BEGINNING TEACHERS INDUCTION PRACTICES IN TEXAS:

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

By
Gerald B. Hudson

Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School

of Texas A&M University-Commerce
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August, 2004

BEGINNING TEACHERS INDUCTION PRACTICES IN TEXAS:

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

Approved:
__________________________________________________
Advisor
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
Dean of College
__________________________________________________
Dean of Graduate Studies and Research

ii

Copyright 2004
Gerald B. Hudson

iii

ABSTRACT
BEGINNING TEACHERS INDUCTION PRACTICES IN TEXAS:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Gerald B. Hudson, Ed.D.
Texas A&M University-Commerce, 2004
Advisor: Carolyn Kneese, Ed.D
The purpose of this study was three fold. One was to determine if the
administration of the TxBESS program has been of such a quality as to establish and
maintain a strong induction program for beginning teachers. Another was to determine if
there was a significant difference in responses of campus administrators pertaining to
characteristics of induction programs between those utilizing TxBESS and those that do
not. The third purpose was to determine if there was a significant difference in the
turnover rate of teachers in the schools involved in this study that utilize TxBESS and
those that do not. A survey was used to examine the differences between the two groups
the TxBESS and NON-TxBESS group. The survey gathered quantitative information on
Demographic Information; Team Selection, Logistics, and Duties; Team member
Training; and Overall Effectiveness.
Participants in this study involved administrators or any campus level employee
that was directly involved with the teacher induction process. One school district was
randomly selected from each of the twenty ESC (Educational Service Center) regions that
participated in the TxBESS program and matched to a school district not utilizing the
TxBESS program. Subsequently, 4 schools (2 elementary and 2 secondary schools) from
each of the selected districts were matched using campus comparison group data and
compared to 4 equivalent schools in the districts not utilizing TxBESS. The survey was

iv

v
sent to 160 administrators, 80 from the randomly selected schools and 80 from the
matched schools. There were ninety-three surveys returned out of one hundred and sixty.
Fifty respondents were from schools districts utilizing TxBESS and forty-three
respondents were from the matched NON-TxBESS group. As a result, the return rate was
calculated as fifty-nine percent.
The findings of this study revealed that TxBESS was an effective beginning
teacher induction program. There were no statistically significant differences found
between the means responses of the respondents from both the TxBESS group and the
NON-TxBESS groups in reference to the characteristics of an induction program.
However, differences were found in e-mail, regularly scheduled face to face meetings,
and communication through mentors as effective means of assisting beginning teachers;
as well as receiving some form of beginning teacher induction training. Also, there were
no statistically significant differences found between the school districts utilizing the
TxBESS program and school districts utilizing their own form of induction, in reference
to the teacher turnover ratio. In summary, based upon the findings, school districts
utilizing their own form of induction were equally as effective as the school districts that
utilized the TxBESS program.

Dedications

This dissertation is dedicated to my wife and my family. Thanks for all the love and
support. I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to the family members and friends
who are not here to help me celebrate this moment. They are:
Cleophous Hudson Grandfather
Emmett Henderson- Grandfather
Chirley MAC Mclaurin Brother-in-Law
Brooke D. Nichols - Friend

vi

Acknowledgment

First, I would like to give thanks to God, through whom all things are possible.
There have been countless number of people who have contributed to my development
both personally and professionally. I would especially like to thank my wife, Elizabeth
for all her patience, love and understanding, which has allowed me to complete this
process. I am also eternally grateful to my parents for instilling in me the value of
education.
Additionally, I would also like to thank my dissertation committee. Firstly, Dr.
Anita Pankake, my initial chairperson, thank you for your encouragement to pursue a
doctorate. Dr. Carolyn Kneese, my chairperson, thank you, for picking up the workload,
and providing the stability I needed to complete this journey. Dr. Leonardo Ledezma,
thank you for being a phone call away when I needed help and assistance. Dr. Jane
McDonald, thank you for accepting the challenge of being a part of this grueling journey.
Numerous friends and families have provided me with emotional support and I
cannot thank them enough. They are: the Nichols Family, the Hudson family, the
Malveaux family, the McLaurin Family, and the Lakewood Pointe Community. Their
prayers and kind words that help me through sleepless nights, frustration, and self-doubt.
I have been blessed to have a supportive network of friends.
Finally, to all the people, that I have omitted, blame it on the mind and not the
heart. I am eternally grateful for all that you have done.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................xi
LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................xiv
CHAPTER 1........................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION OF THE STUDY......................................................................1
Statement of the Problem.............................................................................3
Purpose of the Study....................................................................................4
Research Questions......................................................................................4
Assumptions.................................................................................................5
Definition of Terms......................................................................................5
Chapter Summary........................................................................................7
CHAPTER 2 ......................................................................................................................8
LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................................8
Factors in Teacher Decision to Leave the Education Profession ................8
Retirement......................................................................................11
School Staffing Action...................................................................11
Family or Personal.........................................................................11
To Pursue Other Jobs.....................................................................12
Dissatisfaction................................................................................12
Poor Salaries.....................................................................13
Poor Administrative Support.............................................13
Student Discipline Problems.............................................14
The Developmental Phases of A Teacher ..................................................14
The Need for an Induction Program..........................................................17
Orientation........................................................................19
Mentoring..........................................................................19
The Adjustment of Working Conditions...........................21
Professional Development................................................21
Release Time.....................................................................21
Opportunity for Collegial Collaboration...........................22
New-Teacher Assessment.................................................22

viii

ix
Program Evaluation..........................................................23
Context Evaluation...........................................23
Input Evaluation...............................................23
Process Evaluation...........................................23
Product Evaluation...........................................24
Follow-up..........................................................................24
Models of Induction...................................................................................24
Program Funded by Schools/Districts/Regions................25
Peer Assistance and Review Programs.............................27
State-Funded Programs.....................................................28
Substantial Grant-Funded.................................................30
Alternative Funded Programs...........................................32
History of Induction Practices in Texas.....................................................35
TxBESS (Texas Beginning Educator Support System).............................36
Program Standards.........................................................................39
Chapter Summary......................................................................................42
CHAPTER 3 ....................................................................................................................44
METHODOLOGY................................................................................................44
Research Design.........................................................................................44
Methods......................................................................................................45
Data Sources..................................................................................46
Selection of Subjects......................................................................46
Instrumentation..............................................................................49
Reliability/Validity.........................................................................50
Data Collection Procedures............................................................51
Data Analysis.............................................................................................52
Research Ethics..............................................................................53
............................................................................................................
Limitations.................................................................................................55
Delimitations..............................................................................................56
CHAPTER 4......................................................................................................................57
RESULTS...............................................................................................................57
Demographic Information..........................................................................58
Overall Effectiveness of the TxBESS Program.........................................61
Comparison of Program Characteristics....................................................67
Team Selection, Logistic, and Duties............................................67
Team Member Training................................................................103
Turnover Rate..........................................................................................107
Summary..................................................................................................110

CHAPTER 5....................................................................................................................112
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMEDATIONS..112

Findings....................................................................................................113
Discussion of Findings.................................................................114
Summary of Major Findings........................................................128
Implications for Theory...........................................................................129
Implications for Practice..........................................................................132
Recommendations for Future Research...................................................134
REFERENCES................................................................................................................137
APPENDIX A: Consent/Cover Letter.............................................................................142
APPENDIX B: IRB Permission.......................................................................................144
APPENDIX C: Instrument...............................................................................................145
APPENDIX D: Permission to Use Instrument................................................................151
APPENDIX E: Stratifying Sampling Procedure..............................................................152
APPENDIX F: Districts Participating in TxBESS By Region By Year..........................153
VITA................................................................................................................................157

List of Tables
Table
1. Teaching Experiences in Years..............................................................................59
2. Principal Experiences in Years...............................................................................60
3. School Level..........................................................................................................61
4. Like to Participate the Next Year...........................................................................62
5. Incorporate on Your Campus for Support of Beginning Teachers.........................63
6. TxBESS Teachers in Comparison to Teacher Supported Through A Different
Program..................................................................................................................64
7. The Number of Teachers on Campus.....................................................................68
8. T-test Analysis on the Number of Teachers on Campus........................................68
9. Number of Teachers on Campus with Zero Years of Experience..........................69
10. T-test Analysis on the Number of Teachers on Campus with Zero Years of
Experience..............................................................................................................70
11. The Number of Teachers Who Participated in a Beginning Teacher Induction
Program..................................................................................................................71
12. T-test Analysis on the Number of Teachers Who Participated in a Beginning
Teacher Induction Program....................................................................................71
13. Choice to Participate in the Program or Requirement...........................................72
14. T-test Analysis on Choice to Participate in the Program or Requirement.............72
15. Person Responsible for Pairing Mentors................................................................73
16. T-test Analysis on the Person Responsible for Pairing Mentors............................74
17. Criteria Used to Pair Mentors with Beginning Teachers.......................................75

xi

xii

18. T-test Analysis on the Criteria Used to Pair Mentors with Beginning Teachers....76
19. Mechanisms Provided to the Beginning Teacher and Mentor...............................78
20. T-test Analysis on Mechanisms Provided to the Beginning Teacher and Mentor. 79
21. Important Component in Supporting Beginning Teachers....................................81
22. T-test Analysis on the Important Component in Supporting Beginning Teachers.82
23. Methods Used to Optimize Beginning Teachers Chance for Success .................85
24. T-test Analysis Methods Used to Optimize Beginning Teachers Chance for
Success...................................................................................................................86
25. Time Per Week Spent on Beginning Teacher Support Activities...........................88
26. T-test Analysis on Time Per Week Spent on Beginning Teacher Support Activities
................................................................................................................................89
27. Time Spent with Each Beginning Teacher.............................................................90
28. T-test Analysis on Time Spent with Each Beginning Teacher...............................90
29. How Often the Respondents Meet with the Support-Team about the Beginning
Teacher Needs........................................................................................................92
30. T-test Analysis on How Often the Respondents Meet with the Support-Team about
the Beginning Teacher Needs................................................................................92
31. Form of Communication Used in Assisting Beginning Teachers on Campus.......94
32. T-test Analysis on Form of Communication Used in Assisting Beginning Teachers
on Campus.............................................................................................................96
33. Activities Engaged with Beginning Teachers........................................................98
34. T-test Analysis on Activities Engaged with Beginning Teachers.......................100
35. Receive any Training...........................................................................................103

xiii

36. T-test Analysis on Receiving any Training..........................................................104

37. Type of Training...................................................................................................105
38. T-test Analysis on Type of Training.....................................................................105
39. Rate training.........................................................................................................106
40. T-test Analysis on Rating Training.......................................................................107
41. School Districts Involved in this Study Which Subscribes to TxBESS..............108
42. Stratified School Districts Not Utilizing TxBESS...............................................109
43. T-test Analysis on Teacher Turnover Ratio..........................................................110

List of Figures
Figure
1. Graph Demonstrating When Teachers Leave the Classroom..................................9
2. Percent Teachers Demonstrating Various Reason for Their Turnover...................11
3. Percent Teachers Demonstrating Various Reasons for Their DissatisfactionRelated Turnover....................................................................................................12
4. Graph Demonstrating the Phases of First Year Teachers Attitude Towards
Teaching.................................................................................................................15
5. Chart Demonstrating the Outline of TxBESS Framework....................................38
6. Chart Demonstrating the Researchers Sampling Procedures...............................48

xiv

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Education predicts that American schools will need two
million new teachers over the next decade (Colley, 2002). The shortage of teachers has
escalated over the past ten years, which is evidenced by the following passage:
In education, as in any employment area, each year produces a certain number of
newly minted professionals. But due to the particular circumstances of our time,
the annual influx of newcomers to the teaching profession needs to rise
dramatically in the coming decade. Hired in large numbers in the 1960s and 70s
to teach a booming student population, many veteran teachers have started
reaching the natural end of their careers. Meanwhile, an expanding student
population, coinciding with a proliferation of class-size reduction initiatives that
require schools to lower their teacher-student ratio in certain grades, is creating
more demands for teachers ( Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002, p. 10).
States, districts, and schools have instituted a wide range of initiatives to recruit new
teachers: career-change programs designed to entice professionals into midcareer
switches to teaching; alternative certification programs to allow college graduates to
postpone formal education training and begin teaching immediately; recruitment of
teaching candidates from other countries; and such financial incentives as signing
bonuses, student loan forgiveness, housing assistance, and tuition reimbursement (Hirsch,
Koppich, & Knapp, 2001, as cited in Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). These are but a few of
the incentives utilized to recruit and retain beginning teachers in the profession.

2
Over the last decade, due to new federal and state accountability systems, many
college graduates are not considering the teaching profession. Yet, these are the same
candidates that the profession is looking towards to sustain the current education system.
Teaching is a relatively large occupation: it represents four percent of the entire civilian
work force. There are, for example, more than twice as many K-12 teachers as registered
nurses and five times as many teachers as either lawyers or professors (U.S. Bureau of
the Census, 1998, as cited in Ingersoll & Smith, 2003). Since the early 1990s, the annual
number of exits from teaching has surpassed the number of entrants by an increasing
amount, putting pressure on the nations hiring systems (Darling-Hammond, 2003). The
education workforce is in a period of crisis. Many of the beginning teachers entrusted to
teach our youth are from a non-traditional teaching path. The reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, signed into law by President Bush in January
2002, as the No Child Left Behind Act, allocates more than $55 million to three programs
offering alternative routes to licensure: (1) Troops to Teaching, (2) Transition to
Teaching, and (3) Teach for America (Ganser, 2002). Due to the shortage of teachers
these eager alternative certified teachers are welcomed with open arms.
Little can be done to alleviate the causes of attrition and retirement, but steps can
be taken to equip the beginning teacher with the necessary skills to transform a novice
teacher into a master-level teacher. This responsibility rests on the shoulders of the
various school districts, which employ these novice teachers. A growing number of states
require schools districts to support beginning new teachers as part of initial licensure, and
support for new teachers has taken on characteristics of high stakes testing (Gasner,
2002). The best way to support, develop, and cultivate an attitude of lifelong learning in

3
beginning teachers is through a new teacher induction program focused on teacher
training, support, and retention (Wong, 2002a).

Statement of the Problem

The teaching profession is at risk of not employing enough teachers to combat the
growing attrition rate and retirement. About one-third of new teachers leave the
profession within five years (Darling-Hammond, 2003). In the early 1980s, some states,
led by Florida, began to take a more aggressive role in supporting beginning teachers,
often tying induction to licensure and mandating that the new teachers go through
induction programs (Promising Practices, 1998). Several states have decided not to
mandate statewide induction programs, one of them being the state of Texas. For this
reason, Texas schools may be at risk of incurring a high attrition rate. Nineteen percent
of the entering teachers left teaching after their first year, and of those who remained,
twelve percent left teaching after their second year. By the fifth year, almost half of the
10,381 Texas teachers had left the classroom (Policy Research Report, nd). New
teachers need more than mentors; they need induction programs that acculturate them to
the school and equip them for the classroom (Wong, 2002a).

Knowing that it takes an

entire school community to induct a new teacher, successful programs solicit the input of
several stakeholders in effective mentoring, including current and former mentors, retired
teachers, school administrators, teacher association officials, and representatives of
higher education in designing new programs and improving existing programs (Gasner,
2002). In response to this urgent need, Texas has implemented a voluntary induction
program called the Texas Beginning Education Support System (TxBESS). The program

4
aims to increase teacher retention and develop beginners professional expertise (Garza &
Wurzbach, 2002).

Purpose of the Study

The literature strongly supports the need for an induction program to adequately
prepare beginning new teachers for the teaching profession. Although induction
programs differ from school district to school district, they share certain characteristics.
For example, all successful induction programs help new teachers establish effective
classroom management procedures, routines, and instructional practices (Wong, 2002a).
The goals of these programs must be not only to retain teachers, but also to promote
ambitious levels of classroom instruction that will help all students be successful (Moir &
Gless, 2001).
The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine the differences between
schools in school districts that implemented the TxBESS induction program and those
utilizing their own form of induction program.

Research Questions
This study focused on answering the following question about the induction
practices in the State of Texas. The research questions are:
1. Has the administration of the TxBESS program been of such a quality as
to establish and maintain a strong induction program for beginning
teachers?

5
2. Is there a significant difference in responses of campus administrators
pertaining to characteristics of induction programs between those utilizing
TxBESS and those that do not?
3. Is there a significant difference in the turnover rate of teachers in the
schools involved in this study that utilize TxBESS and those that do not?

Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this study:
1. The researcher will be objective in collecting and analyzing the data.
2. The building principal, an administrator, or a school employee
responsible for the campus level induction practice, will respond to the
survey accurately and truthfully in regards to the inductions practices on
their campus.
3. The building principal, an administrator, or a school employee
responsible for the campus level induction practice, will have a common
understanding of the terminology used in this study.
4. The data will be interpreted as intended by the participants, in order to
provide accurate data analysis.

Definition of Terms
The following terms were used for the purpose of this study:

Beginning teacher: This term refers to teachers, who are new to the
profession, the school district, or the particular school.

Campus Group: Each school (also referred to as campus) has a unique

comparison group of 40 other public schools (from anywhere in the state), that
closely matches that school on six characteristics. (Note that only schools that
would normally carry a rating of Exemplary, Recognized, Acceptable, or LowPerforming are included in comparison groups.)

Program Evaluation: This term refers to the evaluations that assess activities
that provide services.

Veteran teacher: This term refers to teachers with at least four years of
experience at one particular campus.

Teacher attrition: This term refers to number of teachers in one year who are
no longer teaching the following year.

Teacher retention: This term refers to the proportion of teachers in one year
who are still teaching in the following year.

Teacher mobility: This term refers to teachers who move to another school or
school district to teach.

Mentors: This term refers to the veteran teacher who has been entrusted to
help and advise the beginning teacher in their daily school endeavors.

Teacher Induction: This refers to the program that help beginning new
teachers become competent and effective professionals in the classroom.

TxBESS: refers to The Texas Beginning Educator Support System, which is

the Texas program developed by State Board for Educator Certification to
combat the growing attrition rate of beginning teachers.

ESC: refers to the Texas Education Agencys 20 regional education service

center.

PDAS: refers to professional development and support, an item used to

evaluate teacher performance.

Summary
This chapter was designed to offer insights into the concept of teacher induction
programs. Historically, little attention has been paid to the development, in particular the
induction, of educations prime resourceits teachers (Moir & Gless, 2001). A
structured induction program can promote student achievement, by equipping novice
teachers with the necessary tools to reach all students. Research demonstrates that more
than half of the beginning new teachers in Texas will leave the profession for a number of
reasons by their third year of service. In order to guarantee that no child will be left
behind, Texas must retain and support new teachers. The state of Texas has implemented
many programs to keep students from dropping out. Yet the state is losing their
educational workforce through dissatisfaction, attrition and retirement.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter summarizes the research literature pertaining to factors in a teachers
decision to leave the education profession; the developmental phases of a teacher; the
need for an induction program; models of induction; history of induction practices in
Texas; and a summary.

Factors in Teacher Decision to leave the Education Profession

Teachers leave the profession for many reasons, but their reasoning always begins
with the same problems. Consider the passage:
Only two weeks on the job and Jeff was seriously questioning his career choice.
The lack of discipline in his classroom, the frenetic daily pace, and the record
keeping and responsibilities felt like an oncoming train. Tight schedules made
connecting with other teachers difficult, and he had many questions. What
should he do about Jamie, who was antagonizing other students? How could he
motivate Laura, who seemed bright but never did her homework? Jeff felt
overwhelmed, discouraged, and alone. Maybe he wasnt meant to be a teacher.
Maybe it wasnt too late to find another way to put his love of biology to good
use (Brennan, Thames, & Roberts, 1999, p. 49).
For first-year teachers, the transition from preparing to teach to actual teaching in a
classroom is a major step (Hope, 1999). Nationally, the number of new teachers who
decides to leave the classroom by the end of their fifth year is slightly more than thirty

9
percent. The graph (Figure 1.) shows that after about the seventh year, as teachers gain
experience, the rate at which they leave the classroom starts to level off (Bolich, 2001).

Figure 1. When Teachers Leave the Classroom.

