A Friend in Need.

Mentorship and Community

Teaching is politically and socially undervalued, and schools are summarily blamed for society's ills; in essence, educators are under siege.

To paraphrase Charles Dickens, these are the best of times; these are the worst of times. Certainly, the future of education is open to myriad possibilities and boundless opportunities. There is little doubt that, as we progress through the 21st century, technology and other changes will redefine how we interpret and deliver curriculum. At the same time, however, this is an extraordinarily difficult time to be entering the profession. Teaching is politically and socially undervalued, and schools are summarily blamed for society's ills; in essence, educators are under siege. As teacher educators, it is our professional responsibility to provide those entering the field with the tools to be successful. Yet, many preservice teachers feel that once they graduate, support from the university ceases and lines of communication are broken. Graduates often look elsewhere, then, for the support to negotiate all of their professional challenges. This article focuses on a university mentorship model being developed as a source of such needed support.

Setting the Context

A substantial and ever-increasing body of literature challenges teacher educators to redefine the parameters of their work. The report of the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (NCTAF), What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future (1996), places the teaching profession at the center of the nation's agenda. Since the publication of this report, a ground swell of activity has brought together local, state,, and national representative of the education professions. One of the document's key recommendations is to make professional development an ongoing part of teachers' daily work, through activities such as joint planning, peer coaching, mentorship, and research.

Developmental models of teachers' professional growth recognize that the process of becoming a teacher preoccupies inservice teachers as much as it does preservice teachers (Berliner, 1988; Fuller & Bown, 1975; Kagan, 1992). Many new teachers feel isolated, even abandoned, however, after they have left the university setting. As teachers move into the profession, they would benefit immeasurably from the support of an expert mentor during their first year of teaching. Research shows that such support improves both teacher effectiveness and retention (NCTAF, 1996; Whitebrook & Bellm, 1996; Whitebrook, Howes, & Phillips, 1990).

Teacher education programs must assume some responsibility for their graduates' future professional development. Given the present-day demands of curriculum reform, standards movements and testing, and increasingly diverse student populations, it is incumbent upon teacher educators to show more involvement. A growing consensus indicates that traditional forms of professional development do not adequately address the vision of classroom practice required for education reform (Clair, 1998; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Lewis, 1997; Lieberman, 1995; Renyi, 1996), and mutual renewal (Daniel & Brindley, 1999; NCATE, 1997). Schools benefit when they provide a learning environment for individual teachers (Hawley & Valli, 1996). Other effective models of professional development include university-school partnerships (Guskey & Huberman, 1995), professional development schools (Clark et al., 1996; Darling-Hammond, 1996), teacher networks and collaboratives (Lewis, 1997; Lieberman, 1995; Renyi, 1996), and action research (Cheek, 1997; McKay, 1992).

The literature suggests that effective professional development involves teachers as learners as well as teachers, and allows them to challenge, reflect, and examine the uncertainties of each role. Effective professional development includes many aspects (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1996). Some of those involve engaging teachers in concrete tasks that illuminate the processes of learning and development, sharing knowledge that focuses on teachers' communities of practice, and grounding inquiry in the context of classroom culture. This process should be sustained, ongoing, and intensive; supported by modeling, coaching, and collective problem solving; and connected to other aspects of school change.

One of the recommendations from The Quality 2000 Initiative (Kagan & Cohen, 1997) calls for strengthening teachers' management and leadership skills through peer coaching, mentorships, and knowledge sharing. These values are at the heart of the early childhood mentoring model at University of South Florida (USF).

The Importance of Mentoring

"Mentoring," sometimes used interchangeably with the terms "guiding," "tutoring," or "coaching," describes the relationship between a learned, skilled professional and a novice. Mentoring programs motivate experienced teachers to remain in the profession by helping them learn to share their skills with others. Such programs also offer novice teachers a practical and supportive way to learn and thus overcome the many challenges they face during the first years of teaching. Mentors are guides and role models who speak openly and directly with novices about their work, help them improve their skills in working with children and families, and provide information and feedback on a variety of issues. Mentors encourage novices to take risks, meet new challenges, and develop and reach their professional goals (Whitebrook & Bellm, 1996).

