New Directions in Teacher Induction: A Continuation of a Comprehensive
University’s Response to the Teachers for a New Era Initiative
Arlinda J. Eaton
Associate Dean and Professor, Michael D. Eisner College of Education
arlinda.eaton@csun.edu
Sandra B. Chong
Associate Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Elementary Education
Katherine Ramos Baker
Associate Professor, Department of Music
Nancy Burstein
Chair and Professor, Department of Special Education
Marilynn Filbeck
Coordinator of University Assessment and
Professor, Department of Family and Consumer Sciences
Christine C. Smith
Professor Emeritus, Department of Secondary Education
of
California State University, Northridge
and
Stephanie Penniman
Teacher, Plummer Elementary School, Local District 1
of
Los Angeles Unified School District
American Educational Research Association
Montreal, 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 stateadopted academic content standards and performance levels for students and stateadopted 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 1
Guiding 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 districtsponsored 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, selfassess 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 twoyear 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 teamtaught 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 inclass 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 fulltime 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)
BTSA Induction Program*
IHE-sponsored Induction Program
Employed Teacher (public private, charter)


Substitute Teacher
IHE-sponsored Induction Program
Not Employed Teacher
IHE-sponsored Induction Program
Employed Teacher who needs NCLB
Fifth Year Program
subject matter coursework
Induction-eligible Teacher but Induction
Fifth Year Program
program not available
*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)
15
CSUN now had to decide which type(s) of programs to develop:



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:
16
Standard 7 – Coordination and Communication,
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, and
Standard 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
(http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html)
2042,
Teacher
credentialing.
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/STDSprep-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