program as the holders who earned it as a traditional student teacher under the direction and guidance of a master teacher? Do new holders of the Preliminary Credential who may have taught for several years without a credential need the same Induction Program? Do new holders of the Preliminary Credential who already have a master’s degree or a doctorate need the same Induction Program?

CSUN/LAUSD Joint Induction Program. Our recent conversations with representatives from LAUSD’s Induction Program have been insightful. We now understand that:

the district may not be able to accommodate all of its beginning teachers in the LAUSD Induction Program,

17

the district experiences difficulty in identifying an adequate number of qualified support providers to mentor the new teachers in LAUSD’s Induction Program, and

the district partners with multiple IHEs in the area; therefore, the possibility exists that several IHEs may request the opportunity to develop with LAUSD a joint induction program.

These circumstances clearly indicate the critical importance of IHE/district partnerships and sustained dialogue to facilitate the attainment of both partners’ goals. New challenges are now apparent:

Will CSUN be successful in developing a joint induction program (district induction program requirements, some of which are fulfilled by taking university coursework) with LAUSD if the district is unable to accommodate all of its new teachers in the LAUSD Induction Program?

Will CSUN be successful in developing a joint induction program with LAUSD when the district is simultaneously attempting to develop joint induction programs with other IHEs?

Will all IHEs developing a joint induction program with LAUSD be expected to accept one model? Or, will LAUSD develop joint induction programs that are unique to the particular IHEs involved?

CSUN Fifth Year of Study Program. Although now there will be few beginning teachers who are eligible for a Fifth Year of Study Program, it remains imperative that CSUN develops one. In doing so:

nearby school districts offering an induction program can allow their beginning teachers to complete university coursework and substitute it for district induction requirements should they elect this option (some of the university coursework may be applied towards a master’s degree), and

LAUSD will engage in a conversation regarding the development of a CSUN/LAUSD Joint Induction Program.

Additionally, CSUN will be able to accommodate the limited number of new teachers who will need to complete subject matter coursework in order to meet No Child Left Behind requirements.

Summary

In summary, over the past year, state policy in California has changed once again. With the passage of AB 2210, it is now clear that beginning teachers can no longer choose to earn the Professional Clear Credential (second-level credential) through either an Induction Program or a Fifth Year of Study Program. First and foremost, new teachers must participate in an Induction Program provided they have access to one. Only in circumstances where they do not have available to them an Induction Program can they participate in a Fifth Year of Study Program. District-sponsored induction programs are

18

free of charge to new teachers as state funding is allocated to local education agencies only, while new teachers must bear the costs of IHE-sponsored induction programs and Fifth Year of Study programs.

This change has caused CSUN to rethink the way in which it will offer a Residency Program that reflects best practices in the induction of beginning teachers, meets state requirements for new teachers pursuing a Professional Clear Credential, and addresses the TNE initiative related to residency programs. Currently, the goal is to revise the Fifth Year of Study Program developed in 2003-04 that went far beyond the state guidelines for such a program so that it aligns with the twenty California Induction Standards. Concomitantly, we hope to develop a joint induction program with Los Angeles Unified School District, one in which new teachers would:

participate in the district’s Induction Program, enroll in some university coursework that the district would accept in lieu of its

requirements, apply some of the university coursework towards a master’s degree, be recommended for the Professional Clear Credential by the district, and subsequently complete additional coursework at their own expense at the

university in order to earn a master’s degree from CSUN.

Also, a Fifth Year of Study Program that closely adheres to the state’s guidelines and intersects with the Induction Program will be developed for a limited number of teachers who need to complete subject matter coursework to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind legislation. Having a Commission-approved Fifth Year of Study Program, which includes the prescribed advanced coursework called for in an Induction Program as well, will enhance the possibility of new teachers participating in district induction programs electing to take the advanced study coursework at CSUN and continuing on for a master’s degree.

Our time line has been modified by two years. Rather than implement the first portion of the CSUN Residency Program (Professional Clear Credential coursework) in Fall 2004, the projected start date for the Residency Program is now Fall 2006. The CSUN Induction Program, CSUN/LAUSD Joint Induction Program, and/or CSUN Fifth Year of Study Program will be reconceptualized this spring in 2005, developed and taken through the curriculum cycle in Fall 2005, and described in a program document submitted to the CCTC for review and approval in Spring 2006.

The challenges ahead are many, including the selection or development of a formative assessment system, the identification of support providers to mentor the beginning teachers, adequate resources to offer the program, and the development of a joint induction program. This final challenge is especially interesting in light of the fact that CSUN partners with multiple school districts and some of these schools districts partner with several IHEs. There remains much to be created and tried through IHE/district joint induction programs to support new teachers in their first years of

19

teaching, extend their preparation, retain them in the profession, and ultimately improve the achievement of their K-12 students.

References

Alpert (1998). Senate Bill 2042, Teacher credentialing. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html)

Baker, K.R.; Burstein, N.; Chong, S.B.; Dewey, R.; Eaton, A.J.; Filbeck, M. & Smith, C.C. (2004). New directions in teacher induction: A comprehensive university’s response to the teachers for a new era initiative. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (1997). California standards for the teaching profession. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (http://www.ctc.ca.gov/reports/cstpreport.pdf)

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2003). Standards of quality and effectiveness for advanced course work for the multiple subject and single subject professional clear teaching credential and submission guidelines for approval of the fifth year of study program. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/STDS-prep-program.html)

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2001). Standards of quality and effectiveness for professional teacher induction programs. Sacramento, CA: California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/STDS-prep-program.html)

Carnegie Corporation of New York (2002). The corporation’s program: Prospectus. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. (http://www.carnegie.org/sub/program/teachers_prospectus.html)

Liu (2004). Assembly Bill 2210, Marian Bergeson beginning teacher support and assessment system. (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html)

20