In light of the present difficulty in retaining classroom teachers, the authors believe that mentoring is imperative and indispensable. Today's attrition rates in teaching are quite remarkable! In Florida, one-fifth of all classroom teachers, and 29 percent of teachers ages 20-29, leave the profession within the first four years (Miller, 1998). The local school district for USF reports that the loss of teachers in the first year ranges from 10 to 21 percent. Despite this troubling trend, the Florida Department of Education has discontinued the funding that many school districts had used to finance beginning teacher programs. It is even worse in California, where the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing's Advisory Panel (1997) found that 40 percent of all beginning teachers leave after the first three years, and that the attrition rate increases to two-thirds among underprepared teachers.

Model Description

In the spring of 1993, USF began an age 3 to grade 3 early childhood licensure program. This is a two-year program, beginning in the junior year, with the goal of a bachelor's degree in early childhood education. The inaugural class graduated in December 1994. The program's original plan included a mentorship program to support graduates as they began their careers. However, with the myriad tasks that come with developing a new program, we repeatedly postponed this aspect. Finally, during the summer of 1998, we began to plan the mentorship program in earnest. We felt a sense of urgency because the number of graduates was growing and we were increasingly afraid that we were losing contact with those former students. In addition, program faculty were becoming increasingly alarmed that many of the teaching reform initiatives at the state level were pulling the grades K-3 curriculum further and further away from the practice emphasized in the program. It was becoming increasingly difficult to help teachers formulate a developmentally appropriate philosophy in the climate of high-stakes testing, "failing schools," and performance-based school funding.

Once a university grant to fund the mentorship activities was approved, plans were drawn up, based on a review of professional development literature. These plans included surveys of professional needs, job satisfaction, and attitudes about support. To begin our participant-driven model, we held a reunion in October to gather teachers' input on how to structure a meaningful experience. We spent much of this first meeting catching up on the graduates' lives since leaving the university. Then, we introduced the mentorship concept and sought the teachers' input. The resulting dialogue centered on the proposed scope and sequence of the mentorship program.

That same month, we sent a professional needs survey to all graduates, seeking updated information on the teachers, including their work history since graduation and what kind of professional support they needed. The results showed that the graduates preferred to engage in a mix of professional and social activities, ranging from social picnics to structured workshops. Events included a luncheon for the students graduating in December 1998 and April 1999. This was followed with a family picnic in May 1999.

We also have begun constructing an Internet site for the participants to support several activities. It will feature a calendar of area professional events, a monthly synthesis of research, chat rooms (with posted topics), a listing of possible on-line graduate courses, closed looped E-mail, and SOS (help) messages. It will allow graduates who no longer live in the area, as well as those who prefer passive participation, to benefit from the project.

As a group of committed teachers develops they, too, will function as mentors. An integral part of this model calls for identifying teachers to guide our present undergraduates. Specifically, we will be planning opportunities for these teachers to videotape their classroom practice. In that way, their pedagogy can be shared back in the university classroom, and the teachers will have the opportunity to discuss their practice firsthand and to explain their decision-making process to the early childhood undergraduates. Furthermore, we will invite the teachers to present other aspects of their professional work, when appropriate. By encouraging inservice teachers to interact with future teachers, we confirm that their expertise remains important to the university and give undergraduates the benefits of interacting with practicing classroom teachers.

This is not a rigid or complete model; its development is dynamic. As the stakeholders continue to give their input, the model will evolve accordingly. In order to be successful, the university faculty must be willing and able to continually respond to both predictable and unforeseen proposals from the teachers. As such, this model is, and will continue to be, a work in progress.

