New Directions in Teacher Induction:
A Comprehensive University’s Response to the Teachers for a New Era Initiative
Katherine Ramos Baker
Associate Professor, Department of Music
Nancy Burstein
Department Chair and Professor, Department of Special Education
Sandra B. Chong
Associate Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Elementary Education
Arlinda J. Eaton
Associate Dean and Professor, Michael D. Eisner College of Education
Marilynn Filbeck
Interim Associate Dean and Professor, College of Health and Human Development
Christine C. Smith
Professor Emeritus, Department of Secondary Education
of
California State University, Northridge
and
Richard A. Dewey
Coordinator, Instructional Support Services, Local District C
of
Los Angeles Unified School District
American Educational Research Association
San Diego
April 16, 2004
Permission to quote from this paper must be requested.
New Directions in Teacher Induction:
A Comprehensive University’s Response to the Teachers for a New Era Initiative
Teacher education has traditionally focused on the pre-service preparation of teacher
candidates, with little support or guidance provided to new teachers once they obtain a
credential. However, regardless of the quality of the preparation program, the transition into
teaching is challenging. Beginning teachers are assigned to classes, often with the most hard-toreach students, and left to “sink or swim” on their own (Huling-Austin, 1990; American
Federation of Teachers, 2000; SRI, 2003). Over one-fifth of classroom teachers leave their
positions within the first three years of teaching (Fideler, 2000); in urban schools up to one-half
of all new teachers leave teaching within the first five years (Claycomb, 2000).
The retention of teachers is critical to providing high quality education. Students with
teachers who stay in their classrooms for more than five years have higher achievement levels
than teachers with less than three years of experience (Fideler, 2000). To address the need to
retain teachers, there is a growing demand for induction programs. These programs extend the
preparation of new teachers through their first years of teaching (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999;
Huling-Austin, 1990).
Induction programs typically provide an array of supports that include mentor/support
teachers prepared to work with beginning teachers who provide ongoing support through
classroom observation and consultation; opportunities to observe experienced teachers;
professional development that provides additional knowledge and skills; and a system that
encourages assessment and reflection (Huling-Austin, 1990; White & Mason, 2001). Teachers
who participate in induction programs are more committed and satisfied with their jobs and more
likely to remain in the profession (Cooley & Yovanoff, 1996; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Fideler,
2000; U.S. Department of Education, 1998; Whitaker, 2000a; Wood, 2001).
Need for School/University Induction Programs
Induction programs have increased in the last two decades, primarily through stateinitiated programs (Fideler, 2000). For example, the California Department of Education (CDE)
established a state-initiated induction program in 1992-93 with 15 programs, the Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA), which grew to over 145 BTSA programs in
2001-02. Historically, California Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) actively participated in
creating induction programs with districts. However, funding has shifted to districts, resulting in
fewer collaborative programs with IHEs than in the 1990s (Wood, 2001). Moreover, like many
state-initiated programs, funding for induction programs is dependent on healthy state budgets
and is often eliminated with funding cuts or a change in legislative priorities (Fideler &
Haselkorn, 1999).
Educators have become increasingly concerned about the stability of induction programs,
given the decreasing role of IHEs and the dependency on state funding. They recommend that
induction is an important part of the learning to teach continuum of pre-service, induction, and
inservice. As such, induction should be a logical extension of the preservice program and as
1
entry into staff development programs that provide opportunities for continued professional
growth (Huling-Austin, 1990; Wood, 2001). Just as in pre-service, effective induction programs
should include school-university collaboration in which district personnel and university faculty
work with one another to provide support and ongoing professional development for new
teachers (Carnegie, 2001).
Clearly, induction programs contribute to the retention of teachers, a high-quality
teaching force, and student achievement. Therefore, it is critical that universities work with
school districts to institutionalize induction programs so that, like pre-service programs, they
become an integral part of the learning to teach continuum.
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
describe the demographics of the institution and its surrounding community. Second, we
describe the changing regulations in the state, explaining the context in which the induction
program was designed. Third, we discuss the process in designing the program and describe the
induction program. Finally, we discuss next steps, issues, challenges, and successes as we move
forward to implement the program.
California State University, Northridge
California State University, Northridge (CSUN) is one of 23 campuses within the
California State University System (CSU), the largest system of higher education in the nation.