Bolich, A. (2001 ). Reduce your losses: Help new teachers become veteran teachers.
Retrieved Feb 27, 2004, from www.sreb.org/main/highered/reducelosses.asp

The graph (Figure 1.) stays level and does not rise until teachers near retirement. The
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has determined factors through research
that cause teachers to leave the profession. The factors were the results of data collected
from two national surveys: The Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) and its compliment
the Teacher Followup Survey (TFS). SASS is the largest and most comprehensive data
source available on staffing, occupational, and organizational aspects of schools
(Ingersoll, 2002). The following passage explains the criteria of the study implemented
by NCES:
In each cycle, NCES administers survey questionnaires to a random sample of

10
approximately 55,000 teachers and 12,000 principals from all types of schools
and from all 50 states. One year later, the same schools are again contacted and
all those in the original teacher sample who had moved from or left their
teaching jobs are given a second questionnaire to obtain information on their
departures. This latter group, along with a representative sample of those who
stayed in their teaching jobs, composes the population of the TFS. The TFS is
the largest and most comprehensive data source on teacher turnover in the
United States. Unlike most previous surveys, the TFS includes teacher crossschool migration, teacher attrition from the occupation, the reasons teachers
themselves give for their departures, and a wide range of information on the
characteristics and conditions of schools. The data presented here come from
all four cycles of the TFS. They represent all teachers for grades K-12 and
come from all types of schools, both public and private (Ingersoll, 2002, p.20).
The data from the study reveals five various reasons for teacher turnover. The reasons
were retirement, school staffing action, family or personal, to pursue other jobs, and
dissatisfaction. The following chart (Figure 2.) reveals the percentages representing the
various reasons why teacher leave the profession.

11

Figure 2. Percent Teachers Giving Various Reasons for Their Turnover.

Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong
prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86(631), 16-31.
Retirement
Although retirement is inevitable, it only represents twelve percent of the total
turnover. This component only affects the attrition rate, because by definition retirement
is not included in migration.

School Staffing Action

School Staffing cutbacks due to lay-offs, school closings, and reorganizations
account for a larger proportion of turnover than does retirement (Ingersoll, 2002). These
staffing issues are primarily the result of teachers migrating from one job to another.
Rarely, do these teachers leave the profession altogether.

Family or Personal
This category refers to teachers who leave the profession for various personal
reasons including leave for pregnancy, health problems, family moves, and child rearing.
This category accounts for thirty-nine percent of teacher turnover.

12
To Pursue Other Jobs
This category is directly related to the working and organizational conditions and
accounts for twenty-five percent of teacher turnover. This includes opportunity to pursue
career opportunities inside and outside of the educational realm.

Dissatisfaction
Dissatisfaction is considered the catch all of reasons for leaving the teaching
profession (Figure 3.). This category represents the remaining twenty-six percent.

Figure 3. Percent Teachers Giving Various Reasons for Their Dissatisfaction-Related

Turnover.
Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong
prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86(631), 16-31.
Those who depart because of job dissatisfaction most often cite low salaries, lack of
support from the school administration, lack of student motivation, student discipline
problems, and lack of teacher influence over decision making as the causes of their
leaving (Ingersoll, 2002). Some of the factors that did not rank high as factors causing
dissatisfaction were large class sizes, intrusions on classroom time, lack of planning time,

13
lack of community support, and interference with teaching. The top three reasons why
teachers cite dissatisfaction as a reason for leaving the professions were: poor salary, poor
administrative support, and discipline problems.

Poor Salaries
Salaries represent forty-eight percent of the teachers reasons for leaving the
education profession based on dissatisfaction. Overall, teacher salaries are about 20
percent below the salaries of other professionals with comparable education and training
(Darling-Hammond, 2003). Even though teachers are more altruistically motivated than
are some other workers, teaching must compete with other occupations for talented
college and university graduates each year (Darling-Hammond, 2003).

Poor Administrative Support

Beginning teachers confidence about teaching depends greatly on the support
they receive from their schools. Without adequate guidance and support from fellow
teachers, school principals and administrators, many new teachers feel they are left to
sink or swim early in their careers (Bolich, 2001). Principals play a key role in
inducting beginning teachers into their schools as well as into the teaching profession
(Hughes, 1994; Lieberman & Miller, 1994; Smith & Andrews, 1989 as cited in Brock &
Grady, 1998).

14
Student Discipline Problems
The number-one-ranked problem was the same for both principals and beginning
teachers: classroom management and discipline (Brock & Grady, 1998). Beginning
teachers often are assigned to teach the most difficult students or subjects in which they
lack adequate preparation (Bolich, 2001). Discipline often relates to three areas: students
being on task, students demonstrating responsible behavior, and respecting others
(Pelletier, 2000). The beginning teachers are too overwhelmed by the amount of
paperwork and planning involved in teaching one class, sometimes resulting in a lack of
style of classroom management. This is considered the breaking point for most
beginning teachers. Classroom management involves (1) setting up the physical space of
the classroom, (2) establishing a routine, (3) setting boundaries/rules, and (4) maintaining
a level of attention from students (Pelletier, 2000).

The Developmental Phases of a Teacher

Research has categorized a teachers development into three stages (Gilles,
Cramer, & Hwang, 2001). The beginning stage, or survival, is characterized by the
teachers struggling with personal problems as well as professional competence. This is
often the time when teachers wonder if they are capable; discipline is often an issue for
them. During the middle stage, teachers demonstrate more comfort with the situation and
pay more attention to the child rather than the class. During the last stage, or mastery
stage, they function smoothly within school and their own experience (Gilles, Cramer, &
Hwang, 2001). The beginning is the crucial stage in determining if the novice teacher
will survive. Too often novice teachers are given the tough assignments without support.

15
These novice teachers learn through trial and error, which perpetuates their classroom
problems and causes many bright, intelligent and talented new teachers to leave the
profession. New teachers move through several phases: from anticipation, to survival, to
disillusionment, to rejuvenation, to reflection, then back to anticipation (Scherer, 1999).
The phases are represented graphically in figure 5.

Figure 5. The Phases of a First-Year Teachers Attitude Toward Teaching

Scherer, M. (Eds.). (1999). A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new
teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
The anticipation phase begins during early August and continues through MidAugust. This is from the build up of unnerving stress when anticipating their very first
teaching assignment. It normally occurs shortly after completing the studentteaching
phase of a traditional teacher preparation program, or the completion of an alternative
certification program. New teachers enter the classroom with a tremendous commitment
to making a difference and somewhat idealistic view of how to accomplish their goals
(Moir, 1990). This feeling of anticipation begins to wear off during the first month of
school. The next phase is survival, which begins to sink in around mid-October; the first-

16
year teachers start to feel overwhelmed, due to the insurmountable paper work, rapid
pace of teaching, lesson planning, and experiencing situation that were never discussed in
a teacher preparation program. Although tired and surprised by the amount of work, firstyear teachers usually maintain a tremendous amount of energy and commitment during
the survival phase, and they harbor hope that soon the turmoil will subside (Moir, 1990).
The first-year teachers, after several weeks of frustration, enters into a phase of
disillusionment. The extensive time commitment, the realization that things are probably
not going as smoothly as they would like, and low morale contribute to this period of
disenchantment (Scherer, 1999). During the phase of disillusionment, teachers start to
question their ability and overall commitment to the education profession.
Compounding an already difficult situation is the fact that new teachers confront several
new events during this time frame: back-to-school night, parent conferences, and their
first formal evaluation by the site administrator (Moir, 1990). This is considered the
lowest point in the academic school year for the first-year teacher. In January, after a
well-deserved winter break, the first-year teachers attitude starts to change from
disillusionment to rejuvenation. The break allows the first-year teacher the opportunity to
rest, recuperate, organize, and plan curriculum. During the rejuvenation phase the firstyear teacher goes through a metamorphosis. Heres an example of that metamorphosis:
Putting past problems behind them, new teachers return to school rested and
reinvigorated. They now have a better understanding of the system, more
acceptance of the realities of teaching, and a sense of accomplishment at having
made it through the first, and hardest, part of the school year. Although still
months away, the end of school year becomes a beacon of hope. By now, new

17
teachers have also gained confidence and better coping skills to prevent or
manage problems that they will encounter. During this phase new teachers focus
on curriculum development, long-term planning, and teaching strategies
(Scherer, 1999,p. 22).
By the end of the rejuvenation phase, teachers start to evaluate whether they have
achieved their purpose in the classroom.
The next phase is the reflection phase, which occurs during the last six weeks of
school. The first-year teacher has the opportunity to reflect on situations that were
successful as well as incidents that had noble intentions but were a complete flop. The
end is in sight, and they have almost made it; but more importantly, a vision emerges
about what their second year will look like, which brings them to a new phase of
anticipation (Moir, 1990). As these phases imply, induction brings a shift in role
orientation and an epistemological move knowing about teaching through formal study to
knowing how to teach confronting the day-to-day challenges (Feiman-Nemser, 2001).

The Need for Induction Programs

The United States Department of Education projects the nation will need more
than two million new teachers by 2010. Aside from rising enrollment and normal teacher
attrition, three factors drive this tremendous demand for new teachers: class size
reduction, a demographic bulge of teachers approaching retirement, and an attrition rate
among new teachers that ranges from thirty-five to fifty percent nationwide during the
first five years (Moir & Gless, 2001). The major problem with many colleges offering
teacher education programs is that education departments require approximately three

18
and one-half years for theory and educational practice, and one-half year of actual
classroom field experience. The novice teacher is well versed in theory, but lacks the
quality field experience to be successful in the classroom. This problem can be alleviated
through a structured induction program.
Teacher induction is often framed as a transition from preservice preparation to
practice, from student of teaching to teacher of students (Feiman-Nemser, 2001).
Induction is the process of training, supporting, and retaining new teachers by:
(1) Providing instruction in classroom management and effective teaching techniques; (2)
Reducing the difficulty of the transition into teaching; (3) Maximizing the retention rate
of highly qualified teachers (Wong, 2002b). The induction program must have vision,
need assessment, and goals. The goal of these programs must be not only to retain
teachers, but also to promote ambitious levels of classroom instruction that will help all
students be successful (Moir & Gless, 2001). In addition, induction programs can
represent a new conceptualization of teacher development in which the responsibility for
teacher learning is shared across traditional institutional boundaries by linking university
teacher preparation with inservice learning (Moir & Gless, 2001). Through a 2001
review of the literature, the Arizona K-12 center found nine elements common to
successful induction programs: (a) orientation, (b) mentoring, (c) the adjustment of
working conditions for new teachers, (d) professional development, (e) release time, (f)
opportunities for collegial collaboration, (g) new-teacher assessment (h) program
evaluation, and (i) follow-up (Policy Brief, 2002).

Orientation

19
The central task of preservice preparation is built on current thinking about what
teachers need to know, care about, and be able to do in order to promote substantial
learning for all students (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). The purpose of an orientation is to
address the immediate personal needs of the beginning teacher, which includes housing,
transportation, local attraction, health, and economics. Key school personnel can:

Give the inducted a tour of, not only the school, but the surrounding community.
Introduce the novice to community leaders and volunteers.

Find out what needs and questions the new teacher may have.

Anticipate questions and concerns with written information that can be used as a
friendly reminder of where, when, and how to locate needed services and goods.

Providing this guidance will more likely assure that on the first day of school the
beginning teacher will feel comfortable about the community as well as the new work
assignment (Dyal & Sewell, 2002).

Mentoring
One tool in helping novice teachers become successful is by providing them a
mentor. Diana Kyle, Gayle Moore, and Judy Sanders (1999) note that prospective
mentors should participate in professional development to learn about the mentoring
process and what is expected of them before assuming their duties (Holloway, 2001).
The word mentor originated in Greek mythology and has survived for more than 3,500
years. Those who have read Homers epic poem The Odyssey will recall that when
Odysseus prepared to leave his family and fight in the Trojan War, he was warned that he
could not return for more than twenty years. Concern for his son, Telemachus, prompted

20
him to ask his friend, named Mentor, to guide his son on his journey to maturity. Mentor
watched over and nurtured Telemachus as a trusted friend and counselor, thus providing a
model for the process that today we call mentoring (Brock & Grady, 1997). In this great
tale, Mentors complex role was twofold: to care for Telemachus while guiding the young
man to adulthood; and to help Odysseus fulfill his lifes quest by preparing Telemachus to
stand by his father in their fight to regain control of their home in Ithaca (Daloz, 1986, as
cited in Debolt, 1992). The mentor is essential in helping a new teacher develop the skills
necessary to become an exceptional teacher, immune to the ills of the first year teacher
syndrome.
Mentoring motivates experienced teachers to remain in the profession by helping
them learn to share 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 year of teaching (Brindley, Fleege, & Graves, 2000). An early account of
the term mentor/protg was used to describe the relationship between Plato and
Aristotle. This relationship could have resulted in a different turn of events, had Plato
been insecure and threatened by the inquisitive and brilliant young Aristotle. This
mentor/mentee relationship enabled Aristotle, under the clear guidance of his mentor, to
become one of the most innovative thinkers in the Western World (Tyler, Blalock, &
Clarke, 2000). A mentor is a personal guide for the mentee in his/her quest for education
excellence. Carolyn Evertson and Margaret Smithey (2000) found that novice teachers
working with trained mentors possessed a higher level of teaching skills than new
teachers whose mentors were not trained (Holloway, 2001).
The Adjustment of Working Conditions

21
For the first time, novice teachers are fully responsible for blending the insights
learned from their own educational experiences and the pedagogical theory gleaned from
teacher education programs with the reality of inspiring and managing the learning of
their students on a day-to-day basis (Moir & Gless, 2001). To make life less stressful for
beginning teachers, administrators can reduce the number of students in their classroom,
refrain from assigning them the most challenging students, and minimize their
extracurricular and committee assignments (Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002).

Professional Development
Teacher development is the key to student success (Moir & Bloom, 2003).
Schools districts and other educational organizations must make teacher learning a
priority (Moir & Gless, 2001). The new paradigm of professional development calls
for ongoing study and problem solving among teachers in the service of a dual agenda
promoting more powerful student learning and transforming schools (Lieberman, 1995 as
cited in Feiman-Nemser, 2001).

Release Time
The induction program should incorporate release time for the novice teacher to
participate in workshops, giving the novice teacher an opportunity to stay abreast of the
new trends in classroom management. Participants should meet regularly throughout the
school year for a structured program of lectures by successful teachers and guest
professionals (Casalegno, 2000). Protected time makes it more likely that classroom
observations will take place, that veteran and beginners will actually meet, and that

22
beginners will attend seminars at time when fatigue does not interfere with their ability to
pay attention (Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002).

Opportunities for Collegial Collaboration

Collegiality is a powerful mechanism for teachers self-improvement and can
enhance teacher retention (Walling, 1994, as cited in Hope, 1999). New teachers need
the support of individuals with whom they can communicate frequently about lesson
planning, teaching pedagogy, problem solving, and classroom management (Hope, 1999).
An easy way to get new teachers to react with veteran teachers is to provide study groups.
Study groups focused on specific topics, using running records or improving mathematics
instruction, provide beginning teachers with collaborative problem-solving models
(Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002).

New-Teacher Assessment
Veteran teachers can help beginners evaluate and analyze their teaching practices
in an effort to identify strengths and areas for improvement. This strategy is most
effective when the veteran and beginner pair takes a particular focus, either on a
classroom problem or perhaps on competencies the beginner is expected to exhibit
(Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002).

Program Evaluation

23
More often, induction programs have been designed around what administrators
thought would be helpful for new teachers without assessing the collective and individual
needs of novices (Wilkinson, 1997). All programs need an evaluative process to insure
that the program is fulfilling its intended purpose. One of the best known of the decisionfacilitation evaluation schemes is the CIPP Model (Popham, 1993). The original authors
of the CIPP model were Daniel Stufflebeam and Egon Guba. Because evaluation is a
continuing and cyclic process, it must be implemented via a systematic program
(Popham, 1993). CIPP is an acronym for the four types of evaluations. They are context
evaluation, input evaluation, process evaluation, and product evaluation.
Context Evaluation.
The context evaluation is the most basic form of evaluation. A context evaluation
attempts to isolate the problems or unmet needs in an educational setting
(Popham, 1993).
Input Evaluation.
The purpose of the input evaluation is to provide information in regards to how to
achieve the program objectives. During input evaluation the task is to ascertain
the nature of the available capabilities of the instructional system and potential
strategies for achieving the objectives identified as a consequence of context
evaluation (Popham, 1993).

24
Process Evaluation.
The process evaluation is used once the program is in operation. The purpose of
process evaluation is to identify any defects in the procedural design, particularly
in the sense that planned elements of the instructional program are not being
implemented as they were originally conceived (Popham, 1993).
Product Evaluation.
Product evaluation attempts to measure and interpret the attainments yielded by
an instructional program not only at its conclusion but, as often as necessary,
during the program itself (Popham, 1993).

Follow-up
Success requires a commitment to learn from mistakes and to identify necessary
changes in resources, policies, and practices (Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002). Cuttingedge mentor programs know that one year of teaching experience does not transform a
beginning teacher into a veteran teacher and extend mentoring into a teachers second and
sometimes third year (Ganser, 2002). Observation of the beginning teachers should be
formal and informal (Dyal & Sewell, 2002). Observation should be announced in
advance to a beginning new teacher, which will reduce the new teachers stress and
anxiety towards a formal or informal observation.

Models of Induction
Susan Villanis (2002) research has categorized all induction programs into five
categories. These categories are programs funded by the school system/district/region;

25
peer assistance and review programs; state-funded programs; substantial grant-funded
programs; and alternatively funded programs.

Programs funded by school system/district/region

These are the induction programs that are funded solely from the school, district,
or region. An example of this model of induction is the Aurora Public School Induction
Process in Aurora, Colorado. The Aurora Public Schools established a task force of
teachers and administrators with the primary charge of developing and monitoring an
induction program for educators in compliance with the new Educator Licensure Act that
was passed by the Colorado Legislature in 1991 (Villani, 2002). The Educator Licensure
Act required all school districts to implement an induction program for any newly hired
teacher, principal, and administrator with a provisional license.
Goals
The goals of the Aurora Public School Induction Process are:

Enhance the instructional skills of the individual

Enhance the leadership skills of the individual

Provide an understanding of the working culture of the Aurora Public Schools

Establish professional expectations

Provide a collaborative support network for new teachers, principals, and

administrators

Increase the retention rates of high quality staff (Villani, 2002).

Program Design
The plan identifies tasks that occur before the first day of class, within the first

26
two weeks of school, between the third and sixth week of school, and from the
sixth to the eighteenth week of school (Villani, 2002). The foundation of the
induction program is the mentoring. District resource teachers coordinate
induction teams, each consisting of a protg, his or her immediate supervisor
(i.e., the building principal or designee who is responsible for the formal
observation of the teacher) and a district-trained mentor (Villani, 2002). The new
teachers have an opportunity to meet their mentor during a three day orientation.
The mentors receive training two days before the orientation as well as training
throughout the school year.
Duration of Program
The program is implemented for one year.
Program Evaluation
The program is evaluated in a variety of ways. They are:

The protg assesses the induction program with the mentors assistance. The
process is ongoing and continues throughout the school year.

Surveys are conducted, emphasizing evaluation of the training for personal

needs, instructional needs, professional considerations, the climate and culture
of the district, and information regarding district policy.

The mentor training is evaluated within the mentor training session (Villani,
2002).

Funding
This program is funded by the district and with additional help from some grants
money.

27
Results
Respondents to the survey noted that the mentors, district resources teachers,
other support personnel, and administrators were most helpful to new teachers
adjustment (Villani, 2002). Respondents also cited the courses and the structure of
the program to be a positive experience.
Peer Assistance and Review Program
The Columbus Public Schools Peer Assistance and Review Program in Columbus, Ohio
is the featured model for this type of induction. In the mid-1980s, a group of
administrators and teachers in the Columbus schools researched a number of
program designs to assist new teachers (Villani, 2002). After several site visits
to other schools with similar demographics the team of administrators and
teachers decided on this model, because experienced faculty members would
support all new teachers.
Goals
The goals of the Columbus Public Schools Peer Assistance and Review Program
are: (1) retain new teachers (2) put experienced teachers on career ladders, which
might offer incentives to them as well as take advantage of the expertise gained
by years of experience (Villani, 2002).
Program Design
The program provides an abundance of professional development opportunities
for new teachers. The program constitutes two phases. They are: the intern
phase, and the intervention phase. During the intern phase, the mentor teacher
observes and coaches the new teacher. The intervention phase is primary for

28
experienced teachers having extreme difficulty.
Duration of Program
The duration of the Columbus Public Schools Peer Assistance and Review
Program is at least one year, maybe longer in certain cases.
Program Evaluation
The consulting teachers and new teachers are surveyed (Villani, 2002).
Funding
In 1986, the School Board generated the initial funding for the million-dollar
Program.
Results
In the first five years, eighty percent of the teachers remained, and of the twenty
percent who left, four to six percent of them had been terminated in their first year
(Villani, 2002). In the second five-year cycle, four to six percent terminated, and
eighty-one percent remained (Villani, 2002). In the third five-year cycle, the
retention rate dropped to sixty-seven percent (Villani, 2002).