Survey Findings and Implications

The following results are based on responses from the professional needs survey, which had an overall return rate of 50 percent. However, we chose to concentrate on only those surveys completed in their entirety (84). Of these 84 graduates, 80 percent are presently teaching in the Pre-K to 3 grade range. Forty-five percent of the teachers work in the primary grades, 36 percent in kindergarten, and 19 percent in pre-kindergarten. This breakdown has practical implications for a program design that gives equal emphasis to pre-K and primary preparation. With the vast majority of our graduates teaching in the elementary school, we wondered whether we should emphasize K-3 education further in our program scope and sequence. If so, how could we maintain the value we associate with courses designed to address preschool issues? Of the remaining graduates, 7 percent have taken time off to raise their own families, 5 percent are involved in other forms of child care, and 8 percent are working in other professions.

The respondents report a wide array of professional development in the one to five years since graduation. Twenty percent are pursuing or have completed a graduate degree in an education field. Twenty-three percent have completed the requirements for state certification for ESOL teachers. The state of Florida mandates this certification for all teachers of children for whom English is not their first language. In addition, some respondents had attended numerous workshops and seminars. The topics varied widely, but typically centered on curriculum delivery or teaching practice; specifically, guidance, reading, technology, and conflict resolution. The variety of professional development topics was surprising, and included cooperative learning, multiage grouping, communication disorders, and Americorps training.

Dramatic differences were evident in terms of what concerned these new teachers. Six teachers were concerned about time management, four cited behavior management, and four mentioned student-teacher ratios. Other answers that generated more than one response included school district issues, such as low salary, lack of resources, paperwork, standardized testing and accountability, as well as such issues as violence, inclusion, technology, and classroom management. Thirty-six percent of these issues were sole responses. These singular concerns included interacting with paraprofessionals, moving into leadership positions, inclusion, the "readiness" debate, and the at-risk referral process.

The spectrum of responses demonstrates not only how extraordinarily complex teaching is, but also how context-specific some of the issues are. This reality poses problems for university faculty seeking to emphasize professional concepts in their programs. No one clear concern emerged from the data. This finding reinforces the notion that early childhood teachers need a flexible, diverse, and ever-expanding repertoire of skills in order to be successful.

Not surprisingly, given the range of concerns, when we asked the teachers to suggest how the early childhood faculty could help them, we received no fewer than 34 distinctly different responses! The most popular replies were: more information on the graduate programs (8 percent), convenient meeting times (7 percent), and help using the Web site to share ideas (7 percent). Another theme was networking--many of the replies (43 percent) included statements about finding mentors, receiving social support, sharing ideas, and keeping in touch.

It is difficult to know where to begin supporting these teachers, especially as some of the concerns (e.g., the level of school district bureaucracy and hiring policies) are truly beyond our auspices. Nonetheless, this list clearly illustrates the need for continuing professional support after graduation. We believe the responses indicate that many graduates do feel some degree of isolation in their work. The findings confirm that we urgently need to support ongoing professional development.

Further Challenges

Simply tracking our graduates has been the most daunting challenge of our work to date. Considering that the program began just five years ago, it has been truly astonishing how difficult it is to find many alumni. Despite eliciting the help of the university alumni and development office databases to update our files, approximately 60 (or about 25 percent of the surveys) were returned undeliverable, even after a second mailing. Our experience confirms that many graduates move in order to accept teaching positions, rather than waiting for one to appear in a geographically convenient location. Therefore, we will have to redouble our efforts to track these graduates.

We have identified, however, a core group of 30 graduates, who have attended our first three meetings. We now must develop events that will appeal to a larger number of graduates. As all of our graduates are relatively new teachers, we have decided to implement a "clinical educator" workshop. Florida requires all teachers to complete clinical education before they can be assigned a preservice intern. In the early fall, we will hold a day-long workshop that fulfills these clinical requirements. We hope an event that curtails the lengthy training offered by the school districts and that has such tangible and immediate benefits will be well attended. The workshop will run simultaneously with efforts to identify classroom teachers who are willing to have their practice videotaped. Ultimately, we hope the workshop will help us identify a cadre of master cooperating teachers who reflect the philosophy of the program and who are willing to mentor preservice teachers.