With an enrollment of 32,997 students, CSUN is located in the Northwest San Fernando Valley,
a metropolitan suburb of Los Angeles with a multi-ethnic population of over 2 million, including
students who commute into Los Angeles from Ventura County to the North and desert
communities to the East. The demographics of the service region have changed dramatically
over the past 20 years, with CSUN serving an increasingly diverse student population.
Approximately 48% of CSUN students come from underrepresented groups, predominantly
Latino (24%), Asian (12%) and African-American (7%).
The CSU system plays a central role in preparing teachers. In 2001-02 it recommended
55% of all teachers for credentials in California, with CSUN credentialing more teachers than
any other public institution in California. Moreover, reflecting high standards, all CSUN
professional education programs meet the demanding certification requirements of the California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher
Education (NCATE).
In recognition of the university’s commitment to maintaining high quality teacher
preparation programs, 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 P-12 schools. The initiative emphasizes that an
2
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. Education faculty and 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 also consistent with a new
credential structure in California in which graduates of preliminary 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 as outlined by the Standards of Quality and Effectiveness for
Professional Teacher Induction Programs (2001).
Induction programs. Under SB 2042 legislation, candidates with preliminary teaching
credentials were allowed to complete a two-year induction program 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 permitted local
education agencies (LEAs) to apply for and receive state funding to support induction programs
through the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment System, a jointly administered program
by the California Department of Education (CDE) and the California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing (CCTC).
Therefore, 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 sites.
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) 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 (Standard 16);
equity, diversity, and access to the core curriculum (Standard 17); creating a supportive and
3
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 and other LEAs to
support the program implementation. These resources made it possible for districts to offer
induction programs free of charge to the participating teachers. Therefore, the initial
understanding was that districts and other LEAs would be the only institutions providing
induction programs to beginning teachers in the State of California.
The fifth year of study program (FYSP). Subsequently 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. 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 FYSP at an institution of higher education or a
Commission-approved Induction Program sponsored by a local education agency.
An IHE- or university-sponsored FYSP 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 coursework in four areas of advanced
study: health education, teaching special populations, using technology, and teaching English
learners. Teachers who completed and met all program requirements for the FYSP 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 universitysponsored FYSPs 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
prospectus. The Committee was comprised of education and arts and sciences faculty and
district personnel. 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 1) recent graduates of CSUN’s Multiple Subject (elementary), Single
Subject (secondary), and Special Education programs; 2) students currently enrolled in a
master’s program in Elementary Education; 3) students currently enrolled in a master’s program
in Educational Administration; 4) education faculty; 5) arts and sciences faculty; and 6)
administrators and program directors in neighboring LAUSD school districts. Of the 127
students, faculty and administrators who participated in the focus group interviews, there were
4
10 recent CSUN graduates, 28 current master’s degree candidates in the College of Education,
56 education faculty, 20 arts and sciences faculty, and 13 LAUSD administrators and program
directors. These focus group interviews were conducted over an eight-month period, May
through December, 2003.
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. Data from the interviews and literature findings were
examined for common themes which are described below.
Broad base of commitment and participation from all stakeholders. Induction
programs need to be broad based and include state agencies, local districts, school boards,
teacher associations, local school and community parents, IHEs, and professional organizations.
Constituencies pool their talents and resources together, across, between and within a system to
formalize a structure of collaborative problem solving and decision making (Huling-Austin,
1990; Moir & Gless, 2001; Wood, 2001).
Long-term induction. Induction programs should be part of a larger professional
development effort with tiered expectations (e.g., preservice, induction, and post-induction
(Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999). Clearly, this suggests a program duration
that ranges beyond 3-5 years. Nonetheless, the most frequently recommended length of duration
for an induction program is two years (AFT, 2001).
Funding support. It is critical that funding is provided to support the planning,
development, implementation and evaluation of induction programs. Funding may be secured
through a shared fiscal responsibility between an LEA and an IHE by means of allocating new
funds through federal, state, local and private grants, or reallocating funds within institutions.
Regardless of how the funds are secured, fiscal solvency of induction programs is critical to their
success (White & Mason, 2001; Wood, 2001).