State-Funded Programs
The BEST (Beginning Educator Support and Training Program) program is utilized in the
North Haven Public Schools located in North Haven, Connecticut. The program was a
result of the higher standard for teachers, implemented by the Education Enhancement
Act of 1986.
Goal
The goals of the BEST program are:

29

To ensure that every Connecticut student is taught by a highly qualified and

competent teacher (Villani, 2002).

To help ensure that all beginning teachers have opportunities to strengthen

their knowledge of subject matter and instructional strategies, enhance their
understanding of students as learners, and begin a process of lifelong
learning and professional growth (Villani, 2002).

Program Design
The BEST program requirements for the first year are:

Assignment of a mentor or support team within ten days of commencing

teaching

Regular contacts with the mentor or support team members (at least biweekly
meetings)

Local district provision of at least eight half-days to observe or professionaldevelopment-related activities

The equivalent of thirty hours of significant contacts over the course of the
school year between a beginning teacher and his/her mentor, support team
members, content colleagues, the principal and/or district facilitator (Villani,
2002).

In the second year, the district may provide mentor or support team assistance
(Villani, 2002). This decision is at the discretion of the school or district.

30
Duration of the Program
The duration of the BEST program is two years and a third year if necessary.
Program Evaluation
The state does extensive evaluation of the BEST program, through feedback from
teachers and analysis of data regarding student achievement and teacher
performance (Villani, 2002).
Funding
The state of Connecticut provides the funding for the BEST program. The state
also gives each district with two hundred dollars per registered beginning trainer.
Results
The program has recorded success in the following areas:

One hundred percent of the new teachers passed the BEST portfolio
requirement for certification

The new teachers who left the system did so only for a larger salary elsewhere
or for family relocation reasons

New teachers, mentor, and administrators responded positively (Villani,

2002).

31
Substantial Grant-Funded Programs
In 1996 the Baltimore County Public Schools established the Teacher Mentoring Program
to address two problems. They were an influx of new inexperience teachers
and low student achievement. The program specifically targets new teachers
and provides them with intensive on-site assistance from full-time mentors in
the areas of instruction, curriculum, assessment, behavior management, and
interpersonal communication (Villani, 2002).
Goal
The goals of the Teacher Mentoring Program are:

To maximize student achievement by improving teacher effectiveness and

daily instruction

To retain capable new teachers by increasing new teacher satisfaction with

their teaching experience (Villani, 2002).

Program Design
The program components are:

Through the program, full-time mentors work with new teachers and provide
intensive assistance in the areas of effective instruction, assessment, behavior
management, and interpersonal communication as they relate to student
success

The program is aligned with national, state, and local standards for
comprehensive professional development, and it emphasizes the transfer of
content and pedagogical knowledge to new teachers through continual support
in the classroom

32

The program is research based and data driven

All mentor initiatives are focused on the impact of the program on teacher
effectiveness, student achievement, and teacher retention

Monthly mentor-training sessions address the components of effective

instruction, including the application of new knowledge, technical skills, and
interpersonal skills (Villani, 2002)

Duration of Program
The duration of the Teacher Mentoring Program is solely based upon the
recommendation of an administrator.
Program Evaluation
The program is evaluated in a variety of ways including:

Survey (mentor checklist)

Mentor journals

Local, state, and national assessment data

Attrition rate of teachers (Villani, 2002).

Funding
The program is largely funded by a grant from the state, with some money from
the district (Villani, 2002).
Results
The attrition rate for the mentor school was twenty percent in 1998-99. In the
mentor school the attrition rate dropped to eleven percent in 2000 (Villani, 2002).

33
Alternatively-Funded Programs
The Vicksburg Community Schools Teacher Mentor Program was developed in 1997 as
an answer to the Michigan State Code, Section 1526. The State Code stated that for the
first three years of employment in classroom teaching, a teacher will be assigned to one
or more master teachers, college professors, or retired master teachers who will act as
mentor (Villani, 2002). In addition to providing a mentor, the district has to provide
fifteen days of intensive staff development, which is in addition to their normal in-service
days.
Goals
The goal of professional development offered in Vicksburg is to support teachers
in meeting the state requirements in ways that address the districts goals and the
teachers individual development plans (IDPs) (Villani, 2002).
Program Design
This program is designed for a teacher first three years in the district.
The first year consists of:

New teachers are assigned a building mentor. The mentor orients them to the
building and procedures, helps them prepare their room, and begins a
supportive relationship with his/her new teacher partner

First-year teachers who are new to teaching are required to attend six sessions
(approximately thirty-six hours) of professional development. This course,
called Instructional Skills, focuses on starting school, classroom
management, and instructional skills. Graduate credit is available. The
course runs from July to May. Teachers who are new to the district but have

34
taught elsewhere take a course called Instructional Refresher. When this
course was first offered, forty percent of all veteran staff participated.

Observation by mentors and instructional specialists are nonevaluative

(Villani, 2002).

The second year consists of:

Second-year teachers are required to attend five sessions of professional

development (approximately twenty-four hours) that focus on the use of
cooperative learning. The course runs July to April.

Second-year teachers are observed by their mentor, the instructional specialist

or the Instructional Consultant.

Second-year teachers receive A Guidebook for Cooperative Learning by Dee

Dishon and Pat Wilson OLeary (Villani, 2002).

The third year consists of:

The professional development plan for the third year is designed in

consultation with the principal. An Individual Development Plan is tailored to
each teaching assignment and each teachers own strengths and areas of
needed growth.

Second-year teachers are observed by their mentor and the instructional

specialist or Instructional Consultant (Villani, 2002).

Duration of Program
The program inducts teachers for three years.
Program Evaluation
Perceptual surveys are given to new teachers and mentors (Villani, 2002).

35
Discussion from staff, administrators, and participants are also used in the
evaluation process.
Funding
The program is funded through sale of press journals, tuition reimbursement, and
money allocated by the school board.
Results
According to exit interviews, teachers left mainly to retire. The second highest
reason for leaving the district was due to family relocation. Only three teachers
left the district to pursue a higher salary.

History of Induction Practices in Texas

In the state of Texas, there was no formal framework for an induction program
until 1989. In 1990-91 three pilot programs were conducted by Southwest Texas State,
Abilene Independent School District, and Education Service Center VI Huntsville
(Furtwengler, 1995). The program was phased out due to lack of statewide funding; the
state was seeking funds of 2, 000 dollars per teacher who qualified for this program. The
program was designed to be formative in nature and rely on interactions between a
mentor and beginning teacher for success (Furtwengler, 1995). The local district appoints
a policy committee comprised of one or more person from the following positions:
administrator, faculty member from higher education, experienced teacher, and if
possible, a former beginning teacher who has completed the induction program. The

36
local district is responsible for providing new teacher orientation and a minimum of thirty
clock hours (five days) of release time for beginning teacher and mentor (Furtwengler,
1995).
The dynamics of these programs included a support team. A support team
consists of the mentor, an induction-year teacher, and another individual is part of the
plan. Mentors receive a stipend of $1,500 and are trained in communication and
conference skills, observation techniques, models of instruction, and use of the Texas
Teacher Appraisal System (Furtwengler, 1995). The program also allowed the mentor the
opportunity to visit the beginning new teachers classroom on a regular basis, with at
least two each semester as a requirement. In addition to the beginning teachers
classroom workload, the beginning teacher receives training in the following areas:
district policies and procedures, needs of the school and community, activities relating to
the opening and closing of the school, student assessments, classroom management,
communication and conference skills, self-evaluation techniques, and utilization of
instruction media. The program was a positive move towards retaining the beginning
new teacher. Texas Education Code 13.038, Teacher Induction, established in 1991 the
requirement for an induction year for all new teachers (Policy Research Report, nd). The
induction year was to contain a new teacher orientation and assign a mentor for each new
teacher. No funding was appropriated to establish these induction programs and districts
were responsible for conducting mentor training out of their own budgets (Policy
Research Report,nd). The challenge, of course, is to give these newcomers the kind of
support they need if they are not only to remain in the profession, but also to develop into
educators able to teach to todays high standards (Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002).

37
Using a three-year, $10 million federal grant and a $5 million state match, the State
Board for Educator Certification developed the Texas Beginning Educator Support
System (TxBESS), which trains mentors and sets up a team that supports beginners as
they face the challenges of their first two years in the classroom (Garza & Wurzbach,
2002).

TxBESS (Texas Beginning Educator Support System)

Retaining beginning teachers has proven to be a challenge for Texas school
districts, with an estimated one-year attrition rate of nineteen percent for beginning
teachers in the 1998-99 school year. The three-year attrition rate for Texas beginning
teachers in the 1995-96 school year was nearly forty-three percent (State Board for
Educator Certification, 1999). The Texas Beginning Educator Support System (TxBESS)
is the Texas program developed by State Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) to
combat the growing attrition rate of beginning teachers. TxBESS is designed to address
three goals. The first goal is to increase teacher retention. The second goal is to assist
teachers in developing and refining teacher practices as well as provide support for high
quality instruction. The last goal is to improve student performance.
The TxBESS program began in December of the 1999-2000 school year with a
half-year pilot program serving 981 beginning teachers. In 2000-01, TxBESS was
implemented for the entire school year and served 2,059 first and second-year teachers.
In addition to the participation of the 20 ESCs, TxBESS partners included 233 school
districts and 54 teacher preparation entities (Charles A. Dana Center, 2001). The

38
TxBESS program assesses the process of the beginning teacher through a formative
assessment called the TxBESS Activity Profile (TAP).
The TAP is based on the TxBESS performance standards for teachers. The
TxBESS performance standards are grouped into four clusters. These clusters are:
Planning for Learner-Centered Instruction, A Classroom Environment that Promotes
Equity, Excellence, and Learning, Instruction and Communication, and Professionalism.
Beginning teachers are rated in each cluster; the rating system used consists of four
levels. The four levels are: developing, beginning competent, advanced competent, and
proficient. The framework is highlighted in the following figure 6.

39

Figure 6. Outline of TxBESS Framework

Garza, L., & Wurzbach, L. (2002). Texas plans drowns the idea of sink-or-swim
induction. Journal of Staff Development, 23(4), 41-5.

40
Program Standards for TxBESS
The TxBESS program standards identifies the components necessary for a
successful TxBESS program, which allows local TxBESS programs to adapt to the
different campus, districts, and regions. The TxBESS Program Standards are the
common program goals and measures around which beginning teacher support programs
can be designed and evaluated (State Board of Educator Certification, 2002). The
thirteen program standards are categorized into three components. The three components
are Design, Organization, and Context, Support and Formative Assessment of Beginning
Teachers, and Resources and Accountability.
The first component: Design, Organization, and Context, focuses on the first six
standards. They are:

Partnerships: Quality support systems enhance the effectiveness of beginning

teachers and improve the retention of those teachers in the teaching profession.
These support systems can be organized and managed most effectively through
partnerships that include the education service centers, educator preparation
entities, K-12 school districts, and other stakeholders (State Board of Educator
Certification, 2002).

Rationale and Goals: A beginning teacher support system should be built on a

vision of beginning teacher growth and development that is supported by
research. This vision reflects the needs of beginning teachers as they develop
over time and includes appropriate support activities designed to meet the needs
of beginning teachers as individuals and as a group (State Board of Educator
Certification, 2002).

41

Design and Implementation: A formal beginning teacher support system requires

commitment from all stakeholders: school board members, superintendents,
central office administrators, campus administrators, certified professional staff,
non-certified professional staff, parents, teacher organizations, college/university
faculty, retired teachers, business/community members, and service club (State
Board of Educator Certification, 2002).

District Responsibility When Employing Beginning Teachers: Districts have

policies in place that direct personnel to provide appropriate placement and
support for beginning teachers, so that beginning teachers have opportunities to
experience success (State Board of Educator Certification, 2002).

Roles and Responsibilities of Building Principals: Supported by district

administration and specialized training, building principals have unique
responsibilities to ensure that newly hired beginning teachers are supported and
retained by the school (State Board of Educator Certification, 2002).

Diversity: The support program provides knowledge and skills to beginning

teachers that enable them to work effectively with diverse student populations and
communities (State Board of Educator Certification, 2002).

The second component: Support and Formative Assessment of Beginning Teachers

focuses on standards seven through eleven. They are:

Selection of Support Team Members: Each beginning teacher has a support team
consisting of the building principal, a mentor, and an individual representing
educator preparation (State Board of Educator Certification, 2002). Support
teams are selected using well-defined criteria that are consistent with beginning

42
teachers assignments and responsibilities and team members responsibilities in
the support program (State Board of Educator Certification, 2002).

Training of Support Team Members: Support team members are well prepared to
assume their responsibilities and are consistently supported in their efforts to
assist beginning teachers (State Board of Educator Certification, 2002).

Formative Assessment and Continuous Growth of the Beginning Teacher: The

beginning teacher, in partnership with the mentor and/or other support team
members, completes the TxBESS Activity Profile (TAP), which is based on the
TxBESS framework (State Board of Educator Certification, 2002). Through the
TAP is required to be used only once during the first year of teaching, its periodic
use is encouraged to document growth in the beginning teachers classroom
practices (State Board of Educator Certification, 2002).

Individualized Support for Increases Teaching Proficiency: Support for the

beginning teacher may include activities such as one-to-one coaching, small
group meetings with other beginning teachers led by trained facilitators,
conferences, training sessions, or university-based courses (State Board of
Educator Certification, 2002).

Ongoing Professional Development of Beginning Teachers: Professional

development is designed to foster each beginning teachers understanding of the
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS), the TxBESS Framework, the
teachers students, and local instructional initiatives (State Board of Educator
Certification, 2002).

43
The last component: Resources and Accountability focuses on standards twelve and
thirteen. They are:

Allocation and use of Resources: The partnerships allocate sufficient personnel

time and fiscal resources to deliver planned services and maximize beginning
teacher success (State Board of Educator Certification, 2002).

Program Evaluation and Accountability: Beginning teacher support programs

operate a comprehensive, ongoing system of program evaluation that involves
partners and other stakeholders and foster program improvements (State Board of
Educator Certification, 2002).

In a developmental context, standards up the ante by helping new teachers craft a

professional vision of ambitious teaching (Moir & Gless, 2001).

Chapter Summary
All students deserve competent and caring teachers, all beginning teachers
deserve competent and caring mentors, and all teachers deserve competent and caring
administrators (Moir & Bloom, 2003). Teaching is politically and socially undervalued,
and schools are summarily blamed for societys ills; in essence, educators are under
siege. The need for new teachers is on the rise. Exceptional teachers, including
beginning teachers, seem to hold strong beliefs about how children learn and grow
beliefs that are based on conceptually oriented, engaged learning practices (David, 2000).
Thus, quality induction programs act as a catalyst for changing school cultures and
improving the teaching profession (Moir & Gless, 2001). Induction programs should
implement a need assessment component to determine the need and target area for both

44
the novice teacher and the district. The program should be considered an on-going
process and possess a time frame of one to two years. The program will be a success as
long as the school district understands that the program, however, will not cure the
growing need for teachers. The TxBESS program costs approximately $2,500 per
teacher, which includes the $400 per mentor. An in-state analysis shows that it typically
costs at least $5,000 to replace a teacher (Garza & Wurzbach, 2002).

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Chapter three contains four segments: (1) Research Design, (2) Methods, (3) Data
Analysis, and (4) Limitations of the study. Segment One, Research Design, is used to
structure the research. It illustrates all of the major parts of the research project to try to
address the central research questions. The second segment, Methods, refers to the
specific techniques used, such as survey and interviews. The methods used to evaluate
the data in this study will be quantitative in nature. Segment Three, Data Analysis,
addresses the process used to provide the necessary information for description and
hypotheses testing. The last segment, Limitations of Study, presents the factors that may
limit the study.
Research Design
Research has become such a prevailing phenomenon of our civilization that all of
us are impacted by it (Wiersma, 2000). Survey research is one of the most common
forms of research engaged in by educational researchers (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993). A
variety of research studies can come under the heading of survey research; generally,
survey research deals with the incidence, distribution, and relationship of educational,
psychological, and sociological variables (Wiersma, 2000). The three major
characteristics that all survey possess are: (1) Information is collected from a group of
people in order to describe some aspects or characteristics (such as abilities, opinions,
attitudes, beliefs, and/or knowledge) of population of which that group is a part. (2) The
main way in which the information is collected is through asking questions; the answers

44

46
to these questions by the members of the group constitute the data of the study. (3)
Information is collected from a sample rather than from every member of the population
(Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993).
Longitudinal research is difficult because of the extended time period during
which data must be collected and the challenge of obtaining comparable subjects at each
data-collection point (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). For this study a cross-sectional design
was employed. In a cross sectional design, the data are obtained at one point in time, but
from groups of different ages or at different stages of development (Gall, Borg, & Gall,
1996).

Methods
This segment addresses five components of the methodology. These components
are: 1)Data Sources, 2) Selection of Subjects, 3) Instrumentation, 4) Reliability/Validity,
and 5) Data Collection. The first component of this methodology is Data Sources. Data
Sources describes the sample. The second component, Selection of Subjects, describes
the stratifying method used by the researcher. The third component, Instrumentation,
describes the survey utilized in this study. The fourth component, Reliability/Validity,
provides the necessary documentation to prove consistency, appropriateness, stability,
and meaningfulness. The last component, Data Collection, describes the process the
researcher employed to gather the necessary data.

47
Data Sources
The sample was selected from public school campus level administrators in the
State of Texas. The researcher utilized information gathered from the Texas Education
Agency and an educational consulting firm called Resource for Learning, which is the
project coordinator for the Texas Beginning Educator Support System to access
information on the school districts that implemented the TxBESS program. According to
data from the Texas Education Agency, there are 1, 040 school districts in the state of
Texas. According to data from Resource for Learning, there are 289 public school
districts, who participated in the TxBESS program. The researcher utilized the data of
the school districts utilizing the TxBESS program separated by region. The region refers
to the twenty regional educational service centers, which service the school districts
within their respected region.

Selection of Subjects
The subjects of this study included administrators, or any campus level employee
that is directly involved with the teacher induction process. According to the University
of Texas, Charles A. Dana Center, of the 1,040 school districts in Texas only 289
subscribe to the TxBESS program (see Appendix F). A comparison group was developed
by a stratified random selection procedure. One school district was randomly selected
from each of the twenty ESC (Educational Service Center) regions that participate in the
TxBESS program and matched to a school district not utilizing the TxBESS program.
Subsequently, 4 schools (2 elementary and 2 secondary schools), from each of the
selected districts was matched by campus comparison group to 4 equivalent schools in

48
the districts not utilizing TxBESS. Finally, 160 administrators were surveyed from the 80
selected and 80 matched schools. They were matched using Texas Education Agency data
from the campus comparison group. The campus comparison group refers to each
schools unique comparison group of forty other public schools, which closely resemble
that schools six characteristics. The six characteristics are: the percent of African
American students enrolled for 2002-03, the percent of Hispanic students enrolled for
2002-03, the percent of White students enrolled for 2002-03, the percent of economically
disadvantaged students enrolled for 2002-03, the percent of limited English proficient
(LEP) students enrolled for 2002-03, and the percent of mobile students as determined
from 2001-02 cumulative attendance.
A statement was added to the cover letter, to provide the potential participants
with the necessary qualifications to fill out the survey. The qualifications included any
campus level administrator, or a campus level employee, who was directly involved in
the teacher induction program. By including this statement, this allowed a wider pool of
participants to participate in this study. Figure 7. shows the stratifying technique
employed by the researcher for this study.