The Web site also will be a vital part of our efforts to encourage flexible and convenient interaction among a larger group of graduates. As the chat room and bulletin board areas of the site gain more frequent use, we hope this will have a snowball effect and encourage greater participation. We are excited to have the opportunity to work with our small group of committed teachers, but our ultimate challenge is to create a supportive and constructive culture for all our graduates!

References

Berliner, D. (1988). Implications of studies on expertise in pedagogy for teacher education and evaluation. In New directions for teacher assessment. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

California Commission on Teacher Credentialing & California Department of Education. (1997). The California standards for the teaching profession. Sacramento, CA: Author.

Cheek, J. (1997). Teacher research as powerful professional development. Harvard Education Letter, 13(3), 6-8.

Clair, N. (1998). Teacher study groups: Persistent questions in a promising approach. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 465-492.

Clark, C., Moss, P., Goering, S., Herter, R., Lamar, B., Leonard, D., Robbins, S., Russell, T., Templin, M., & Wascha, K. (1996). Collaboration as dialogue: Teachers and researchers engaged in conversation and professional development. American Education Research Journal, 33, 193-231.

Daniel, P., & Brindley, R. (1999, April). Linking PDS theory to the lived experience: Examining the effectiveness of the NCATE standards as a vehicle for PDS self-assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking professional development. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4-10.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 597-602.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. (1996). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. In M. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 221-235). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fuller, F., & Bown, O. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education (74th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Pt. II). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Guskey, T. R., & Huberman, M. (1995). Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1996, April). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Invitational Conference on Teacher Development and School Reform, Washington, DC.

Kagan, D. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.

Kagan, S., & Cohen, N. (1997). Not by chance: Creating an early care and education system for America's children. The Quality 2000 Initiative. New Haven, CT: Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy.

Lewis, A. C. (1997). A new consensus emerges on the characteristics of good professional development. Harvard Education Letter, 13(3), 1-4.

Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591-596.

McKay, J. A. (1992). Professional development through action research. Journal of Staff Development, 13, 18-21.

Miller, M. J. (1998). Leavers, stayers, and retirees. Teachers in Florida public schools, 1992-93 to 1996-97: A preliminary study. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education, Office of Strategy Planning.

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: Author.

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (1997). Draft standards for identifying and supporting quality professional development schools. Washington, DC: Author.

Renyi, J. (1996). Teachers take charge of their learning: Transforming professional development for student success. New York: National Foundation for the Improvement of Education.

Whitebrook, M., & Bellm, D. (1996). Mentoring and early childhood teachers and providers: Building upon and extending tradition. Young Children, 52(1), 59-64.

Whitebrook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1990). Who cares ? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America. Final report: National child care staffing study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Call for Papers: 2001 Theme Issue on Global Migration and Schooling This international issue will focus on international migration and migration within a nation (e.g., rural to urban migration) as it affects schools, children s families, and community services offered to children. Articles can discuss this theme within a larger educational, social, cultural, historical, and political context in different countries. Implications of migration due to various reasons (e.g., war, natural disaster, opportunity for self development) on children's total development, education, and care will be highlighted in this issue. Specific issues such as educating populations with different languages and dialects, second language learners, and curricula that focus on serving the needs of children and families in multicultural and multilinguistic societies can be examined within the context of immigration and schooling. Articles may integrate theory, research, policies, program, and practices related to migration and schooling. Submit manuscripts by July 31, 2000. We are now accepting articles from U.S. as well as non-U.S, natives. Send four copies of manuscript to 2001 Theme Issue, ACEI, 17904 Georgia Ave., Ste. 215, Olney, MD 20832. For more information, contact Co-editors Navaz Bhavnagri (313-577-0953) or Anarella Cellitti (512-593-2838).

Roger Brindley is Assistant Professor, Pam Fleege is Associate Professor, and Stephen Graves is Professor, Department of Childhood/Language Arts/Reading, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.