Mentor support. Mentors play an instrumental role in induction programs and include
veteran teachers, university faculty, and colleagues at the school site or university (Gottesman,
2000). While a formal mentoring system is recommended, informal mentoring is also
recognized as important (e.g., teacher friends, grade-level teachers, other new teachers),
providing emotional support for new teachers. It is suggested that both one-on-one and group
mentoring are helpful, particularly if the mentoring is focused on teaching practices.
Mentors should have clearly defined roles and responsibilities (Brooks in Scherer, 1999;
Waters & Bernhardt, 1989). Selection criteria for mentors should include not only intellectual,
academic and professional characteristics but also emotional and personal dispositions. Initial
and ongoing professional development for mentors and assessment of mentor effectiveness on
beginning teacher and pupil learning outcomes are essential (AFT, 2001; Angelle, 2002; Cawyer,
Simonds, & Davis, 2002; Etheridge, 1989; Huling-Austin, 1990; Ishler & Kester, 1987; Varah,
Theune & Parker, 1998 In J. Reinhartz, 1998; Portner, 2001; Scott, 2001; Villani, 2002). The
inclusion of multiple mentors is suggested to address the diverse instructional, personal and
5
emotional needs of beginning teachers during their first two years teaching (Carter & Francis,
2001; Johnson & Kardos, 2001-2002; Wood, 2001).
Professional development. Professional development activities are recommended to
orient beginning teachers to their new teaching environments and promote their professional
growth in their assigned teaching areas. An orientation is helpful to new teachers in that they are
welcomed and introduced to colleagues and learn about the socio-political culture of the school,
district, faculty, staff and community. The expectations and norms of teacher responsibilities
and professionalism need to be clearly articulated (ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education,
1986; Greenberg & Erly, 1989; Johnston & Kay, 1987; Martin & Robbins in Scherer, 1999).
Another important emphasis is the development of “survival skills” including daily routines and
procedures; classroom and time management; strategies to meet diverse learner needs based on
standards-based curriculum, instruction and assessment; skills to promote better parent
communication and involvement; and knowledge to better acculturate into teaching as a
professional (Cattani, 2002; Rosetto & Grosenick, 1987; Wyatt & White, 2002). Finally,
teachers are interested in a program that focuses on standards-based, subject-specific content
knowledge and pedagogy.
Opportunities for observation. An important program component is classroom
observation. Typically it is recommended that new teachers observe and reflect upon the
teaching practices of veteran teachers and identify implications for their own classroom
practices.
Program emphasis on the teacher’s own classroom. Induction programs must
emphasize knowledge and skills that can be directly applied to the teacher’s own classroom.
They should focus on relevant and meaningful information that addresses the individual and
diverse needs of beginning teachers.
Flexible programming. An induction program needs to address teachers’ individual and
diverse needs. Therefore, a menu of program and course delivery options is recommended with
a variety of induction support and professional development opportunities that can be linked to a
Master’s Degree program (Varra, Theune & Parker, 1998).
Reflective learning community. New teachers benefit from participation in a learning
community where they are viewed as constructors of knowledge and transformers of culture
(Cuthell, 2002; Hamstra, 1996; Johnston & Kay, 1987; Louis, Marks & Kruse, 1996). Be it live
or online, this learning community should be organized and developed by its own members,
based on their shared needs and interests, to help support one another realize and attain their own
professional development goals. Its members engage in professional dialogues to share ideas,
values and practices to enhance pupil learning (Achinstein, 2002; Birchak, Connor, Crawford,
Kahn, Kaser, Turner & Short, 1998; Bowman, 1989; Bush, 2003). It is through such
participation and reflective practice in a learning community that beginning teachers develop
their professional identity as lifelong learners and teachers (Grimmett, Mackinnon, Erickson, &
Riecken in Clift, Houston & Pugach, 1990; Hart & Marshall, 1992; Wildman, Niles, Magliaro &
McLaughlin in Clift, Houston & Pugach, 1990).
6
Emphasis on a life-long continuum of professional development. Learning to teach is
viewed as a life-long process. Therefore, all induction team members, including administrators,
mentors and beginning teachers (Carter & Francis, 2001; Feinman-Nemser, 2001; Gabelnick,
MacGregor, Matthews & Smith, 1990; Levin, 2003; Portner, 2001) should be provided with
professional development opportunities that include a wide array of meaningful and purposeful
topics (e.g, communication and consultation skills, lesson study, reflective practices, advisement
and coaching strategies, assessment, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards,
expanding breadth and depth in subject matter) (Huling-Austin, 1990). Moreover, the literature
suggests that professional development activities should lead to specialist credentials and/or a
master’s degree.