49

Beginning Teachers Induction Practices in Texas: A Comparative Analysis

Sampling Procedure

1,040 Texas
School Districts

289 School Districts

utilizing TxBESS

751 School Districts not

utilizing TxBESS

20 Education Service
Center Regions

20 Education Service
Center Regions

1 randomly selected
school district from each
region (20 School
Districts)

4 randomly selected
schools from each district
(2 SEC. & 2 ELEM)

4 schools matched from

each district by campus
comparison group

160 schools

Survey 80 administrators
of schools utilizing
TxBESS

Survey 80 administrators
of matched schools not
utilizing TxBESS

Compare Program
Differences

Figure 7. Sampling Procedure

50
Instrumentation
A survey was used in this descriptive study. This method is frequently employed
to indicate prevailing conditions or particular trends (Verma & Beard, 1981). The survey
instrument (see Appendix C), Principal Questionnaire, by The University of Texas
Charles A. Dana Center was designed to evaluate the Texas Beginning Educator Support
System (TxBESS). Permission to use and modify this survey questionnaire was given by
Dr. Darlene Yanez, (see Appendix D), Program Coordinator at The Charles A. Dana
Center (Tuesday, November 11, 2003 at 7:10 PM). The survey has been previously tested
for reliability and validity by the Charles A. Dana Center to be used in evaluating the
TxBESS program. A survey involves a clear definition of the problem and requires
planned collection of data, careful analysis and interpretation of the data and skillful
reporting of the findings (Verma & Beard, 1981). The survey consists of four categories.
These categories include: Demographic Information; Team Selection, Logistics, and
Duties; Team member Training; and Overall Effectiveness. The first category,
demographic information, was addressed in the first three questions. This is the part of
the questionnaire commonly labeled Background Information and that asks about the
personal characteristics of the respondent (Mertens, 1998). The second category, team
selection, logistics, and duties, was addressed in questions four through eighteen. This
category refers to the different facets of the beginning teachers interaction with the
mentor and other staff members. The third category, team member training, was
addressed in questions nineteen through twenty-one. This category refers to the training
or lack of training that the mentors received to prepare them to assist beginning new
teachers. The last category, overall effectiveness, was addressed in question twenty-two

51
through twenty-six. This category refers to the overall effectiveness of the program.
Surveys are one of the most widely used types of research. Although it does not seem to
aspire to develop an organized body of knowledge, it does provide information for further
research of an experimental nature which may lead to the establishment of some theory
(Verma & Beard, 1981).

Reliability/Validity
Reliability refers to the consistency of the scores obtained how consistent they
are for each individual from one administration of an instrument to another and from one
set of items to another (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993). In recent years, validity has been
defined as referring to the appropriateness, meaningfulness, and usefulness of the specific
inferences researchers make based on the data the researchers collect (Fraenkel & Wallen,
1993). The researcher on Tuesday, January 6, 2004 at 4:33 PM was contacted by the
Charles A. Dana Center as a result of the researchers inquiry into the reliability and
validity results of the survey. According to Rahel Kahlert an education research associate
at the Charles A. Dana Center, University of Texas, correspondence in reference to the
reliability and validity of the Principal Questionnaire was as followed. Catherine Clark
the developer of the first study wrote The TxBESS surveys were first developed in
1999-00. I asked staff at SBEC (State Board for Education Certification) to review them
and also asked a few TxBESS coordinators to look at them. After the first year, we did
extensive refinement of the surveys, based on the responses we received in the first year
and based on new requirements for the evaluation. For the third year, the instruments
were again refined to yield even better data. The revisions and refinements were of a

52
qualitative nature. We did not conduct any statistical tests of validity or reliability.
Rahel Kahlert also stated that, according to the coordinator of the second study, they used
expert groups to brainstorm and revisit the questions.
Based upon the conversation with Rahel Kahlert and other individuals who had
worked on the TxBESS project the following statements were made:

Validity was established by asking other experts to review the questions on the
survey. This includes reviewing the information over a period of time from year
to year.

Reliability has been established by repeated administration of the survey over a

period of years.

Data Collection
The survey and cover letter was mailed in December 2003 to the selected 160
administrators. Eighty of the surveys were mailed to school administrators or campus
level employees who are involved in the teacher induction process that schools
participated in the TxBESS. The other eighty surveys were mailed to school
administrators that were stratified with the TxBESS schools using campus comparisons
group data.

The estimated time required to complete the survey was approximately 20

minutes.
Each packet was mailed with a consent form. The purpose of the consent form
being attached to the survey was to determine which respondents return surveys. After
compilation (data stored in SPSS) of responses all surveys were destroyed. The consent
attached to the survey was used for survey return purposes only and was clipped when

53
the survey was received in the self-addressed, stamped envelope, which was included
with the request. The completed survey was mailed directly to the researcher.
The researcher mailed a follow-up letter to non-respondents in January 2004.
Any subsequent non-respondent was contacted via e-mail and by phone. The researcher
had a return rate of 59%. There were 93 surveys returned out of 160. The 93 surveys
returned were the result of both mailings as well as from contact via e-mail and phone.

Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics, such as frequency analyses, was run by SPSS. The main
purpose of descriptive statistics is to explore the data and to reduce them to simpler and
understandable terms without distorting or losing much of the available information
(Agresti & Finlay, 1997). All nominal data from the survey was reported using
descriptive measures. Some of the descriptive measures include measures of central
tendency as well as frequency to compare the two groups, schools utilizing TxBESS and
stratified schools not utilizing TxBESS.
The term inferential statistic refers to a set of methods used to draw inferences
about a large group of people from data available on only a representative subset of the
group (Shavelson, 1996). Inferential statistics were calculated and tested for significance
and reported using t. The purpose of the independent t-test is to determine whether the
difference in two means is likely to be due to chance or to some other cause, such as a
treatment. Consistent with random selection procedures, the t-test of independent
samples was utilized and mean differences were compared at the .05 level of significance.
The research questions in this study were: (1) Has the administration of the TxBESS

54
program been of such a quality as to establish and maintain a strong induction program
for beginning teachers? (2) Is there a significant difference in responses of campus
administrators pertaining to characteristics of induction programs between those utilizing
TxBESS and those that do not? (3) Is there a significant difference in the turnover rate of
teachers in the schools involved in this study that utilize TxBESS and those that do not?
The goal of using a quantitative approach is to provide insights into the induction
practices of school districts in the state of Texas. Question one and Question two was
analyzed by comparing the survey results of the school districts using TxBESS and the
matched school utilizing their own induction practices. Question three was evaluated
using the Academic Excellence Indicator System (AEIS) Reports. According to the
Texas Education Agency, turnover rate for teachers is defined as the total full-time
equivalent count of teachers not employed in the district in the fall of 2002-03 who were
employed as teachers in the district in the fall of 2001-02, divided by the total teacher
full-time equivalent count for the fall of 2001-02. Social security numbers of reported
teachers were compared from the two semesters to develop this information. Additional
factors involved in calculating turnover rate for teachers or staff members that remain
employed in the district but not as teachers

Research Ethics
Concerns for protecting the rights of human beings from unethical research
practices grew enormously following the Nazi regime in Germany, which ended after
World War II (Gall, Borg & Gall, 1996). In the 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S.
government established federal definition and regulations governing research performed

55
with funding from federal agencies (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). There are sixteen
governmental agencies that are affected by these federal regulations, which include the
U.S. Department of Education. Two issues dominate traditional official guidelines of
ethics in research with human subjects: informed consent and the protection of subjects
from harm (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). These guidelines attempt to insure that:

Subjects enter research projects voluntarily, understanding the nature of the

study and the dangers and obligations that are involved.

Subjects are not exposed to risks that are greater than the gains they might
derive (Bogdan & Bilken, 2003).

The participants involved in this study received a cover letter attached to the survey
explaining the potential risk. This study was under the guidelines established by the
Institutional Review Board for Texas A&M University-Commerce. Once permission to
proceed with this study, 160 administrators was surveyed from the 80 selected and 80
stratified schools. The research activity has no anticipated physical, social,
psychological, emotional, legal harms, discomforts, inconvenience or risk to participants.
Answers to the survey will be strictly confidential; there are no right or wrong answers.
Administration of the survey was performed to protect individual confidentiality.
Participation in this study was strictly voluntary, which allows each participant the right
to withdraw at any time without a penalty. The returned survey was stored in a secured,
locked location.

Limitations

56
Due to the stratification procedure employed, the study, was limited to 160 Texas
schools selected for this study which does not include all of the Texas schools. There
are two commonly used methods to study data over time. A cross-sectional survey
collects information from a sample that has been drawn at one point in time. A
longitudinal survey, on the other hand, collects information at different points in time in
order to study changes over time (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993). This study utilized a crosssectional design. Due to the self-reporting nature of a survey, the results could have
included responses that were inaccurate or biased. A low response rates to some of the
survey items could limit the generalizability of certain items.
This study was also limited to information from campus administrators on the
induction practices implemented in the State of Texas; therefore no other subjects
(mentors and beginning new teachers) were used for this study. This study was also
limited to the data and interpretation of their induction practices for one year. In spite of
these limitations the survey method has proved useful in providing the researcher with a
valid description of some of the variables involved in education (Verma & Beard, 1981).

Delimitations

57
This study was delimited to include data about beginning teachers and the
different components of the induction program. Beginning teacher refers to teachers who
are new to the profession, the school district, or the particular school. The study was also
delimited to responses from administrators or campus level employees directly involved
in the induction program.

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the differences between schools in
school districts in Texas that implemented the TxBESS induction program and those
utilizing their own form of induction. A quantitative research approach was used to
answer the following research questions:
1. Has the administration of the TxBESS program been of such a quality as to
establish and maintain a strong induction program for beginning teachers?
2. Is there a significant difference in responses of campus administrators pertaining
to characteristics of induction programs between those utilizing TxBESS and
those that do not?
3. Is there a significant difference in the turnover rate of teachers in the schools
involved in this study that utilize TxBESS and those that do not?
The results of this chapter are represented in five sections. Section one, results of
survey, utilizes frequencies and percentages of the respondents to report the results of the
demographic information section of the principal questionnaire. Section two, results of
survey, utilizes frequencies and percentages of the respondents to report the results and
answers research question one. Section three utilizes descriptive and inferential statistics
to answer research question two. Section four, turnover rate, incorporates the district
turnover ratio results of all districts involved in this study and answers research question
three through the use of inferential statistics. Section five, consists of a summary of the
research findings.

57

59
Demographic Information
Descriptive statistics were calculated for all demographic variables of the
principal questionnaire. This survey was sent to administrators or any campus level
employee that was directly involved with the teacher induction process. Fifty
respondents from schools districts utilizing TxBESS and forty-three respondents who
were from stratified TxBESS schools using campus comparison groups as a means of
comparison. The difference in count (n) between the two groups was due to the different
response rate of the surveyed participants. There were ninety-three surveys returned out
of one hundred and sixty. As a result, the return rate was calculated as fifty-nine percent.
Descriptive statistics, both frequencies and percentages, were calculated for the
demographic information collected as part of the principal questionnaire. Three questions
were included in the demographic information section.
Question 1 asked for the number of years of teaching experience the respondent
has. For the purpose of this survey only public school K-12 teaching was considered
(Table 1). Response choices for question 1 included: none, one year, two to four years,
and more than four years. More than four years was the most frequent response in the
TxBESS group. In the TxBESS group, 49 of the respondent (98%) reported that they had
more than four years of teacher experience. In the NON-TxBESS group, 41 respondents
(95.3%) reported that they had more than four years of teacher experience. Thus, it is
apparent that the respondents in both categories have more than four years of teacher
experience.

60
Table 1
Teaching Experiences in Years
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

One year

2.3

Two to four years

2.3

2.0

More than four years

41

95.3

49

98.0

Question 2 asked the respondents to indicate the number years of experience they
have serving as a principal at the beginning of this school year (Table 2). Response
choices for question 2 were: none, one year, two to four years, and more than four years.
The most frequent response in the TxBESS group was more than four years experience
serving as principal. There were 22 respondents (51.2%) in the TxBESS group who
indicated they had more than four year of experience serving as principal. The second
most frequent response was a three-way tie between none, one year, and two to four
years. There were 7 respondents in the TxBESS group (16.3%) for each of the following
categories. They were: none, one year, and two to four years of experience serving as
principal. The most frequent response in the NON-TxBESS group was more than four
years experience serving as principal. There were 25 respondents (50%) in the NONTxBESS group who indicated they had more than four years of experience serving as
principal. The second most frequent response was two to four years of experience
serving as principal. There were 16 respondents (32%) in the NON-TxBESS group who
indicated they had two to four years of experience serving as principal.

61
Table 2
Principal Experience in Years
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

None

16.3

10.0

One year

16.3

8.0

Two to four years

16.3

16

32.0

More than four years

22

51.2

25

50.0

Question 3 asked the respondents to identify their school classification. Response

choices for question 3 were: elementary school, middle school, K-8 or K-12 school,
alternative education program or juvenile justice setting school, and charter school. The
most frequent response in the TxBESS group was elementary school. There were 24
respondents (55.8%) in the TxBESS group who indicated their school setting as an
elementary school. The second most frequent response was middle school. There were
14 respondents (32.6%) in the TxBESS group who indicated their school setting as a
middle school. The most frequent response in the NON-TxBESS group was elementary
school. There were 30 respondents (60%) in the NON-TxBESS group that indicated who
their school setting was classified as an elementary school. The second most frequent
response was middle school. There were 12 respondents (24%) in the NON-TxBESS
group who indicated their school setting was middle school.

62
Table 3
School Level
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Elementary school

24

55.8

30

60.0

Middle school

14

32.6

12

24.0

High school

11.6

16.0

Overall Effectiveness of the TxBESS Program

The first research question, Has the administration of the TxBESS program been
of such a quality as to establish and maintain a strong induction program for beginning
teachers? was analyzed through data gathered using the principal questionnaire for
TxBESS respondents only. Based on the information gathered from the survey, questions
23-26 were used to answer this research question. Descriptive statistics were calculated
for all overall effectiveness variables of the principal questionnaire. Question 23 asked
the respondents, if given the opportunity by the regional service center, would they like to
see their campus participate in TxBESS again in the next year (Table 4). The choices
were: definitely yes, probably yes, I am not certain, probably not, and definitely not. The
most frequent response of the ones that responded from the TxBESS group was a tie
between definitely yes and probably yes. There were 8 respondents (18.6%) that
definitely would like to see the TxBESS program implemented again on their campus the
following school year, and 8 respondents (18.6%) that probably would like to see the
TxBESS program implemented again on their campus the following school year.

63
Table 4
Like to Participate the Next Year
TxBESS
Frequency

Percent

No answer given

20

46.5

Definitely yes

18.6

Probably yes

18.6

I am not certain

16.3

Question 24 asked the respondents to list the following items that they would
incorporate in the support of beginning teachers, in the case that the regional service
centers decided not to subscribe to the TxBESS program in the future (Table 5). They
were: providing mentors for beginning teachers, using a team approach to beginning
teacher support that includes a representative from higher education, providing release
time for mentor teachers to observe and meet with beginning teachers, providing release
time for beginning teachers to observe more experienced teachers and/or conference with
their mentor, providing stipends to mentor teachers for their work with beginning
teachers, and using the TAP formative assessment to guide beginning teacher support.
Thos who responded in the TxBESS group did not consider any of the listed items
important.

64

Table 5
Incorporate on Your Campus for Support of Beginning Teachers
TxBESS
Provide Mentors

Frequency

Percent

No answer given

2.3

Yes

18

41.9

No

24

55.8

Yes

18.6

No

35

81.4

Yes

15

34.9

No

28

65.1

Yes

15

34.9

No

28

65.1

Yes

11

25.6

No

32

74.4

Yes

9.3

No

39

90.7

Team Approach
No answer given

Release time for mentors

No answer given

Release time for beginning teachers

No answer given

Provide Stipend
No answer given

Using TAP guide

No answer given

65
Question 25 asked the respondents to compare the TxBESS supported teachers
with other beginning teachers and determine, in general, if the TxBESS teachers were
better prepared in certain areas (Table 6). The areas were: integration into the faculty,
student discipline, teacher attendance, and effectiveness of instruction. The TxBESS
respondents agreed that the TxBESS teachers were comparably better than other
beginning teachers in all areas.
Table 6
TxBESS Teachers in Comparison to Teacher Supported Through a Different Program
TxBESS
Frequency

Percent

No answer given

32

74.4

Yes

7.0

18.6

No answer given

30

69.8

Yes

16.3

14.0

No answer given

31

72.1

Yes

9.3

No

2.3

Not sure

16.3

No answer given

29

67.4

Yes

16.3

No

2.3

Not sure

14.0

Integration with faculty

No
Not sure
Student Discipline

No
Not sure
Teacher attendance

Effectiveness of instruction

66
Question 26 asked the respondents in an open-ended question format to provide
additional comment about activities, time and resources that could optimize a beginning
teachers chance for success. Fourteen of the respondents added additional comments
and suggestions which were as follows:

Observing teacher during the first week of a school year to witness the initial
phase of the student/teacher relationship, and having an adolescent psychology
courses in teacher prep programs.

Having a mentoring program involving retired teachers.

Finding a way for new teachers to feel comfortable and develop relationships to
exchange ideas and concerns freely.

A new teacher consortium networking of new teachers to establish support

system and creating the need to collaborate and learn from others.

Shrinking budgets and staff creating greater problems in giving any teacher
needed support.

Having one prep, common planning period with mentor, weekly conferences with
administrators.

New teachers having more exposure in college classes concerning the importance
of state required testing and a districts/campuss rating based on test results.

Having a solid mentor is key. Hiring new teachers frequently out of our
partnership with a university that provides a full year of varied student teaching
experiences on our campus.

Having more intensive staff development workshops for both the new teacher and
the supervising administration.

67

Being better prepared at the collegiate level with lesson planning and instructional
methodology.

Providing mentors who have achieved outstanding results with children and
having an environment where it is the right thing to do to ask for collaboration
and help! Its ok not to know, but it is not ok not to learn.

Conducting extra meeting for new teachers before and after school with topics
being discipline management, grades, parental contact, stress management, time
management, and setting goals.

Having feedback from administrators and a positive role model for new teachers.

Funding for all of our new teacher inservices should be funded as well as planning
through our curriculum/central office and personnel.

68
Comparison of Program Characteristics
The second research question, Is there a significant difference in responses of
campus administrators pertaining to characteristics of induction programs between those
utilizing TxBESS and those that do not? was analyzed through data gathered using the
principal questionnaire. Based on the information gathered from the survey, questions 521 were used to answer this research question. Descriptive statistics and inferential
statistics were employed. The comparisons of program characteristics for teachers are
broken down into two parts. The first part is entitled team selection, logistics, and duties.
The second part is entitled team member training.

Team selection, logistics, and duties

Descriptive and inferential statistics were calculated for all team selection,
logistics, and duties items on the principal questionnaire. Question 4 asked the
respondents to quantify the number of teachers at their particular campus during the
current school year (Table 7). The question choices for question 4 were: Fewer than ten,
eleven to thirty, thirty-one to fifty, fifty-one to seventy, and seventy-one more. The most
frequent response in the TxBESS group was thirty-one to fifty. There were 16
respondents (37.2%) in the TxBESS group that indicated there were thirty-one to fifty
teachers on the respondents campus. The second most frequent response was thirty-one
to fifty. There were 12 respondents (27.9%) in the TxBESS group that indicated there
were thirty-one to fifty teachers on their campus. Then most frequent response in the
NON-TxBESS group was thirty-one to fifty teachers on the respondents campus. There
were 18 respondents (36%) in the NON-TxBESS group that indicated they had thirty-one

69
to fifty teachers on their campus. The second most frequent response was fifty-one to
seventy teachers on the respondents campus. There were 13 respondents (26%) that
indicated there were fifty-one to seventy teachers on the respondents campus.
Table 7
The Number of Teachers on Campus
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No answer given

7.0

2.0

11 to 30

12

27.9

18.0

31 to 50

16

37.2

18

36.0

51 to 70

18.6

13

26.0

71 or more

9.3

18.0

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding the number of teachers on campus.
Table 8
T-test Analysis on the Number of Teachers on Campus

Number of teachers on campus

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

89.729

-1.890

.062

*p<.05
Although the data revealed that there were more new teachers found in the NONTxBESS group, the mean difference between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools
regarding the number of teachers on campus was not significantly different. A t-test of
-1.890 with a significance of .062 indicated that no statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance.

70
Question 5 asked the respondents to quantify the number of teachers on their
campus this current school year that had zero years of experience (Table 9). According to
the data the most frequent response in the TxBESS group was one to three. There were
25 respondents (58.1%) who indicated that there were one to three teacher(s) with zero
years of experience. The second most frequent response was four to six. There were 8
(18.6%) respondents in the TxBESS group who indicated that they had four to six
teachers with zero years of experience. The most frequent response in the NON-TxBESS
group was one to three teachers. There were 31 respondents (62%) who indicated they
had one to three teacher(s) with zero years of experience. The second most frequent
response in the NON-TxBESS group was four to six. There were 7 respondents (14%)
who indicated they had four to six teachers with zero years of experience.
Table 9
Number of Teachers on Campus with Zero Years of Experience
TxBESS
Frequency

NON-TxBESS
Percent

No answer given

Frequency

Percent

2.0

No teachers

20.9

12.0

1 to 3

25

58.1

31

62.0

4 to 6

18.6

14.0

7 to 10

2.3

8.0

2.0

More than 15

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding the number of teachers on campus with zero years of
experience.

71
Table 10
T-test Analysis on the Number of Teachers on Campus with Zero Years of Experience

Number of teachers on campus with

zero years of experience
*p<.05

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

88.586

-1.124

.264

Although the data revealed that there were more new teachers found with zero
years of experience in the NON-TxBESS group, the mean difference between TxBESS
and NON-TxBESS schools regarding the number of teachers on campus was not
significantly different. A t-test of -1.124 with a significance of .264 indicated that no
statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of significance.
Question 6 asked the respondents to indicate the number of teachers who
participated in a beginning teachers induction program (Table 11). Response choices for
question 6 were: none, one to three, four to six, seven to fifteen, and more than fifteen.
The most frequent response in the TxBESS group was one to three. There were 20
respondents (46.5%) who indicated that indicated one to three teachers participated in a
beginning teachers induction program. The second most frequent response was none.
There were 13 respondents (30.2%) who indicated that no teachers participated in a
beginning teachers induction program. The most frequent response in the NONTxBESS group was one to three. There were 26 respondents (52%) who indicated one to
three teachers participated in a beginning teachers induction program. The second most
frequent response was none. There were 9 respondents (18%) who indicated that no
teachers participated in a beginning teachers induction program.

72
Table 11
The Number of Teachers Who Participated in a Beginning Teachers Induction Program
TxBESS
Frequency

NON-TxBESS
Percent

Frequency

Percent

2.0

No answer given
None

13

30.2

18.0

1 to 3

20

46.5

26

52.0

4 to 6

14.0

16.0

7 to 15

9.3

10.0

2.0

More than 15

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding the number of teachers who participated in a induction
program.
Table 12
T-test Analysis on the Number of Teachers Who Participated in a Beginning Teachers
Induction Program

Participation in an induction program

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

90.539

-.895

.373

*p<.05
Although the data revealed that there were more teachers on campus who
participated in an induction program in the NON-TxBESS group, the mean difference
between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools regarding the number of teachers on
campus that participated in an induction program was not significantly different. A t-test
of -.895 with a significance of .373 indicates that no statistically significant difference
was established at the .05 level of significance.

73
Question 7 asked the respondents to classify their beginning teacher induction
program involvement as a choice or requirement (Table 13). Response choices for
question 7 were: a choice, and a requirement. The most frequent response for the
TxBESS group was a requirement. There were 30 respondents (69.8%) who indicated
that participating in a beginning teacher induction program was a requirement. The most
frequent response for the NON-TxBESS group was a requirement. There were 39
respondents (78.0%) who indicated that participating in a beginning teacher induction
program was a requirement.
Table 13
Choice to Participate in the Program or Requirement
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No answer given

11.6

6.0

A choice

18.6

16.0

A requirement

30

69.8

39

78.0

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding schools regarding participation in an induction program
as a requirement or choice.
Table 14
T-test Analysis on the Choice to Participate in the Program or Requirement

Choice to participate in program or

requirement
*p<.05

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

81.350

-1.036

.303

74
Although the data revealed that there were more schools which participated in an
induction program as a requirement found in the NON-TxBESS group, the mean
difference between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools regarding participation in an
induction program as a requirement or choice was not significantly different. A t-test of
-1.036 with a significance of .303 indicated that no statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance.
Question 8 asked the respondents to classify if they were the person responsible
for pairing beginning teachers with mentors (Table 15). Response choices for question 8
were: yes, and no. The most frequent response for the TxBESS group was yes. There
were 32 respondents (74.4%) who indicated they were the person responsible for pairing
beginning teachers with mentors. The most frequent response for the NON-TxBESS
group was yes. There were 42 respondents (84.0%) who indicated they were the person
responsible for pairing beginning teachers with mentors.
Table 15
Person Responsible for Pairing Mentors
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency
3

Percent
7.0

Frequency
2

Percent
4.0

Yes

32

74.4

42

84.0

No

18.6

12.0

No answer given

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding the respondent being the person responsible for pairing
the beginning teachers and the mentors.

75
Table 16
T-test Analysis on Person Responsible for Pairing Mentors

Person responsible for pairing

mentors
*p<.05

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

78.839

.384

.702

Although the data revealed that there were more new teachers found in the
TxBESS group, the mean difference between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools
regarding the respondents being the person responsible for pairing beginning teachers
with the mentors was not significantly different. A t-test of .384 with a significance of .
702 indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of
significance.
Question 9 asked the respondents to determine which criteria were used to pair
beginning teachers with a mentor (Table 17). The criteria for the respondents were:
physical proximity in the school building; teaching experience in similar subjects area or
grade level; the beginning teacher requested a particular mentor; the mentor teacher
requested a particular beginning teacher; and other. Based on the data, the criteria that
had the greatest impact on determining how mentors were paired with beginning teachers
in the TxBESS group was teaching experience in similar subject area or grade level. The
following criteria had a low impact in the TxBESS group: physical proximity in school
building, the beginning teacher requested a particular mentor, and the mentor teacher
requested a particular beginning teacher. The criteria that had the greatest impact on
determining how mentors were paired with beginning teachers in the NON-TxBESS
group was teaching experience in similar subject area or grade level. The following
criteria had a low impact in the NON-TxBESS group: physical proximity in school

76
building, the beginning teacher requested a particular mentor, and the mentor teacher
requested a particular beginning teacher.
Table 17
Criteria Used to Pair Mentors with Beginning Teachers
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency Percent

Frequency

Percent

2.0

Physical Proximity
No answer given
Yes

18

41.9

18

36.0

No

25

58.1

31

62.0

2.0

Similar Subject
No answer given
Yes

32

74.4

42

84.0

No

11

25.6

14.0

2.0

Beginning Teacher request a Mentor

No answer given
Yes

7.0

10.0

No

40

93.0

44

88.0

2.0

Mentor request a beginning teacher

No answer given
Yes

2.3

6.0

No

42

97.7

46

92.0

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding criteria used to pair mentors with beginning teachers
(Table 18).

Table 18

77
T-test Analysis on Criteria Used to Pair Mentors with Beginning Teachers
Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

90.360

-.173

.863

Similar Subject

91

1.584

.117

Beginning teacher request a mentor

Mentor teachers request a beginning
teacher
*p<.05

91

.980

.330

91

1.287

.201

Physical Proximity

Although the data revealed that there were more new teachers found in the NONTxBESS group, the mean difference between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools
regarding the number of teachers on campus that participated in an induction program
was not significantly different.
A t-test of -.173 with a significance of .863 indicated that no statistically
significant difference was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to
physical proximity as a criteria for pairing mentors. A t-test of 1.584 with a significance
of .117 indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level
of significance in reference to similar subject as a criteria for pairing mentors. A t-test
of .980 with a significance of .330 indicated that no statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance in reference to beginning teacher requesting a
mentor as a criteria for pairing mentors. A t-test of 1.287 with a significance of .201
indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 alpha level
in reference to mentor request a beginning teacher as a criteria for pairing mentors. The
mean difference between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools regarding criteria used to
pair mentors with beginning teachers was not significantly different. The data revealed
that there were more TxBESS schools using the following criteria: similar subject,

78
beginning teacher request a mentor, and mentor request a beginning teacher. The data
revealed that more NON-TxBESS schools utilize physical proximity as a criteria to pair
mentor.
Question 10 asked the respondents to list mechanisms provided to the beginning
teacher and their mentor by the school (Table 19). The list of mechanisms were: the same
planning period; the same lunch period; classroom within close proximity to one another;
release time to conference with or observe one another; release time to attend a beginning
teachers induction program training; and others. The areas that the respondent chose as
important to provide for the beginning teachers and their mentor in the TxBESS group
were: the same planning period; same lunch period; classrooms within close proximity to
one another; release time to conference with or observe one another; and release time to
attend a beginning teachers induction program training. In the NON-TxBESS group,
there were areas that the respondents chose as important to provide for the beginning
teachers and their mentor. The list of mechanisms were: the same planning period;
classrooms within close proximity to one another; release time to conference with or
observe one another; and release time to attend a beginning teachers induction program
training. In the NON-TxBESS group having the same lunch period was not considered
important in providing assistance for beginning teachers and mentors.

79
Table 19
Mechanisms Provided to the Beginning Teacher and Mentor
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No answer given

2.3

2.0

Yes

27

62.8

31

62.0

No

15

34.9

18

36.0

2.0

Same planning period

Same lunch period

No answer given
Yes

25

58.1

20

40.0

No

18

41.9

29

58.0

2.0

Close proximity to one another

No answer given
Yes

33

76.7

33

66.0

No

10

23.3

16

32.0

2.0

Release time for conference

No answer given
Yes

24

55.8

32

64.0

No

19

44.2

17

34.0

2.0

Release time for training

No answer given
Yes

27

62.8

27

54.0

No

16

37.2

22

44.0

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding mechanisms that were provided to the beginning
teachers and mentors (Table 20).

80
Table 20
T-test Analysis on Mechanisms Provided to the Beginning Teacher and Mentor
Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Same planning period

46.944

.988

.323

Same lunch period

90.520

-1.311

.193

Close proximity to one another

90.981

-.697

.487

Release time for conference

89.429

1.155

.251

Release time for training

90.702

-.450

.654

*p<.05
A t-test of .988 with a significance of .323 indicated that no statistically
significant difference was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to same
planning period as a mechanism provided to the beginning teachers and mentors. A t-test
of -1.311 with a significance of .193 indicated that no statistically significant difference
was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to same lunch period as a
mechanism provided to the beginning teachers and mentors. A t-test of -.697 with a
significance of .487 indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at
the .05 level of significance in reference to close proximity to one another as a
mechanism provided to the beginning teachers and mentors. A t-test of 1.155 with a
significance of .251 indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at
the .05 level of significance in reference to release time for conferences as a mechanism
provided to the beginning teachers and mentors. A t-test of -.450 with a significance of .
654 indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of
significance in reference to release time for training as a mechanism provided to the
beginning teachers and mentors. The mean difference between TxBESS and NONTxBESS schools regarding things that were provided to the beginning teachers and

81
mentors was not significantly different. The data revealed that there were more TxBESS
schools that used the following mechanism for beginning teachers and mentors: same
planning period and release time for conferences. The data suggested that more NONTxBESS schools implemented the same planning period, the same lunch period, close
proximity to one another, and release time for training as mechanisms for beginning
teachers and mentors.
Question 11 asked the respondents to identify the most important role in
supporting beginning teachers (Table 21). The choices were: taking time to get to know
the beginning teacher; making the best match between beginning teachers and mentors;
scheduling beginning teachers and mentor so they have more opportunities to meet and
confer; making sure the beginning teachers have adequate supplies and materials; making
sure the beginning teachers know the school policies and procedures; and conducting
walk-through to observe the teachers. The respondents could choose only one criterion.
Based upon the data in the TxBESS group, the criterions from highest to lowest were:
taking time to get to know the beginning teacher, conducting walk-through to observe the
teachers, making the best match between beginning teachers and mentors, scheduling
beginning teachers and mentors so they have more opportunity to meet and confer,
making sure the beginning teachers knows the school policies and procedures, and
making sure the beginning teachers have adequate supplies and materials. In the NONTxBESS group, the criterions from highest to lowest were: making the best match
between beginning teachers and mentors; conducting walk-through to observe the
teachers; taking time to get to know the beginning teacher, scheduling beginning teachers
and mentors so they have more opportunity to meet and confer; making sure the

82
beginning teachers have adequate supplies and materials; and making sure the beginning
teachers knows the school policies and procedures.
Table 21
Important Components in Supporting Beginning Teachers
TxBESS
Frequency
Percent

NON-TxBESS
Frequency
Percent

Time to Know teacher

No answer given
Yes
No
Best Match
Yes
No
Opportunity to meet
No answer given
Yes
No

2.3

17
25

39.5
58.1

14
36

28.0
72.0

14
29

32.6
67.4

22
28

44.0
56.0

9
34

20.9
79.1

1
13
36

2.0
26.0
72.0

2.0

Adequate Supplies
No answer given
Yes

18.6

14.0

No

35

81.4

42

84.0

2.0

20.9
79.1

10
39

20.0
78.0

37.2
62.8

19
31

38.0
62.0

School Polices and Procedures

No answer given
Yes
No

9
34

Conducting Walk-through
Yes
No

16
27

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding criteria that were an important part in supporting
beginning teachers (Table 22).

83
Table 22
T-test Analysis on Important Components in Supporting Beginning Teachers
Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

43.499

.722

.474

91

1.125

.264

Opportunity to meet

90.996

.333

.740

Adequate supplies

88.330

-.814

.418

School policies and procedures

90.243

-.332

.740

Conducting walkthroughs

88.994

.078

.938

Time to know teacher

Best match

*p<.05
A t-test of .722 with a significance of .474 indicated that no statistically
significant difference was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to time
to know teachers as an important part in supporting beginning teachers. A t-test of 1.125
with a significance of .264 indicated that no statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance in reference to best match between beginning
teacher and mentor as an important part in supporting beginning teachers. A t-test of .333
with a significance of .740 indicated that no statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance in reference to opportunity for beginning
teachers and mentors to meet as an important part in supporting beginning teachers. A ttest of -.814 with a significance of .418 indicated that no statistically significant
difference was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to adequate
supplies as an important part in supporting beginning teachers. A t-test of -.332 with a
significance of .740 indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at
the .05 level of significance in reference to making sure that beginning teachers know
polices and procedures as an important part in supporting beginning teachers. A t-test of .

84
078 with a significance of .938 indicated that no statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance in reference to conducting walkthroughs to
observe beginning teachers as an important part in supporting beginning teachers. The
mean difference between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools regarding criteria that
were an important part in supporting beginning teachers was not significantly different.
The data revealed that there were more TxBESS schools which considered the following
criteria as an important part in supporting beginning teachers. They were: same time to
know teacher, best match, opportunity to meet, and conducting walkthroughs. The data
also reveals that more NON-TxBESS schools considered providing adequate supplies and
making sure that beginning teachers knows the polices and procedures as an important
part in supporting beginning teachers.
Question 12 asked respondents to identify methods that their schools used to
optimize beginning teachers chances for success (Table 23). The respondents choices
were: beginning teachers have teaching assignments only in their areas of
preparation/certification; beginning teachers have their own classroom; beginning
teachers have a smaller than average number of students with special needs; beginning
teachers have fewer than average extracurricular responsibilities; beginning teachers have
release time to observe other teachers and get additional training; and I would like to
make accommodations to help beginning teachers but cannot because our school has
limited time and resources. The methods that the respondent identified as having the
greatest impact on optimizing beginning teachers chances for success in the TxBESS
group were: beginning teachers have teaching assignments only in their areas of
preparation/certification; beginning teachers have their own classroom; and beginning

85
teachers have release time to observe other teachers and get additional training. In the
TxBESS group beginning teachers have a smaller than average number of students with
special needs; beginning teachers have fewer than average extracurricular
responsibilities; and due to limited time and resources was not considered important in
optimizing beginning teachers chances for success. The methods that the respondent
identified as having the greatest impact on optimizing beginning teachers chances for
success in the NON-TxBESS group were: beginning teachers have teaching assignments
only in their areas of preparation/certification; beginning teachers have their own
classroom; and beginning teachers have release time to observe other teachers and get
additional training. In the NON-TxBESS group beginning teachers have a smaller than
average number of students with special needs; beginning teachers have fewer than
average extracurricular responsibilities; and due to limited time and resources was not
considered important in optimizing beginning teachers chances for success.

Table 23
Methods Used to Optimize Beginning Teachers Chances for Success
TxBESS
Frequency

Percent

NON-TxBESS
Frequency

Percent

86
Teaching in area of certification
No answer given

2.3

Yes

32

74.4

40

80.0

No

10

23.3

10

20.0

No answer given

2.3

Yes

36

83.7

46

92.0

No

14.0

8.0

Own Classroom

Smaller number of special needs students

1
2.3
No answer given
Yes

18.6

10

20.0

No

34

79.1

40

80.0

Extra-curricular responsibilities
1
No answer given

2.3

Yes

10

23.3

24

48.0

No

32

74.4

26

52.0

Release time
No answer given

2.3

Yes

27

62.8

39

78.0

No

15

34.9

11

22.0

Limited time and resources

No answer given
3

7.0

2.0

Yes

16.3

16.0

No

33

76.7

42

84.0

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding methods used to optimize the beginning teachers
chances for success (Table 24).
Table 24

87
T-test Analysis on Methods Used to Optimize Beginning Teachers Chances for Success
Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Teaching only in areas of certification

83.841

.102

.919

Own classroom

73.717

.510

.611

Smaller number of special needs students

82.526

-.351

.727

Fewer extra-curricular responsibilities

91

1.916

.058

Release time to observe other teachers

91

1.082

.282

43.104

1.005

.320

Limited time and resources

*p<.05

A t-test of .102 with a significance of .919 indicated that no statistically

significant difference was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to
teaching only in area of certification as a methods used to optimize the beginning
teachers chances for success. A t-test of .510 with a significance of .611 indicated that
no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of significance in
reference to beginning teachers having their own classroom as a methods used to
optimize the beginning teachers chances for success. A t-test of -.351 with a significance
of .727 indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level
of significance in reference to smaller than average number of special needs students as a
methods used to optimize the beginning teachers chances for success. A t-test of 1.916
with a significance of .058 indicated that no statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance in reference to fewer extra-curricular activities
as a methods used to optimize the beginning teachers chances for success. A t-test of
1.082 with a significance of .282 indicated that no statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance in reference to release time to observe other
teachers and get additional training as a methods used to optimize the beginning teachers

88
chances for success. A t-test of 1.005 with a significance of .320 indicated that no
statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of significance in
reference to limited time and resource as a methods used to optimize the beginning
teachers chances for success. The mean difference between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS
schools regarding methods used to optimize the beginning teachers chances for success
was not significantly different. The data revealed that more TxBESS schools considered
the following methods in optimizing the beginning teachers chances for success. They
were: teaching only in area of certification; own classroom; fewer extra-curricular
activities; release time to observe other teachers; and limited time and resources. The
data suggested that more NON-TxBESS schools considered smaller number of special
needs students as a method to optimize the beginning teachers chances for success.
Question 13 asked the respondents to quantify on average how much time per
week the respondent spent on beginning teacher support activities (Table 25). The
choices were: less than an hour per week, one to two hours, three to five hours, and more
than five hours. The most frequent response in the TxBESS group was one to two hours
per week. There were 20 respondents (46.5%) who indicated that on average they spent
one to two hours hours per week working on beginning teacher support activities. The
second most frequent response in the TxBESS group was less than an hour per week.
There were 11 respondents (25.6%) who indicated that on average they spent less than an
hour per week working on beginning teacher support activities. The most frequent
response in the NON-TxBESS group was less than an hour per week. There were 23
respondents (46%) who indicated that on average they spent less than an hour per week
working on beginning teacher support activities. The second most frequent response in

89
the NON-TxBESS group was one to two hours. There were 22 respondents (44%) who
indicated that on average they spent one to two hours per week working on beginning
teacher support activities.
Table 25
Time Per Week Spent on Beginning Teachers Support Activities
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

9.3

Frequency

Percent

No answer given
Less than an hour per
week
1 - 2 Hours

11

25.6

23

46.0

20

46.5

22

44.0

3 - 5 Hours

16.3

6.0

More than five hours

2.3

4.0

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding time spent on beginning teacher support activities
(Table 26).