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
CSUN RESIDENCY PROGRAM
Fifth Year of Study Linking to Advanced Credentials and Master’s Programs
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, a Residency
Certificate, and units that can be applied toward a master’s degree and advanced credential.
Collaborative Teaching and Learning Community
 Program with an emphasis on the diverse urban learner collaboratively developed and implemented
by university and P-12 faculty.
 Partially cohorted program 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 selfassessment and reflection through the development of an Individual Residency Plan and a Residency
Portfolio.
7
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 (faceto-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.

Some linked/paired courses in subject matter and pedagogy.
It was quickly recognized, however, that the FYSP would not necessarily equal the
Residency Program for all candidates. Because a large percentage of teacher candidates at
CSUN enroll in a post-baccalaureate initial credential program, they have already earned 30, if
not more, post-baccalaureate units. Hence, it would seem that advanced course work in the four
prescribed areas is all they would need to fulfill in order to earn their second-level credential, the
Professional Clear Credential. A minimal approach of four courses would not result in the twoyear Residency Program we had envisioned. For this reason, we designed the Residency
Program at CSU Northridge to include 20 prescribed units for the Professional Clear Credential
(highlighted) plus 10 other post-baccalaureate units. In doing so, those teachers who had
completed a post-baccalaureate initial credential program could be credited for these 10 other
units. They might also elect to take the Health Education course during the intersession between
semesters, thereby earning the Professional Clear Credential at the end of Year 1 of the
Residency Program. Teachers needing the 10 other units could elect to continue in the second
year of the Residency Program.
8
Figure 1
The incentive for beginning teachers who earn their second-level credential in one year to
remain in the Residency Program for a second year is the opportunity to earn the Residency
Certificate, a certificate that embodies the tenets of a residency program as described by the TNE
prospectus. Furthermore, several of the courses required for the Professional Clear Credential
and the Residency Certificate may be applied towards a master’s degree. The specific number of
units is determined by the particular master’s degree program that is blended with the Residency
Program. In contrast, novice teachers who spend two years in a district-sponsored induction
program earn the second-level credential but do not hold an official transcript that records
completed academic coursework.
The CSUN Residency Program
Model A. Model A of the Residency Program (Figure 1) includes 10 courses spanning
two academic years and one summer. Reflecting the guiding principles, the model has been
designed 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.
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
9
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.
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.
10
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, 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.
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.
11
Figure 2
Next Steps
When the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing issued standards and
guidelines for developing a 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. Two of
the three course outline proposals were put forward as Experimental Topics courses, enabling us
to offer them as early as Fall 2004.
Implementing the residency program. Under the auspices of the TNE Initiative, Arts
and Sciences, Education and K-12 faculty who are selected to team-teach the first two Residency
Seminars, Entering the Teaching Profession, and Developing Best Practices as a Beginning
Teacher, will collaborate throughout the summer months to develop syllabi from the course
outlines. Specific required readings, course assignments, in-class activities, and fieldwork
requirements will be determined. This cadre of faculty will continue to meet throughout the fall
semester of 2004 when the first Residency Seminar is offered as well as throughout the Spring
2005 semester when the second Residency Seminar is scheduled. Collaboration of this type
12
should facilitate the intended articulation of content across the two seminars and the
developmental nature of the program.
Concurrently, the development of the remaining portion of the Residency Program and
the conceptualization of a blended residency/master’s degree program will proceed over the
summer months. We plan to put Residency Seminars 3 and 4 through the curriculum cycle in
Fall 2004. In doing so, faculty selected to team-teach Seminar 3, which will be offered for the
first time in Fall 2005, will have the opportunity to meet and plan with Residency Seminar 1 and
2 faculty during Spring 2005. In Fall 2005, the instructors of Seminar 4, which will be offered
for the first time in Spring 2006, will join the collaboration sessions attended by Seminar 1, 2,
and 3 faculty. Again, these on-going collaboration meetings will ensure the connections across
the four seminars that the designers of the program envisioned. Additionally, there will be a
collective effort by the Arts and Sciences, Education, and K-12 faculty who actually taught the
courses to modify and refine them prior to submitting them as permanent courses.
Therefore, the first cohort of beginning teachers, who will enroll in Residency Seminar 1
in Fall 2004, will have the opportunity to complete Residency Seminar 4 and all other Residency
Program requirements by the end of the Spring 2006 semester. Within this two-year period of
time, they will have earned the Professional Clear Credential that is required in the State of
California to continue in the teaching profession and a Residency Certificate awarded by the
university. Also, dependent upon the design of the blended residency/master’s degree program
that will have been approved by the appropriate curriculum committees during AY 2004-05, the
first cohort of beginning teachers will have access in Fall 2006 to the remaining required
coursework needed to earn a master’s degree.
Exploring research opportunities. A plethora of research opportunities will emerge
once the Residency Program has been implemented. A major focus will be the examination of
teacher development, satisfaction with the program by new teachers and faculty, and the
performance of program graduates. To this end, the following evaluation objectives have been
developed.
Objective 1 – Beginning Teacher Development: To document and measure beginning
teachers’ academic and professional development progress from the point of entry to the
Residency Program through the point of exit from the Residency Program. Grade point average
and demographics (age, gender, ethnicity) are gathered upon admission to the program. Course
grades and portfolio data are collected and analyzed at the end of each semester. At the end of
two years upon exiting the program, GPA and portfolio data are collected and analyzed.
Objective 2 - Beginning Teacher Program Satisfaction: To document and measure
beginning teachers’ satisfaction with the Residency Program components including advisement,
course content quality, quality of instruction, course availability, student services, and faculty
support. On a questionnaire administered at the end of each semester, beginning teachers rate
each program component and courses. They also offer their perceptions of the portfolio process
and modify their Individual Residency Plan.
13
Objective 3 – Faculty Program Satisfaction: To document and measure Residency
Program faculty perceptions about the portfolio process, the curriculum, advisement, student
services, and coordination. The questionnaire calls for faculty to rate the program components
and provides open-ended questions regarding the portfolio process.
Objective 4 – Graduates’ Self-Assessment of Performance: To document and
measure Residency Program participants’ (a) self assessment and (b) evaluation of the Residency
Program’s curriculum and instruction after one year of completing the program. On a
questionnaire graduates evaluate themselves on the California Standards for the Teaching
Profession and respond to questions specific to the Residency Program’s curriculum and
instruction.
Objective 5 – Employer Satisfaction: To document and measure employer satisfaction
with beginning teachers’ performance in the Residency Program during the first and second
years and graduates’ competence as third-year teachers. Questionnaires based on the California
Standards for the Teaching Profession are sent annually to principals.
Objective 6 – Graduates’ Performance as Measured by Student Achievement: To
document and measure the achievement of pupils taught by program graduates. Using
standardized assessment and classroom performance data, student achievement will be
documented, analyzed, and compared with achievement data from teachers who did not
participate in the CSUN Residency Program.
Several research questions might be posed regarding value added by program
participation on teacher efficacy.
 What is the impact of CSUN Residency Program participation on teacher efficacy?
 What is the impact of CSUN Residency Program participation on student
achievement?
 What is the impact of CSUN Residency Program participation on teacher retention
and job satisfaction (end of year one, two, three, four)?
 What is the relationship between CSUN Residency Program participation and the
level of participation at a school site?
 What is the relationship between the level and type of support provider assistance
received and teacher job satisfaction/teacher efficacy?
Issues, Challenges and Successes
Clearly, several critical issues emerged during the design phase of the CSUN Residency
Program. First, we will focus on the most prominent one, state policy in California. As
referenced above, new teachers in the State of California have the option of earning their secondlevel credential, the Professional Clear Credential, through either a two-year district-sponsored
induction program or a 30 post-baccalaureate-unit Fifth Year of Study Program (FYSP) offered
by an institution of higher education. The former program is free of charge as state funding for
induction programs is allocated to local education agencies only, while new teachers must bear
the costs of the latter program. Induction programs are conveniently held at school sites; fees are
collected from students who make use of the parking lots at CSUN. Induction program
14
requirements are job-embedded. University instructors of courses required for the FYSP are
challenged to ensure the perceived relevancy of their courses by incorporating the on-going
professional responsibilities of the classroom teacher into their discussions, assignments, and inclass activities.