Table 26
T-test Analysis on Time Per Week Spent on Beginning Teachers Support Activities

Time spent on beginning teacher

support activities
*p<.05

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

82.041

.492

.624

90
Although the data revealed that there were more schools spending time on
beginning teacher support activities in the TxBESS group, the mean difference between
TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools regarding time spent on beginning teacher support
activities was not significantly different. A t-test of .492 with a significance of .624
indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between TxBESS and
NON-TxBESS schools in regard to time spent on beginning teacher support activities
was not significantly different.
Question 14 asked the respondents to quantify how often did they typically meet
with each beginning teacher on their campus (Table 27). The choices were: more than
once a week, once a week, about every two weeks, once a month, less than once a month,
and did not meet. The most frequent response in the TxBESS group was about every two
weeks. There were 12 respondents (27.9%) who indicated that on average they met with
each beginning teacher about every two weeks. The second most frequent response in the
TxBESS group was once a week. There were 10 respondents (23.3%) who indicated that
on average they met with each beginning teacher once a week. The most frequent
response in the NON-TxBESS group was once a week. There were 15 respondents
(30%) who indicated that on average they met with each beginning teacher once a week.
The second most frequent response in the NON-TxBESS group was a tie between about
every two weeks and once a month. There were 14 respondents (28%) who indicated that
on average they met with each beginning teacher about every two weeks or once a month.
Table 27
Time Spent with Each Beginning Teacher
TxBESS
Frequency

NON-TxBESS
Percent

Frequency

Percent

91
No answer given
More than once a
week
Once a week
About every two
weeks
Once a month
Less than once a
month
Did not meet

11.6

16.3

12.0

10

23.3

15

30.0

12

27.9

14

28.0

16.3

14

28.0

2.3

2.0

2.3

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding time spent with each beginning teacher (Table 28).
Table 28
T-test Analysis on Time Spent with Each Beginning Teacher

Time spent with each beginning

teacher
*p<.05

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

76.183

-1.543

.127

Although the data revealed that there were more schools spending time with each
beginning teacher in the NON-TxBESS group, the mean difference between TxBESS and
NON-TxBESS schools time spent with each beginning teacher was not significantly
different. A t-test of -1.543 with a significance of .127 indicated that no statistically
significant difference was established at the .05 level of significance.
Question 15 asked the respondents to quantify how often they met with the
mentor or other support-team members about beginning teacher needs (Table 29). The
choices were: did not meet with the other support-team members, met once, met two to
five times, and met more than five times. The most frequent response in the TxBESS

92
group was two to five times. There were 23 respondents (53.5%) who indicated that on
average they met with the mentor or other support-team members about beginning
teacher needs two to five times one year. The second most frequent response in the
TxBESS group was they did not meet. There were 7 respondents (16.3%) who indicated
that they did not meet with their mentor or other support-team members about beginning
teacher needs. The most frequent response in the NON-TxBESS group was two to five
times. There were 30 respondents (60%) who indicated that on average they met with the
mentor or other support-team members about beginning teacher needs two to five times
one year. The second most frequent response in the NON-TxBESS group was a once a
year. There were 10 respondents (20%) who indicated that on average they met with the
mentor or other support-team members about beginning teacher needs once a year.

Table 29
How Often the Respondents Meet with the Support-Team about the Beginning Teacher
Needs
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

No answer given

14.0

Did not meet

16.3

Frequency

Percent

12.0

93
Once

9.3

10

20.0

2 to 5 times
More than five
times

23

53.5

30

60.0

7.0

8.0

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding time spent in meetings with mentors or other supportteam members about beginning teacher needs (Table 30).
Table 30
T-test Analysis on How Often the Respondents Meet with the Support-Team about the
Beginning Teacher Needs

Time spent in meetings with mentors

or other support-team members about
beginning teacher needs
*p<.05

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

91

-1.915

.059

Although the data revealed that there were more schools spending time in
meetings with mentors or other support-team members about beginning teacher needs in
the NON-TxBESS group, the mean difference between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS
schools in reference to time spent in meetings with mentors or other support-team
members about beginning teacher needs was not significantly different. A t-test of -1.915
with a significance of .059 indicated that no statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance.
Question 16 asked the respondents to rate the importance of each of the different
form of communication used in their efforts to work with the beginning teachers on their
campus (Table 31). The rating scale ranged from very unimportant and very important.
The choices of communication were: regular face-to-face meeting; ad hoc meeting or

94
conference as needed; informal conversations; telephone calls; written communication
such as notes or memos; e-mail; and through my beginning teachers mentors or other
support-team members. The TxBESS group considered the following forms of
communication as very important: face-to-face meetings; ad hoc meetings; and informal
conversations. The TxBESS group considered the following forms of communication as
moderately important: telephone calls; written communication; e-mail; and through the
beginning teachers mentors or other support-team members. The NON-TxBESS group
considered the following forms of communication as very important: face-to-face
meetings; informal conversations; and through the beginning teachers mentors or other
support-team members. The NON-TxBESS group considered the following forms of
communication as moderately important: ad hoc meetings; telephone calls; written
communication; and e-mail.

Table 31
Forms of Communication Used in Assisting Beginning Teachers on Campus
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No answer given

7.0

Very unimportant
Moderately
unimportant
Moderately important

9.3

2.0

7.0

10.0

14

32.6

15

30.0

Face-to-face meetings

95
Very Important

19

44.2

29

58.0

No answer given

7.0

Very unimportant
Moderately
unimportant
Moderately important

9.3

2.0

7.0

8.0

14

32.6

28

56.0

Very Important

19

44.2

17

34.0

No answer given

4.7

Very unimportant
Moderately
unimportant
Moderately important

9.3

2.0

4.7

4.0

10

23.3

10

20.0

Very Important

25

58.1

37

74.0

No answer given

11.6

Very unimportant
Moderately
unimportant
Moderately important

14

32.6

16

32.0

16

37.2

24

48.0

11.6

18.0

Very Important

7.0

2.0

AD Hoc Meetings

Informal Conversations

Telephone Calls

Table 31 continued
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No answer given

4.7

Very unimportant
Moderately
unimportant
Moderately important

14.0

11.6

16.0

20

46.5

31

62.0

Very Important

10

23.3

11

22.0

Written Communication

96
E-mail
No answer given

4.7

Very unimportant
Moderately
unimportant
Moderately important

9.3

2.0

18.6

12.0

18

41.9

22

44.0

Very Important

11

25.6

21

42.0

No answer given

4.7

Very unimportant
Moderately
unimportant
Moderately important

11.6

2.0

14.0

14.0

16

37.2

18

36.0

Very Important

14

32.6

24

48.0

Through the mentor

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding forms of communication used in assisting beginning
teachers (Table 32).

Table 32
T-test Analysis on Forms of Communication Used in Assisting Beginning Teachers on
Campus

Regularly scheduled Face to Face

Meetings
AD HOC meetings or conferences as
needed
Informal Conversations
Telephone Calls

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

91

-2.200

.030

91

-1.973

.051

91

-2.306

.023

91

-1.068

.289

97
Written Communications

91

-1.960

.053

Emails

91

-2.682

.009

Through the mentor

91

-2.390

.019

*p<.05
A t-test of 2.200 with a significance of .030 indicated a statistically significant
difference was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to face to face
meeting as an effective form of communication in assisting beginning teachers. A t-test
of 1.973 with a significance of .051 indicated that no statistically significant difference
was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to ad hoc meeting or
conference as needed as an effective form of communication in assisting beginning
teachers. A t-test of -2.306 with a significance of .023 indicated a statistically significant
difference was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to informal
conversations as an effective form of communication in assisting beginning teachers. A ttest of -1.068 with a significance of .289 indicated that no statistically significant
difference was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to telephone calls
as an effective form of communication in assisting beginning teachers. A t-test of -1.960
with a significance of .053 indicated that no statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance in reference to written communication such as
notes or memos as an effective form of communication in assisting beginning teachers. A
t-test of 2.682 with a significance of .009 indicated a statistically significant difference
was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to e-mail as an effective form
of communication in assisting beginning teachers. A t-test of 2.390 with a significance
of .019 indicated a statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of
significance in reference to communication through mentor as an effective form of

98
communication in assisting beginning teachers. The mean difference between TxBESS
and NON-TxBESS schools regarding effective form of communication in assisting
beginning teachers was significant in the areas of face-to-face meeting, informal
conversations, e-mail and communication through mentor. The other areas such as: ad
hoc meeting; telephone call; and written communication were not significantly different.
The data revealed that there were more NON-TxBESS school than TxBESS schools that
felt strongly about the different forms of communication in assisting beginning teachers.
Question 17 asked the respondents to identify the activities engaged in with the
beginning teachers (Table 33). The choices were: observation of his/her class; discussion
about teaching methods; discussions about the classroom management and student
discipline; discussions about subject matter/content; discussions about school or district
policies; discussions about student assessment and TAKS; discussions about professional
development; discussions about planning lessons; discussions about PDAS; and others.
The respondents in the TxBESS and NON-TxBESS groups were strongly engaged in
following activities: observation of his/her class; discussion about teaching methods;
discussions about the classroom management and student discipline; discussions about
subject matter/content; discussions about school or district policies; discussions about
student assessment and TAKS; discussions about professional development; discussions
about planning lessons; discussions about PDAS; and others.
Table 33
Activities Engaged with Beginning Teachers
TxBESS
Frequency
Observation of class

Percent

NON-TxBESS
Frequency

Percent

99
No answer given

2.3

Yes

40

93.0

49

98.0

No

4.7

2.0

Discussion about teaching method

No answer given

2.3

Yes

36

83.7

45

98.0

No

14.0

2.0

Discussion about management

No answer given

2.3

Yes

39

90.7

46

92.0

No

7.0

8.0

Discussion about subject matter

No answer given

2.3

Yes

29

67.4

40

80.0

No

13

30.2

10

20.0

Discussion about school or district policies

No answer given

2.3

Yes

37

86.0

43

86.0

No

11.6

14.0

Table 33 continued
TxBESS
Frequency

Percent

NON-TxBESS
Frequency

Percent

Student Assessment/ TAKS

No answer given

2.3

Yes

34

79.1

37

74.0

No

18.6

13

26.0

No answer given

2.3

Yes

32

74.4

38

76.0

Professional Development

100
No

10

23.3

12

24.0

No answer given

2.3

Yes

27

62.8

34

68.0

No

15

34.9

16

32.0

No answer given

2.3

Yes

34

79.1

47

94.0

No

18.6

6.0

Planning lessons

PDAS

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding activities engaged with the beginning teachers (Table
34).

Table 34
T-test Analysis on Activities Engaged with Beginning Teachers

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Observation of classes

61.742

.072

.943

Discussion of teaching methods

78.628

.222

.825

Discussion of classroom management

85.316

-.553

.582

Discussion about subject matter/content

91

.840

.403

Discussion of school and district policies

Discussion of school assessments and
TAKS

87.641

-.629

.531

89.516

-1.068

.288

101
Discussion about professional
development
Discussion of planning lessons
Discussion of PDAS

86.476

-.328

.744

85.506

.054

.957

91

1.443

.153

*p<.05
A t-test of .072 with a significance of .943 indicated that no statistically
significant difference was established at the .05 level of significance in reference to
observation of classes as an activities engaged with the beginning teacher. A t-test of .
222 with a significance of .825 indicated that no statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance in reference to discussion about teaching
methods as an activities engaged with the beginning teachers. A t-test of -.553 with a
significance of .582 indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at
the .05 level of significance in reference to discussion about classroom management as an
activities engaged with the beginning teachers. A t-test of .840 with a significance of .
403 indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of
significance in reference to discussion about subject matter/content as an activities
engaged with the beginning teachers. A t-test of -.629 with a significance of .531
indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of
significance in reference to discussion about school or district policies as an activities
engaged with the beginning teacher. A t-test of -1.068 with a significance of .288
indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of
significance in reference to discussion about student assessment/TAKS as an activities
engaged with the beginning teachers. A t-test of -.328 with a significance of .744
indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of
significance in reference to discussion about professional development as an activities

102
engaged with the beginning teachers. A t-test of .054 with a significance of .957
indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of
significance in reference to discussion about planning lessons as an activities engaged
with the beginning teachers. A t-test of 1.443 with a significance of .153 indicated that
no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of significance in
reference to discussion about PDAS as an activities engaged with the beginning teachers.
The mean difference between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools regarding activities
engaged with the beginning teachers was not significantly different. The data revealed
that there were more TxBESS schools engaged in the following activities. They were:
observation of classes; discussion about teaching methods; discussion about subject
matter/content; discussion about planning lessons; and discussion about PDAS. The data
revealed that more NON-TxBESS schools were engaged in activities dealing with
discussion about classroom management; discussion about student assessment/TAKS and
discussion about professional development.
Question 18 asked the respondents in an open-ended question format to provide
additional information that could increase their effectiveness in their efforts to support
beginning teachers. Twenty-six of the respondents in the TxBESS group added
additional comments. Overwhelmingly (76.9%) reported they needed more time.
Additionally, other responses were:

Having professional development workshops related to the same subject matter.

Having a structured program to help beginning teachers.

Believing we have an outstanding mentoring program - district and campus.

103

Creating professional development locally (campus) that addresses our specific

strengths and weaknesses.

Having more money and resources.

Having more frequent classroom observations/conferences.

Thirty-five of the respondents in the NON-TxBESS group added additional comments.

Overwhelmingly (80%) reported they needed more time. Additionally, other responses
were:

Needing more training on how to supervise beginning teachers. Changes or

expectations are always occurring and the preparation that we received in
obtaining our principal certification dealt with some issues that now obsolete and
did not deal with factors that were nonexistent back then.

Researching and practicing ways improve new teacher inductive effectiveness

Providing continuous affirmation (first year is sooooo tough!)

Creating a wonderful mentor/mentee program!

Being more knowledgeable about ECAP and Region 10 certification programs

Having more class observation

Having more training

Team Member Training

Descriptive statistics were calculated for all team member training items of the
principal questionnaire. Question 19 asked the respondents if they received any
beginning teachers induction training (Table 35). The respondents had a choice of either

104
yes or no. The most frequent response in the TxBESS group was no. There were 19
respondents (44.2%) who indicated they did not receive any training. The most frequent
response in the NON-TxBESS group was no. There were 17 respondents (64%) who
indicated they did not receive any training.
Table 35
Receive any Training
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No answer given

16.3

2.0

Yes

17

39.5

17

34.0

No

19

44.2

32

64.0

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding any form of beginning teacher induction training (Table
36).

Table 36
T-test Analysis on Receiving any Training

Receive any beginning teacher

induction training
*p<.05

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

91

-2.591

.011

The data revealed that there were more respondents from the NON-TxBESS
group that received some form of beginning teacher induction training. The mean

105
difference was significantly different between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools in
reference to the respondents receiving any beginning teacher induction training. A t-test
of -2.591 with a significance of .011 indicated a statistically significant difference was
established at the .05 level of significance.
Question 20 asked the respondents who received beginning teachers induction
training to identify the type of training (Table 37). The choices were: one half day of
training; a full day of training that included strategies for supporting/coaching beginning
teachers; literature on working with beginning teachers; and other support from the
regional education service center. The most frequent response of the ones that responded
in the TxBESS group was a full day training. There were 7 respondents (16.3%) who
indicated they had a full day of training. The second most frequent response of the ones
that responded in the TxBESS group was a half day training. There were 6 respondents
(14%) who indicated they had a half day of training. The most frequent response of the
ones that responded in the NON-TxBESS group was one half day training. There were 7
respondents (14%) who indicated they had a half day of training. The second most
frequent response of the ones that responded in the NON-TxBESS group was a full day
training. There were 6 respondents (12%) who indicated they had a full day of training.
Table 37
Type of Training
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No answer given

26

60.5

33

66.0

One half day

14.0

14.0

One full day

16.3

12.0

106
Literature on working with
beginning teachers
Other support from the
Educational Service Center

9.3

6.0

2.0

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding the type of training they received (Table 38).
Table 38
T-test Analysis on Type of Training

Type of training

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

88.837

.478

.634

*p<.05
The data revealed that there were slightly more respondents from the TxBESS
group in classifying the type of training, the mean difference between TxBESS and
NON-TxBESS schools in reference to the respondents identify their type of training was
not significantly different. A t-test of .478 with a significance of .634 indicated that no
statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of significance.
Question 21 asked the respondents who received beginning teachers induction
training to rate the training (Table 39). The choices were: very high, generally good, fair,
and generally poor. The most frequent response of the ones that responded in the
TxBESS group rated that their training was generally good. There were 15 respondents
(34.9%) who rated their training as generally good. The second most frequent response
of the ones that responded in the TxBESS group rated their training as very high. There
were 2 respondents (4.7%) who rated their training as very high. The most frequent
response of the ones that responded in the NON-TxBESS group indicated that their
training was generally good. There were 11 respondents (22%) who rated their training

107
as generally good. The second most frequent response of the ones that responded in the
NON-TxBESS group rated their training as fair. There were 6 respondents (12%) who
rated their training as fair.
Table 39
Rate Training
TxBESS

NON-TxBESS

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

No answer given

25

58.1

32

64.0

Very High

4.7

2.0

Generally good

15

34.9

11

22.0

An independent t-test was used to compare the means of the TxBESS schools and
NON-TxBESS schools regarding rating the training they received (Table 40).