By embedding the FYSP into the CSUN Residency Program, features of effective
induction programs have been successfully included. For example, the guidelines for the FYSP
do not specifically call for an experienced classroom teacher of best practices to serve as a
support provider for the novice teacher as do the Induction Standards to which district-sponsored
programs have been aligned. In that Residency Seminars are required in both the CSUN FYSP
and the CSUN Residency Program, new teachers will be mentored by both a support provider
and a university instructor. Consequently, the formative assessment feature of district-sponsored
induction programs will not be absent from the FYSP because, once again, at CSU Northridge it
has been embedded in our Residency Program.
A second issue is the minimal inclusion of arts and sciences faculty in induction
programs. As reflected in the TNE principles, the role of the arts and sciences faculty is
underscored as important and crucial to the ongoing professional growth of beginning teachers.
Therefore, at CSUN we have built a Residency Program in which arts and sciences faculty
engage in collaboratively planning and teaching the Residency Seminars with education faculty
and qualified P-12 practitioners. They also offer subject matter courses that CSUN Residency
Program teachers will elect to take.
A third issue is attracting new teachers to a university two-year residency program when
they can elect to participate in district programs at no cost. To address this issue, the CSUN
Residency Program is conceptualized as one that not only embeds the FYSP but also links to a
blended master’s degree program that integrates pedagogy and content. Unlike participants in
the two-year district induction programs, CSUN Residency Program participants will have
earned a Professional Clear Credential, a Residency Certificate, and coursework toward a
Master’s Degree.
Finally, to be responsive to beginning teachers interested in earning a Clear Credential
through a university program, we needed to meet the program submission time table issued by
the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. This, coupled with the complexity of
developing a blended Residency/Master’s Degree program through a university-wide committee,
led to the development of the program in two phases. Initially, the FYSP portion of the
Residency Program was developed and submitted for approval in spring 2004, with
implementation beginning fall semester 2004.
It is anticipated that the blended
Residency/Master’s program will be submitted for approval the following year with
implementation planned for fall semester 2005.
Working under a truncated time line established by the CCTC regarding the FYSP, which
could not be ignored as we conceptualized the CSUN Residency Program, created a whole host
of challenges.
15

Constituting a small working committee representative of all three constituencies (Arts
and Sciences, Education, K-12) was not easy. Although a large committee might be
more inclusive, it risks becoming dysfunctional.
 It was difficult to schedule meetings. Evening meetings, including Friday evenings, and
some Saturday meetings were scheduled as the teaching assignments of Arts and
Sciences, Education, and K-12 faculty are not aligned.
 Faculty were personally challenged to accomplish TNE work “on top” of their regular
workload and in a concentrated manner.
 Coming from different disciplines, committee members found it essential to build and
share a common language. Extensive reading and discussion of the professional
literature on induction facilitated professional development and proved to be more
important than was initially recognized.
 Many lengthy, reiterative conversations were held in order to define a clear focus for the
sequence of the coursework.
 It was difficult to sequence coursework in that consideration had to be given to the
financial impact (one fee structure for up to 6 units, a higher fee structure for more than 6
units) as well as the time commitment required of new teachers that are employed across
schools and districts with differing academic calendars (traditional, year-round, etc.).
 Designing a program with an appropriate balance between a cohorted portion (providing
the opportunity to build a learning community) and an individualized portion (providing
teachers the opportunity to address and meet their individual learning needs) required
careful consideration.
 Differing perspectives regarding the design of coursework for both elementary and
secondary teachers had to be respected and valued.
 The normal curriculum cycle at CSU Northridge is a two-year process. To be ready in
Fall 2004 to meet the needs of our current teacher candidates, it was imperative that we
adhere to the CCTC time line for program document approval. As a result, we had to:
consult with all affected departments (39) and colleges (6) on the campus in a less than
timely fashion,
ask curriculum committees at all levels (department, college, university) to review the FYSP
proposal out of cycle,
ask current Preliminary Credential candidates for their patience as we were not able to speak
definitively during the spring semester about the FYSP requirements to become effective Fall
2004, and
postpone in-depth discussions about program implementation and its concomitant resource
implications.
Summary
In summary, the CSUN Residency Program was designed to reflect best practices in the
induction of new teachers, to meet state requirements for new teachers pursuing a Professional
Clear Credential, and to address the TNE initiative related to residency programs. A major
challenge was to design a program that would attract candidates to CSUN’s Residency Program,
given alternative options for teachers through no-cost, two-year district induction programs, and
fifth year university programs that could realistically be completed in one year and provide little
classroom support. Specific program components were developed as a result of a needs
16
assessment and literature review on induction programs, an emphasis on collaboration with Arts
and Sciences faculty and subject matter study as reflected in the TNE initiative, and standards
required through state regulations. Flexibility was built into the program so that new teachers
could pursue a Fifth Year of Study Program only, completing two residency seminars and
coursework to meet state standards, a two-year Residency Certificate Program requiring four
residency seminars and coursework, and a blended Residency/Master’s Program.
To date, the Fifth Year of Study Program has been designed, submitted for approval, and
intended to begin fall semester, 2004. Work on the remaining program options are planned for
next year with implementation intended to begin fall semester 2005. While much has been
accomplished, there are many challenges ahead including attracting teachers to the residency
program, coordinating program components across the university and with school districts,
allocating resources to support the induction program, evaluating the program’s effectiveness on
performance of teacher graduates and their retention in teaching, and assessing the impact of the
program on student achievement.
We look forward to implementing a comprehensive and high quality residency program.
We are hopeful that the program will contribute to teacher retention and student achievement,
and move toward the institutionalization of programs that extend the preparation and support of
teachers into their first years of teaching.
17
References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Community diversity and conflict among schoolteachers. The ties that
blind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
American Federation of Teachers (2001). Beginning teacher induction: The essential bridge.
Educational Issues Policy Brief, 13. Washington, D.C.: AFT Educational Issues
Department.
American Federation of Teachers (1998). Building a profession: Strengthening teacher
preparation and induction: Report of the K-16 Teacher Education Task Force.
Angelle, P.S. (2002). Mentoring the beginning teacher: Providing assistance in differentially
effective middle schools. The High School Journal, 86, 15-27.
Birchak, B.; Connor, C.; Crawford, K.M.; Kahn, L.H.; Kaser, S.; Turner, S. & Short, K.G.
(1998). Teacher study groups. Building community through dialogue and reflection.
National Council of Teachers of English.
Bowman, B.T. (1989). Self-reflection as an element of professionalism. Teachers College
Record, 90, 444-451.
Brooks, M. (1999). Mentors matter. In M. Sherer (Ed.), A better beginning. Supporting and
mentoring new teachers (pp. 53-59). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Bush, G. (2003). The school buddy system. The practice of collaboration. Chicago, IL:
American Library Association.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (2001). Standards of quality and effectiveness
for professional teacher induction programs. Sacramento, CA:
Carter, M. & Francis, R. (2001). Mentoring and beginning teachers’ workplace learning.
[Electronic version]. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 29, 249-262.
Cattani, D.H. (2002). A classroom of her own. How new teachers develop instructional,
professional, and cultural competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Cawyer, C.S.; Simonds, C. & Davis, S. (2002). Mentoring to facilitate socialization: The case
of the new faculty member. [Electronic version]. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15,
225-242.
Cooley, E. & Yovanoff, P. (1996). Supporting professionals at-risk: Evaluating interventions to
reduce burnout and improve retention of special educators. Exceptional Children, 62(4),
336-355.
18
Claycomb, C. (2000). High-quality urban school teachers: What they need to enter and to
remain in hard-to-staff schools. The State Education Standard, Winter, 17-20.
Cuthell, J. (2002). MirandaNet: A learning community—A community of learners. Journal of
Interactive Learning Research, 13, 167-186.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New
York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.
ERIC Clearinghouse on Teacher Education (1986). Current development in teacher induction
programs.
ERIC
Digest
5.
[Retrieved
from
http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed269406.html]
Etheridge, C. P. (1989). Independent action: Case studies of its roles in beginning teachers’
induction. In J. Reinhartz (Ed.), Teacher induction (pp. 61-73). Washington, DC:
National Education Association.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen
and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103, 1013-1055.
Fideler, E. F. (2000). State-initiated induction programs: Supporting, assisting, training,
assessing, and keeping teachers. The State Education Standard, Winter, 17-20.12-16.