Table 40
T-test Analysis on Rating Training

Rate training
*p<.05

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

90.981

-.027

.979

The data revealed that there were slightly more respondents from the TxBESS
group who rated their training at a higher level of satisfaction, the mean difference
between TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools in reference to the respondents rating their
training was not significantly different. A t-test of -.027 with a significance of .979

108
indicated that no statistically significant difference was established at the .05 level of
significance

Turnover Rate
The third research question, Is there a significant difference in the turnover rate
of teachers in the schools involved in this study that utilize TxBESS and those that do
not? was analyzed through data gathered from the Texas Education Agency. The
information gathered in this section was from the turnover ratio of each school district,
which had at least two schools involved in this study. The Texas Education Agency
defines turnover rate as:
Turnover Rate for Teachers (District Profile only): This shows the total full time
equivalent count of teachers not employed in the district in the fall of 2002-03
who were employed as teachers in the district in the fall of 2001-02, divided by
the total teacher full time equivalent count for the fall of 2001-02. Social security
numbers of reported teachers are compared from the two semesters to develop this
information. Staff who remain employed in the district but not as teachers are
counted as teacher turnover. (Texas Education Agency, 2002).
The school districts in the TxBESS program are represented in the following table
(Table 41). Of the school districts involved in this study that subscribed to TxBESS,
Desoto I.S.D. has the highest turnover rate for teachers at 28.4. Socorro I.S.D. has the
lowest turnover rate for teachers of the schools at 11.0. The range of the TxBESS group
involved in this study was 17.4.
Table 41

109
School Districts Involved in this Study Which Subscribes to TxBESS

TxBESS SCHOOL DISTRICTS

District Name

ESC

District

Teacher Turnover
Numerator

Teacher Turnover
Denominator

Teacher Turnover
Ratio

Bay City ISD

158901

38.3667

276.5073

13.9

Breckenridge ISD

14

215901

15.0014

122.6227

12.2

Brownwood ISD

15

025902

45.5023

287.5001

15.8

Calallen ISD

178903

48.2909

269.1581

17.9

Dangerfield-Lone Star ISD

172902

17.8812

141.524

12.6

De Soto ISD

10

057906

141.9532

500.2723

28.4

Eagle Pass ISD

20

159901

19.5675

120.9385

16.2

Hallsville ISD

102904

38.9276

268.2464

14.5

Kermit ISD

18

248901

12.9172

109.5877

11.8

La Marque ISD

084904

61.6301

250.5615

24.6

Lamesa ISD

17

058906

32.4416

159.5019

20.3

Laredo ISD

240901

165.6595

1435.4236

11.5

Magnolia ISD

170906

63.4502

532.9887

11.9

Memphis ISD

16

096904

8.5001

56.8238

15.0

Northwest ISD

11

061911

50.4751

430.4432

11.7

Port Arthur ISD

123907

159.4663

701.7035

22.7

Sequin ISD

13

094901

85.3176

553.1231

15.4

Socorro ISD

19

071909

177.2923

1616.4127

11.0

Temple ISD

12

014909

127.6363

622.3789

20.5

Wichita Falls ISD

243905

135.3282

1122.2813

12.1

The matched school districts that were involved in this study are represented in
the following table (Table 42). Of the school districts involved in this study that do not
subscribe to TxBESS, Lancaster I.S.D. has the highest turnover rate for teachers at 34.5.
Lewisville I.S.D. has the lowest turnover rate for teachers of the schools at 12.6. The
range of the NON-TxBESS group involved in this study was 17.1.
Table 42
Matched School District Not Utilizing TxBESS

NON-TxBESS SCHOOL DISTRICTS

District Name

ESC

District

Teacher Turnover
Numerator

Teacher Turnover
Denominator

Teacher Turnover
Ratio

110
Alvin ISD
Belton ISD
Brackett ISD
Brazosport ISD
Canyon ISD
Donna ISD
Galveston ISD
Highlind Park ISD
Hudson ISD
Jacksonville ISD
Keller ISD
La Joya ISD
Lancaster ISD
Lewisville ISD
Lockney ISD
Lubbock ISD
Lytle ISD
Marlin ISD
Mesquite ISD
Midland ISD
Palestine ISD
Pasadena ISD
Plainview ISD
Rockwall ISD
Seagraves ISD
Texarkana ISD
Waxahachie ISD
Weslaco ISD

4
12
20
4
16
1
4
10
7
7
11
1
10
11
17
17
20
12
10
18
7
4
17
10
17
8
10
1

020901
014903
136901
020905
191901
108902
084902
057911
003902
037904
220907
108912
057913
061902
077902
152901
007904
073903
057914
165901
001907
101917
095905
199901
083901
019907
070912
108913

143.356
69.5331
11.2395
117.5759
69.3979
124.3366
162.2906
107.1382
20.0002
73.9883
160.9058
204.6615
105.8184
353.4438
7.9999
283.3921
23.0012
24.4045
268.9749
209.2263
38.3574
362.8405
62.5075
73.7977
8.1162
65.4279
52.1003
121.2069

770.6862
454.2965
58.2381
798.0572
475.3954
714.245
637.4958
416.0585
155.1852
330.944
1048.9792
1157.6
306.7096
2809.2709
63.0045
2109.3693
115.3268
148.113
2046.3853
1385.7601
256.4459
2664.4544
396.7771
523.0582
63.555
360.3267
378.4134
885.8919

18.6
15.3
19.3
14.7
14.6
17.4
25.5
25.8
12.9
22.4
15.3
17.7
34.5
12.6
12.7
13.4
19.9
16.5
13.1
15.1
15.0
13.6
15.8
14.1
12.8
18.2
13.8
13.7

Inferential statistics were used to analyze the third research question: Is there a
significant difference in the turnover rate of teachers in the schools involved in this study
that utilize TxBESS and those that do not? An independent-sample t-test was used to
compare the means of schools utilizing TxBESS and school utilizing their own form of
induction (Table 43).
Table 43
T-test Analysis on Teacher Turnover Ratio
Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

111
Turnover

41.345

-.647

.521

*p<.05
The data revealed that there were more schools utilizing their own form of
induction in the NON-TxBESS group, the mean difference between TxBESS and NONTxBESS schools in reference to teacher turnover ratios was not significantly different. A
t-test of -.647 with a significance of .521 indicated that no statistically significant
difference was established at the .05 level of significance.

Summary
The majority of the information was gathered from principal questionnaire,
designed by the Charles A. Dana Center. The survey was divided into four categories.
These categories were: Demographic Information; Team Selection, Logistics, and Duties;
Team member Training; and Overall Effectiveness.
The first research question, Has the administration of the TxBESS program been
of such a quality as to establish and maintain a strong induction program for beginning
teachers? was analyzed through data gathered in questions items 22 26, which is
entitled overall effectiveness. Descriptive statistics revealed that TxBESS was an
effective beginning teacher induction program.
The second research question, Is there a significant difference in responses of
campus administrators pertaining to characteristics of induction programs between those
utilizing TxBESS and those that do not? Questions 4-18 were used to answer this
research question. Based on the data there was no significant difference between the
TxBESS and NON-TxBESS schools.

112
The third research question, Is there a significant difference in the turnover rate
of teachers in the schools involved in this study that utilize TxBESS and those that do
not? Data from the Texas Education Agency was employed to address this question.
Based upon the data there was no significant difference between the TxBESS and NONTxBESS schools.

CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The last chapter of this dissertation is arranged in four sections: 1) Findings, 2)

Implications for Theory, 3) Implications for Practice, and 4) Recommendations for Future
Research. The preceding four chapters introduced the problem, reviewed the existing
literature regarding the induction practice of beginning teachers, expounded on the
current induction practices in the state of Texas, and compared the differences between
the inductions practices of school districts utilizing the TxBESS program and matched
school districts utilizing their own form of induction through statistical analysis.
The purpose of induction is to improve the overall effectiveness of teachers. The
more years that students work with effective teachers, the higher their measured
achievement, far outpacing their peers who start with comparable achievement but who
spend consecutive years studying with less effective teachers (Kaplan & Owings, 2004).
Teacher effectiveness can be established through a strong mentoring and induction
program. Mentoring is not induction, but a vital component of the induction process.
Induction is a systemwide, coherent, comprehensive training and support process that
continues for two or three years and then seamlessly becomes part of the lifelong
professional development program of the district to keep new teachers teaching and
improving, increasing their effectiveness (Wong, 2004).
The purpose of this study was to examine the differences between schools in
school districts in the State of Texas that implemented the TxBESS induction program
and those utilizing their own form of induction. Each TxBESS school was selected by

112

114
randomly selecting a school district from each of the twenty ESC (Educational Service
Center) regions that participated in the TxBESS program and matched to a school district
not utilizing the TxBESS program. Subsequently, 4 schools (2 elementary and 2
secondary schools) from each of the selected districts were matched by campus
comparison group to 4 equivalent schools in the districts not utilizing TxBESS. Finally,
160 administrators were surveyed from the 80 selected and 80 matched schools. Once the
sampling pool was established, the objective was to determine if there was a significant
difference in the responses of the administrators or campus level employee involved in
the induction process, pertaining to the induction practices between the TxBESS schools
and the school utilizing their on form of induction. The research questions that directed
this study were:
1. Has the administration of the TxBESS program been of such a quality as to
establish and maintain a strong induction program for beginning teachers?
2. Is there a significant difference in responses of campus administrators
pertaining to characteristics of induction programs between those utilizing
TxBESS and those that do not?
3. Is there a significant difference in the turnover rate of teachers in the schools
involved in this study that utilize TxBESS and those that do not?

Findings
Data utilized in this study was collected through a survey questionnaire entitled,
Principal Questionnaire. Additionally, the researcher accessed the Texas Education
Agency website and requested information pertaining to the districts involved in this

115
study. The research question posed in this study was developed after investigating the
existing literature regarding teacher induction practices. For the first research question,
descriptive statistics were employed to quantitatively describe the data. For the second
research question, descriptive and inferential statistics were employed to analyze and
describe the phenomena based upon the survey responses. The third research questions
utilized inferential statistics to describe the phenomena based upon the information
gathered from the Texas Education Agency.

Discussion of Findings
The demographic data collected from the principal questionnaire, developed by
the Charles A. Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin, revealed some
similarities and subtle differences between the respondents of schools utilizing TxBESS
and schools utilizing their form of induction. According to the data collected, 96.8% of
the respondents in this survey had more than four years of teaching experience; Roughly,
50.5% of the respondents had more than four years of experience as an administrator;
58.1% of the respondents were situated at the elementary level.
The first research question focused on determining if the administration of the
TxBESS program has been of such a quality as to establish and maintain a strong
induction program for beginning teachers. Questions 22-26 were analyzed to determine
the effectiveness of the TxBESS program. Subsequently, conclusions were made based
upon the analysis. For each question used to answer the first research question, the
researcher utilized descriptive statistics. Based on the responses, the respondents would
probably like to see the TxBESS program implemented the following school year. The

116
data also revealed that the respondents believed that TxBESS supported teachers were
better prepared in the areas of integration with faculty, student discipline, teacher
attendance, and effectiveness of instruction than other beginning teachers. The survey
provided the respondents an opportunity to provide additional information about any
activities, time, and resources that could increase a beginning teacher chances for
success. Fourteen respondents provided additional insight into strengthening the
induction program through unique and innovative ideas. Overall, the respondents were
satisfied with the quality of the TxBESS program.
The second research question focused on determining if there was a significant
difference in responses of campus administrators pertaining to characteristics of induction
programs between those utilizing TxBESS and those that do not. Questions 4-18 focused
on the characteristics and components of the different induction programs. Independent
t-tests were performed to compare the means of the TxBESS group and the NONTxBESS group. The results were:

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to the number of teachers on
campus. The mean score for the TxBESS group was 2.95 (SD= 1.068). The
mean score for the NON-TxBESS group was 3.38 (SD 1.105). The mean
score of the NON-TxBESS group was greater, indicating a larger number of
teachers on campus.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to the number of teacher on
campus with zero years of experience. The mean score for the TxBESS group

117
was 2.02 (SD= .707). The mean score for the NON-TxBESS group was 2.28
(SD .975). The mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was slightly larger,
indicating a larger number of teachers on campus with zero years of
experience.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to the number of teachers who
participated in a beginning teacher induction program. The mean score for the
TxBESS group was 2.02 (SD= .913). The mean score for the NON-TxBESS
group was 2.20 (SD .990). The mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was
greater, indicating a larger number of teachers that participated in a beginning
teacher induction program.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to participation in an induction
program as a requirement or choice. The mean score for the TxBESS group
was 1.58 (SD= .698). The mean score for the NON-TxBESS group was 1.72
(SD .573). The mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was greater,
indicating schools regarding participation in an induction program was a
requirement.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to respondent being the person
responsible for pairing the beginning teachers and mentors. The mean score
for the TxBESS group was 1.12 (SD= .498). The mean score for the NONTxBESS group was 1.08 (SD .396). The mean score of the TxBESS group

118
was slightly higher, indicating a larger number of the respondents from this
group were responsible for pairing beginning teachers and mentors.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to criteria used to pair mentors
with beginning teachers. The mean score for the criterion of physical
proximity in the TxBESS group was 1.58 (SD= .499). The mean score for the
criterion of physical proximity in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.60 (SD .
535). The mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was slightly larger,
indicating close physical proximity was used in pairing mentors with
beginning teachers. The mean score for the criterion of similar subjects in the
TxBESS group was 1.26 (SD= .441). The mean score for the criterion of
similar subjects in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.12 (SD .385). The mean
score of the TxBESS group was slightly larger, indicating similar teaching
experience or grade level was used in pairing mentors with beginning
teachers. The mean score for the criterion of beginning teacher requesting a
mentor in the TxBESS group was 1.93 (SD= .258). The mean score for the
criterion of beginning teacher requesting a mentor in the NON-TxBESS group
was 1.86 (SD .405). The mean score of the TxBESS group was greater,
indicating beginning teacher requesting a mentor was used in pairing mentors
with beginning teachers. The mean score for the criterion of mentor requesting
a beginning teacher in the TxBESS group was 1.90 (SD= .364). The mean
score for the criterion of mentor requesting a beginning teacher in the NONTxBESS group was 1.65 (SD 1.987). The mean score of the TxBESS group

119
was greater, indicating mentors requesting a beginning teacher was used in
pairing mentors with beginning teachers.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to mechanisms provided to the
beginning teachers and mentors. The mean score for the mechanism of same
planning period in the TxBESS group was 1.65 (SD= 1.987). The mean score
for the mechanism of same planning period in the NON-TxBESS group was
1.34 (SD .519). The mean score of the TxBESS group was slightly larger,
indicating same planning period was used as a mechanism for beginning
teachers and mentors. The mean score for the mechanism of same lunch
period in the TxBESS group was 1.42 (SD= .499). The mean score for the
mechanism of same lunch period in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.56 (SD .
541). The mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was slightly larger,
indicating same lunch period was used as a mechanism for beginning teachers
and mentors. The mean score for the mechanism of close proximity in the
TxBESS group was 1.23 (SD= .427). The mean score for the mechanism of
close proximity in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.30 (SD .505). The mean
score of the NON-TxBESS group was slightly larger, indicating close
proximity was used as a mechanism for beginning teachers and mentors. The
mean score for the mechanism of release time for conference with each other
in the TxBESS group was 1.44 (SD= .502). The mean score for the
mechanism of release time for conference with each other in the NONTxBESS group was 1.32 (SD .513). The mean score of the TxBESS group

120
was slightly larger, indicating release time for conference with each other was
used as a mechanism for beginning teachers and mentors. The mean score for
the mechanism of release time for training in the TxBESS group was 1.37
(SD= .489). The mean score for the mechanism of release time for training in
the NON-TxBESS group was 1.42 (SD .538). The mean score of the NONTxBESS group was slightly larger, indicating release time for training was
used as a mechanism for beginning teachers and mentors.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to important components of
supporting beginning teachers. The mean score for the component of time to
know beginning teacher in the TxBESS group was 2.07 (SD= 3.150). The
mean score for the component of time to know beginning teacher in the NONTxBESS group was 1.72 (SD .454). The mean score of the TxBESS group
was larger, indicating time to know the beginning teacher was used as a
component for supporting beginning teachers. The mean score for the
component of best match between mentor and beginning teacher in the
TxBESS group was 1.67 (SD= .474). The mean score for the component of
best match between mentor and beginning teacher in the NON-TxBESS group
was 1.56 (SD .501). The mean score of the TxBESS group was larger,
indicating best match between mentors and beginning teachers was used as a
component for supporting beginning teachers. The mean score for the
component of adequate supplies for beginning teacher in the TxBESS group
was 1.81 (SD= .394). The mean score for the component of adequate supplies

121
for beginning teacher in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.88 (SD .385). The
mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was larger, indicating adequate
supplies for beginning teacher was used as a component for supporting
beginning teachers. The mean score for the component making sure
beginning teacher knows polices and procedures in the TxBESS group was
1.88 (SD= .385). The mean score for the component making sure beginning
teacher knows polices and procedures in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.79
(SD .412). The mean score of the TxBESS group was larger, indicating
making sure beginning teacher knows polices and procedures was used as a
component for supporting beginning teachers. The mean score for the
component conducting walk through to observe beginning teachers in the
TxBESS group was 1.63 (SD= .489). The mean score for the component
conducting walk through to observe beginning teachers in the NON-TxBESS
group was 1.62 (SD .490). The mean score of the TxBESS group was slightly
larger, indicating conducting walk through to observe beginning teachers was
used as a component for supporting beginning teachers.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to methods used to optimize
beginning teachers chances for success. The mean score for the method of
placing beginning teachers only in areas of certification in the TxBESS group
was 1.21 (SD= .466). The mean score for the method of placing beginning
teachers only in areas of certification in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.20
(SD .404). The mean score of the TxBESS group was slightly larger,

122
indicating placing beginning teachers only in areas of certification was used as
a method for optimizing beginning teachers chances for success. The mean
score for the method of giving beginning teachers their own classroom in the
TxBESS group was 1.12 (SD= .391). The mean score for the method of giving
beginning teachers their own classroom in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.08
(SD .391). The mean score of the TxBESS group was slightly larger,
indicating giving beginning teachers their own classroom was used as a
method for optimizing beginning teachers chances for success. The mean
score for the method of giving beginning teachers smaller than average class
sizes in the TxBESS group was 1.08 (SD= .274). The mean score for the
method of giving beginning teachers smaller than average class sizes in the
NON-TxBESS group was 1.77 (SD .480). The mean score of the NONTxBESS group was larger, indicating of giving beginning teachers smaller
than average class sizes was used as a method for optimizing beginning
teachers chances for success. The mean score for the method of giving
beginning teachers smaller number of extra-curricular activities in the
TxBESS group was 1.72 (SD= .504). The mean score for the method of
giving beginning teachers smaller number of extra-curricular activities in the
NON-TxBESS group was 1.52 (SD .505). The mean score of the TxBESS
group was larger, indicating of giving beginning teachers smaller number of
extra-curricular activities was used as a method for optimizing beginning
teachers chances for success. The mean score for the method of release time
for beginning teachers to observe experienced teachers in the TxBESS group

123
was 1.33 (SD= .522). The mean score of release time for beginning teachers
to observe experienced teachers in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.22 (SD .
418). The mean score of the TxBESS group was larger, indicating release of
time for beginning teachers to observe experienced teachers was used as a
method for optimizing beginning teachers chances for success. The mean
score for the method limited resources in the TxBESS group was 2.30 (SD=
2.996). The mean score limited resources in the NON-TxBESS group was
1.84 (SD .370). The mean score of the TxBESS group was larger, indicating
limited resources was used as a method for optimizing beginning teachers
chances for success.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to time spent on beginning
teachers support activities. The mean score for the TxBESS group was 1.77
(SD= .922). The mean score for the NON-TxBESS group was 1.68 (SD .768).
The mean score of the TxBESS group was greater, indicating more time was
spent on beginning teachers support activities.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to time spent in meetings with
beginning teachers. The mean score for the TxBESS group was 2.37 (SD=
1.431). The mean score for the NON-TxBESS group was 2.78 (SD 1.055).
The mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was greater, indicating more time
was spent meeting with beginning teachers.

124

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to time spent in meetings with
mentors about the beginning teachers needs. The mean score for the TxBESS
group was 2.23 (SD= 1.231). The mean score for the NON-TxBESS group
was 2.64 (SD .802). The mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was greater,
indicating more time was spent meeting with mentors about beginning
teachers needs.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to forms of communication was
used in assisting beginning teachers on campus. The mean score for Ad hoc
meetings as an effective form of communication in the TxBESS group was
2.81 (SD= 1.118). The mean score for Ad hoc meetings as an effective form of
communication in the NON-TxBESS group was 3.20 (SD .756). The mean
score of the NON-TxBESS group was larger, indicating Ad hoc meetings as
an effective form of communication used in assisting beginning teachers on
campus. The mean score for telephone calls as an effective form of
communication in the TxBESS group was 1.70 (SD= 1.059). The mean score
for telephone calls as an effective form of communication in the NONTxBESS group was 1.90 (SD .763). The mean score of the NON-TxBESS
group was larger, indicating telephone calls as an effective form of
communication used in assisting beginning teachers on campus. The mean
score for written communication as an effective form of communication in the
TxBESS group was 2.70 (SD= 1.124). The mean score for written

125
communication as an effective form of communication in the NON-TxBESS
group was 3.06 (SD .620). The mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was
larger, indicating written communication as an effective form of
communication used in assisting beginning teachers on campus. There was
significant difference between the response of the TxBESS group and NONTxBESS group pertaining to forms of communication used in assisting
beginning teachers on campus. The mean score for face to face meetings as
an effective form of communication in the TxBESS group was 2.98 (SD=
1.244). The mean score for face to face meetings as an effective form of
communication in the NON-TxBESS group was 3.44 (SD .760). The mean
score of the NON-TxBESS group was larger, indicating face to face meetings
as an effective form of communication used in assisting beginning teachers on
campus. The mean score for e-mail as an effective form of communication in
the TxBESS group was 3.06 (SD= .620). The mean score for e-mail as an
effective form of communication in the NON-TxBESS group was 2.74 (SD
1.093). The mean score of the TxBESS group was larger, indicating e-mail as
an effective form of communication used in assisting beginning teachers on
campus. The mean score for communication through mentor as an effective
form of communication in the TxBESS group was 2.81 (SD= 1.160). The
mean score for communication through mentor as an effective form of
communication in the NON-TxBESS group was 3.30 (SD .789). The mean
score of the NON-TxBESS group was larger, indicating communication

126
through mentor as an effective form of communication used in assisting
beginning teachers on campus.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to activities engaged with
beginning teachers. The mean score for the activity of discussing about
teaching methods in the TxBESS group was 1.02 (SD= .141). The mean score
for the activity of observing classes in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.02
(SD .391). The mean score of the TxBESS group and NON-TxBESS group
was equivalent, indicating the activity of observing classes were used. The
mean score for the activity of discussing about teaching methods in the
TxBESS group was 1.12 (SD= .391). The mean score for the activity of
discussing about teaching methods in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.10 (SD .
303). The mean score of the TxBESS group was slightly larger, indicating the
activity of discussing about teaching methods was used. The mean score for
the activity of discussing about classroom management in the TxBESS group
was 1.05 (SD= .305). The mean score for the activity of discussing about
classroom management in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.08 (SD .274). The
mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was slightly larger, indicating the
activity of discussing about classroom management was used. The mean score
for the activity of discussing about subject matter/content in the TxBESS
group was 1.28 (SD= .504). The mean score for the activity of discussing
about subject matter/content in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.20 (SD .404).
The mean score of the TxBESS group was slightly larger, indicating the

127
activity of discussing about subject matter/content was used. The mean score
for the activity of discussing about school and district policies in the TxBESS
group was 1.09 (SD= .366). The mean score for the activity of discussing
about school and district policies in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.14 (SD .
351). The mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was slightly larger,
indicating the activity of discussing about school and district policies was
used. The mean score for the activity of discussing about student
assessment/TAKS in the TxBESS group was 1.16 (SD= .433). The mean score
for the activity of discussing about student assessment/TAKS in the NONTxBESS group was 1.26 (SD .443). The mean score of the NON-TxBESS
group was slightly larger, indicating the activity of discussing about student
assessment/TAKS was used. The mean score for the activity of discussing
about professional development in the TxBESS group was 1.21 (SD= .466).
The mean score for the activity of discussing about professional development
in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.24 (SD .431). The mean score of the NONTxBESS group was slightly larger, indicating the activity of discussing about
professional development was used. The mean score for the activity of
discussing about planning lessons in the TxBESS group was 1.33 (SD= .522).
The mean score for the activity of discussing about planning lessons in the
NON-TxBESS group was 1.32 (SD .471). The mean score of the TxBESS
group was slightly larger, indicating the activity of discussing about planning
lessons was used. The mean score for the activity of discussing about PDAS
in the TxBESS group was 1.16 (SD= .433). The mean score for the activity of

128
discussing about teaching methods in the NON-TxBESS group was 1.06 (SD .
240). The mean score of the TxBESS group was slightly larger, indicating the
activity of discussing about planning lessons was used.