Fideler, E. F. & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: urban teacher induction programs
and practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers, Inc.
Gabelnick, F.; MacGregor, J.; Matthews, R.S. & Smith, B.L. (1990). Learning communities:
Creating connections among students, faculty and disciplines. San Francisco, CA:
Josey-Bass, Inc.
Gottesman, B. (2000). Peer coaching for educators. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Greenberg, J.D. & Erly, M.C. (1989). School-building level variables and the induction of new
teachers. In J. Reinhartz (Ed.), Teacher induction (pp. 34-41). Washington, DC:
National Education Association.
Grimmett, P.P.; Mackinnon, A.M.; Erickson, G.L. & Riecken, T.J. (1990). Reflective practice in
teacher education. In R.T. Clift, W.R. Houston & M.C. Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging
reflective practice in education (pp. 20-38). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hamstra, J.K. (1996). A teacher network: Collegiality and professionalism in a learning
community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California Los Angeles,
California.
Hart, S.P. & Marshall, J.D. (July, 1992). The question of teacher professionalism. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 349 291).
19
Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In W.R. Houston, M.
Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of Research in Teacher Education. NY:
MacMillan Publishing Co.
Johnson, S.M. & Kardos, S.M. (2001-2002). Keeping new teachers in mind. Educational
Leadership, 27-31. (pp.45-59).
Johnson, J.M. & Kay, R. (1987). The role of institutions of higher education in professional
teacher induction. In D.M. Brooks (Ed.), Teacher induction – A new beginning (pp. 4559). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Ishler, P. & Kester, R. (1987). Professional organizations and teacher induction: Initiatives and
positions. In D.M. Brooks (Ed.), Teacher induction – A new beginning (pp. 61-68).
Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Education.
Levin, B.B. (2003). Case studies of teacher development. An in-depth look at how thinking
about pedagogy develops over time. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Louise, K.S.; Marks, H.M. & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in
restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757-798.
Martin, S. & Robbins, K. (1999). Induction: The first five days. In M. Scherer (Ed.), A better
beginning. Supporting and mentoring new teachers (pp. 27-33). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Moir, E. & Gless, J. (2001). Quality induction: An investment in teachers. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 28, 109-115.
Olebe, M., Jackson, A., & Danielson, C. (1999). Investing in beginning teachers—The
California Model. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, May, 4144.
Portner, H. (2001). Training mentors is not enough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Rosetto, C.R. & Grosenick, J.K. (1987). Effects of collaborative teacher education: Follow-up
of graduates of a teacher induction program. Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 50-52.
Scott, N.H. (2001). Mentoring new teachers: A report on the 2001 beginning teacher induction
program in New Brunswick. New Brunswick Department of Education, Fredericton,
Canada.
Stanford Research Institute (2003). The Status of the Teaching Profession 2003: Teaching and
California’s Future. Menlo Park, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
20
U.S. Department of Education (1998). Promising Practices: New ways to improve teacher
quality. Washington, DC: Author.
Varah, L.J.; Theune, W.S. & Parker, L. (1989). Beginning teachers: Sink or swim? In J.
Reinhartz (Ed.), Teacher induction (pp. 81-92). Washington, DC: National Education
Association.
Villani, S. (2002). Mentoring programs for new teachers. Models of induction and support.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Waters, L.B. & Bernhartdt, V.L. (1989). Providing effective induction program to support
teachers: It’s not easy as it looks. In J. Reinhartz (Ed.), Teacher induction (pp. 52-60).
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Whitaker, S.D. (2000a). What do first-year special education teachers need?: Implications for
induction programs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 28-36.
White, M. & Mason, W. (2001). Mentoring induction principles and guidelines. Reston, VA:
Council for Exceptional Children.
Wildman, T.M.; Niles, J.A.; Magliaro, S.G. & McLaughlin, R.A. (1990). Promoting reflective
practice among beginning and experienced teachers. In R.T. Clift, W.R.Houston & M.C.
Pugach (Eds.), Encouraging reflective practice in education (pp. 139-162). New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Wood, A. L. (2001). What does research say about teacher induction and IHE/LEA
collaborative programs? Issues in Teacher Education, 10(2), 69-81.
Wyatt, R.L. & White, J.E. (2002). Making your first year a success. The secondary teacher’s
survival guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
21