An emerging theme of needing more time was prevalent from the open ended
question from both the TxBESS and NON-TxBESS group.

There was a significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining receiving any form of beginning
induction training. The mean score for the TxBESS group was 1.28 (SD= .
734). The mean score for the NON-TxBESS group was 1.62 (SD .530). The
mean score of the NON-TxBESS group was greater, regarding to receiving
any form of beginning induction training.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group regarding the type of beginning induction
training. The mean score for the TxBESS group was .74 (SD= 1.049). The
mean score for the NON-TxBESS group was .64 (SD 1.045). The mean score
of the TxBESS group was greater, regarding the type of beginning induction
training.

There was no significant difference between the responses of the TxBESS

group and NON-TxBESS group pertaining to rating the beginning induction
training. The mean score for the TxBESS group was .81 (SD= 1.006). The
mean score for the NON-TxBESS group was .82 (SD 1.155). The mean score
of the NON-TxBESS group was slightly larger, regarding rating the beginning
induction training.

129
The third research question focused on determining if there was a significant
difference in the turnover rate of teachers in the schools involved in this study that utilize
TxBESS and those that do not. Data from the Texas Education Agency was used to
answer this question. Independent t-tests were performed to compare the means of the
TxBESS group and the NON-TxBESS group. The results were:

There was no significant difference between the turnover rate in the schools
involved in this study that are part of the TxBESS group and NON-TxBESS
group. The mean score for the TxBESS group was 16.00 (SD= 4.934). The
mean score for the NON-TxBESS group was 16.939 (SD 4.985). The mean
score of the NON-TxBESS group was slightly larger, regarding the teacher
turnover rate.

Summary of Major Findings

Based on the responses of the respondents who participated in this study, the
following summary of major findings is provided:
1. There was information gathered from the survey, which indicated TxBESS as an
effective beginning teacher induction program.
2. There were no statistically significant differences found between the mean
responses of the respondents from both the TxBESS group and the NON-TxBESS
groups in reference to the characteristics of an induction program. However,
differences were found in e-mail, regularly scheduled face to face meetings, and
communication through mentors as effective means of assisting beginning
teachers; as well as receiving some form of beginning teacher induction training.

130
3. There were no statistically significant difference found between the school
districts utilizing the TxBESS program and school districts utilizing their own
form of induction, in reference to the teacher turnover ratio.

Implications for Theory

This study was intended to provide information about the different induction
programs utilized in the State of Texas. The TxBESS program was designed by the State
Board for Educator Certification (SBEC) to retain beginning teachers, by providing them
with instructional and mentor support during the first year of teaching.
Specifically, this study examined the administrators perspective of the beginning
teachers induction practices through a survey. The survey was divided into four sections.
These sections includes: Demographic Information; Team Selection, Logistics, and
Duties; Team member Training; and Overall Effectiveness. The researcher analyzed the
responses of the survey to answer the research questions. The major findings revealed
the following implications for theory:
1. Participating principals reported TxBESS improved classroom performances
for beginning teachers, according to the Texas Beginning Educator Support
System Evaluation Report for year three, 2001-2002. Based upon the survey
results of this study, findings were consistent with results of the Program
Evaluation results. Subsequently, the majority of the respondents in this study
said that beginning teachers who were supported by TxBESS were
outperforming other beginning teachers, in the areas of teacher attendance,
student discipline, instructional effectiveness, and integration into faculty.

131
Sound induction programs that raise retention rates will provide novices (a)
opportunities to observe and analyze good teaching in real situations; (b)
guidance and assessment by highly trained, content-specific mentors; (c)
reduced workloads to provide more learning time; and (d) assistance in
meeting licensure standards through performance based assessments
(Southeast Center for Teaching Quality, 2003, as cited in Berry, 2004).
According to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future
(1996) what teachers know and do profoundly influences what students learn
(McCormick & Brennan, 2001).
2. The Texas Beginning Educator Support System Evaluation Report for year
three, 2001-2002, states that beginning teachers and their mentors are in
agreement that the TxBESS activity profile (TAP) is useful to the beginning
teachers. The information gathered from this study is in conflict with their
findings. 91% of the respondents disagree with the TAP guide as an effective
tool in helping beginning teachers. Professional development is effective
when it focuses on student learning, promotes collaboration, and ensures
sustainability (Wong, 2004).
3. The Texas Beginning Educator Support System Evaluation Report for year
three, 2001-2002 results indicate high level of satisfaction with TxBESS
training. The respondents in this study agree, in both the TxBESS and NONTxBESS group, that their training was generally good, with a small number
citing very high as a response.

132
4. The Texas Beginning Educator Support System Evaluation Report for year
two, 2000-2001, states that principals reported having a difficult time paying
for substitutes to allow the beginning teachers the opportunity to meet and
work with their mentors. The results of the respondents in this study were
consistent with the prior evaluation report.
5. The Texas Beginning Educator Support System Evaluation Report for year
two, 2000-2001, states that most campus principals (86%) report they were
likely to continue the TxBESS program the following year. The respondents
of this study reported (70%).
6. The turnover rate for both TxBESS and NON-TxBESS groups are
approximately 16%. High teacher turnover leads to less stable and less
effective learning environments for students; places greater demands on
teachers and other school staff members, and increases the amount of money
and time that must be spent recruiting, hiring, and training replacements
(DePaul, 2000 as cited in Brewster & Railsback, 2001). The most recent
turnover rate in Texas was reported as 15.5 percent, reflecting a loss of more
than 40,000 teachers at all levels of experience. Using industry models and
conservative estimates based on teacher salaries at zero years of experience,
Texas school districts lose $329 million when 15.5 percent of the teachers
leave to teach in another district, pursue another career, or retire (Texas Center
for Educational Research, 2000). The most recent national data indicates a
16% annual turnover rate and, in schools with high concentrations of poor
students, the rate rises to 25% (Caruba, 2003). The data in this study

133
demonstrates that the induction practices utilized in the State of Texas is an
effective tool for helping beginning new teachers, but it has not been an
essential factor in lowering the turnover rate.

Implications for Practice

This study provides practical implications for administrators, teachers, and policy
makers. The following implications were realized through the findings of this study, as
well as the literature review.
1. In this study, communication is more prevalent in the NON-TxBESS
responses to the success of the beginning new teacher. Different forms of
communication are effective, such as face to face meetings, e-mails, and
communication through the mentors. The literature supports meaningful
communication with beginning teachers. School systems can create a
magnetic effect when they make it clear that they are committed to finding,
keeping, and supporting good teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2003). This
magnetic effect can only be achieved through effective communication.
2. In this study, both TxBESS and NON-TxBESS groups have programs in place
to help induct teachers into their first year of school. The TxBESS program
was considered overall effective, with the majority of the respondents willing
to implement the program the following academic school year. Simply
assigning a mentor alone does little to remedy the situation of new teachers
becoming discouraged and leaving the profession (Wong, 2004).

134
3. The respondents to this survey were responsible for pairing mentors with
beginning teachers. However, the role of the principal, oftentimes, is reduced
to that of someone who assigns veteran teachers to new teachers, and never
oversees the process to see if the new teacher is successful and the resultant
students are achieving (Wong, 2004).
4. In the open-ended question from the survey, a few respondents felt the issue of
funding was important to the success of a beginning new teacher. The
majority of the induction programs in the State of Texas are funded through
the district. This typically causes a problem, making the induction program an
easy target for cutback cost. These programs are needed. However, little
evidence has been mounted to inform policymakers, practitioners, and the
public about how much it really takes to attract and keep teachers in hard to
staff schools (Berry, 2004). Policies that shape how our educators are
prepared, certified, rewarded, developed, and supported on the job must be
consistent with efforts to restructure the education system and ensure that
every school is capable of teaching all of our children to think and reason.
Teachers and other school leaders must not only be outstanding; the schools in
which they work must also be restructured to utilize both professional talent
and technology to improve student learning and teacher and system
productivity (U.S. Department of Education, 1990, as cited in Anzul, 2000).
5. The theme of needing more time as a response to one of the open ended
question was overwhelming prevalent in both NON-TxBESS and TxBESS
groups. The days of an administrator are filled with a never ending series of

135
reports, phone calls, student discipline problems, parents visits, personnel
problems, and requests to make appearances both off and on campus (Shahid,
B., et al., 2001). The needs of the beginning teachers are often at the bottom of
the administrators priority list. For many busy administrators, the idea that
they should take time for new teachers, to study ,and think seems bizarre,
given the continuous pressures of simply keeping a school running (Shahid,
B., et al., 2001).

Recommendations for Future Research

According to the literature, the ultimate goal of an induction program is to
acclimate the beginning teacher into the teaching profession, creating stability and
confidence to the education. The federal No Child Left Behind Act, passed in 2002, has
also emphasized the importance of new teacher induction and these programs could
receive substantial support from legislation as it is implemented over the next few years
(Ingersoll, & Smith, 2004). However, further research is needed and recommended. The
researcher offers the following recommendations for future research:
1. Due to sampling procedure, this study was limited to 180 administrators, or
any campus level employee that was directly involved with the teacher
induction process. Therefore, all Texas schools were not represented in this
study. A study involving all districts would be helpful in developing a statewide program, which focus on support and retention of teachers.
2. Due to sampling procedure, this study was limited to identifying schools that
did not subscribe to the TxBESS program. The NON-TxBESS group is

136
comprised of different programs all with different goals and objectives. A
statewide program would benefit all school districts in available information
and practices.
3. This study utilized a cross-sectional design. In a cross sectional design the
data are obtained at one point in time, but from groups of different ages or at
different stages of development (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996). A longitudinal
study, which is data collected over time, could provide better insight into the
effectiveness of an induction program.
4. Although, this study was quantitative, there were two open ended questions on
the survey. A qualitative study or combination design could add more insights
into the strengths and weakness of the TxBESS program or any other
induction program currently used by a school district.
5. This study was based upon the responses of administrator, or any campus
level employee that was directly involved with the teacher induction process.
A study including all stakeholders involved in the process would add
additional insights into the induction practices.
6. Districts offer different incentives. An additional study could look at the
impact of the paid mentors versus the volunteered mentors.
7. This study focused on the beginning new teacher first year of teaching. A
future study could look at the beginning new teacher success, failure, and
progress over a three-year span.

137
8. In this study survey responses were collected from both elementary and
secondary principals. Perhaps a future study might examine the responses
separately.
9. The respondents of this survey reported that 91% disagreed with the TxBESS
activity profile as an effective tool in helping beginning teachers. A future
study could look at the specific reasons why these respondents felt that the
TxBESS activity profile was ineffective.
Although consensus is growing that teachers are the strongest determinant of
student achievement, there is still not much more than ephemeral agreement on what
teaching quality is and how every student might access a quality teacher (Kaplan &
Owings, 2004). Adequate mentoring programs more or less meet modest goals and are
supported by minimum resources, but they neither operate systematically nor embody
other elements that are essential to the ongoing success of mentoring programs (Portner,
2001). Induction programs, with express intent of producing quality teachers, therefore,
are crucial to the survival of our educational workforce, which has an impact on our
children and the future of this nation.

References
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.),
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Anzul, J. (2000). Teacher team develops a district mentoring program. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 36(2), 65-67.
Babbie, E., Halley, F., & Zaino, J. (2000). Adventures in social research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Company.
Berry, B. (2004). Recruiting and retaining highly qualified teachers for hard to
staff school. NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 5-28.
Bogdan, R., & Bilken, S. (2003). Qualitative research for education an introduction to
theory and methods (4th ed.), Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bolich, A. (2001). Reduce your losses: Help new teachers become veteran teachers.
Retrieved Feb 27, 2004, from www.sreb.org/main/highered/reducelosses.asp
Brindley, R., Fleege, P., & Graves, S. (2000). A friend in need. Childhood Education,
76(5), 312-316.
Brennan, S., Thames, W., & Roberts, R. (1999). Mentoring with a mission. Educational
Leadership, 56(8), 49-52.
Brewster, C., & Railsback, J. (2001). Supporting beginning teachers: How
administrators, teachers, and policymakers can help new teachers succeed.
Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Brock, B., & Grady, M. (1997). From first-year to first-rate. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Brock, B., & Grady, M. (1998). Beginning teacher induction programs: The role of the
principal. The Clearing House, 71(3), 179-183.
Caruba, A. (2003). The national education association: Americas fifth column.
Retrieved June 21, 2004, from http://cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?
Page=/Commentary/archive/200309/COM20030902c.html.
Casalegno, L. (2000). Peer power. Principal Leadership (Middle School Ed.), 1(3), 42-45.
Charles A. Dana Center (2001). Texas beginning educator support system: Evaluation
report for year two 2000-01. Austin, TX

137

139
Colley, A. (2002). What can principals do about new teacher attrition?
Principal, 81(4), 22-24.
Daloz, L. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters what leaders
can do. Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.
David, T. (2000). Teacher mentoringbenefits all around. Kappa Delta Pi Record.
36(3), 134-136.
Debolt, G. (Ed). (1992). Teacher induction and mentoring: School-based collaborative
programs. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Depaul, A. (2000). Survival guide for new teachers: How new teachers can work
effectively with veteran teachers, parents, principals, and teacher educators.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Dyal, A., & Sewell, S. (2002). Effective strategies to develop successful beginning
teachers for 21st century schools. Catalyst, 31(2), 5-8.
Evertson, C., & Smithey, M. (2000). Mentoring effects on protgs classroom
practice: An experimental field study. Journal of Educational Research, 93(5),
294-304.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to
strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.
Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education.
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Furtwengler, C. (1995). Beginning teachers programs: Analysis of state actions during
the reform era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(3).
Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Education research: An introduction.
(6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Ganser, T. (2002). Sharing a cup of coffee is only a beginning. Journal of Staff
Development, 23(4), 28-32.
Garza, L., & Wurzbach, L. (2002). Texas plan drowns the idea of sink-or-swim
induction. Journal of Staff Development, 23(4), 41-45.
Gilles, C., Cramer, M., & Hwang, S. (2001). Beginning teacher perceptions of
concerns: A longitudinal look at teacher development. Action in Teacher
Education, 23(3), 89-98.

140
Hirsch, E., Koppich, J., & Knapp, M. (2001). Revisiting what states are doing to
improve the quality of teaching: An update on patterns and trends.
Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy,
University of Washington.
Holloway, J. (2001). The benefits of mentoring. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 85-86.
Hope, W. (1999). Principals orientation and induction activities as factors in teacher
retention. The Clearing House, 73(1), 54-56.
Hughes, L. (Ed.), (1994). The principal as leader. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Ingersoll, R. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong
prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86(631), 16-31.
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage.
Educational Leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
Ingersoll, R., & Smith, T. (2004). Do teacher induction and mentoring matter?
NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 28-40.
Kaplan, L., & Owings, W. (2004). Introduction to special issue: Teacher effectiveness.
NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 41-58.
Kyle, D., Moore, G., & Sanders, J. (1999). The role of the mentor teacher: Insights,
challenges, and implications. Peabody Journal of Education, 74(3-4), 109-122.
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming
conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 591-596.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1994). Teachers, their world and their work.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McCormick, K., & Brennan, S. (2001). Mentoring the new professional in
Interdisciplinary early childhood education: The Kentucky teacher internship
program. Topics In Early Childhood Special Education, 21(3), 131-149.
Mertens, D. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating
diversity with quantitative & qualitative approaches. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Moir, E. (1990). Phases of first-year teaching. Retrieved June 5, 2004, from
http://www.newteachercenter.org/article3.html.
Moir, E., & Bloom, G. (2003). Fostering leadership through mentoring. Educational
Leadership, 60(8), 58-60.

141
Moir, E., & Gless, J. (2001). Quality induction: An investment in teachers. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 28(1), 109-114.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most:
teaching for Americas future. New York, NY.
Pelletier, C. (2000). A handbook of techniques and strategies for coaching student
teachers. (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Policy Brief (2002). Induction programs. Retrieved June 5, 2004, from
http://azk12.nau.edu/services/teacherInduction/induction_papers/policy.pdf.
Policy Research Report. Texas teacher retention, mobility, and attrition.
Popham,W. (1993). Educational evaluation. (3rd ed.).Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Portner, H., (2001). Training mentors is not enough: Everything else schools and
districts need to do. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Promising Practices: New ways to improve teacher quality. (1998, September).
Scherer, M. (Ed.). (1999). A better beginning: Supporting and mentoring new
teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Shahid, B., Chavez, R., Hall, B., Long, S., Pritchard, A., Randolph, B., et al. (2001). How
can principals spend more time on instructional leadership? Education,
121(3), 506-507.
Shavelson, R. (1996). Statistical reasoning for the behavioral science (3rd ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, W., & Andrews, R. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a
difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Southeast Center for Teaching Quality (2003). Recruitment and retention strategies in a
national and regional context. Chapel Hill, NC.
State Board for Educator Certification (2002) Texas beginning educator support system
program standards.
Stansbury, K., & Zimmerman, J. (2002). Smart induction programs become lifelines for
the beginning teacher. Journal of Staff Development, 23(4), 10-17.

142
Texas Center for Educational Research (2000). The cost of teacher turnover.
Austin, Tx.
Tyler, N., Blalock, G., & Clarke, C. (2000). Extending the power in diversity-related
personnel preparation: Alliance 2000 mentoring as a professional development
process in higher education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(4),
313-323.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1998). Statistical abstract (117th ed.). Washington DC:
U.S. Department of Commerce.
U.S. Department of Education. (1990). National goals for education. The Education
Digest, 56(2), 8-12.
Verma, G. & Beard, R. (1981). What is educational research? Aldershot,
Hants, Great Britain: Gower Publishing Company Limited.
Villani, S. (2002). Mentoring programs for new teachers: Models of induction and
support (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Walling, D. (1994). Induction, retention, and collegiality: In teachers as leaders:
Perspectives on the professional development of teachers. Phi Delta Kappa
Education Foundation, 59-69.
Wiersma, W. (2000). Research methods in education: An introduction (7th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wilkinson, G. (1997). Beginning teachers identify gaps in their induction programs.
Journal of Staff Development, 18, 48-51.
Wong, H. (2002a). Induction: The best form of professional development. Educational
Leadership, 59(6), 52-54.
Wong, H. (2002b). Play for keeps. Principal Leadership, 3(1), 55-58.
Wong, H. (2004). Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and improving.
NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 41-58.

Appendix A
Gerald B. Hudson
6505 Amesbury Lane
Rowlett, Texas 75089
(972) 463-6161
Dear Administrator:
As a requirement for the completion of a Doctor of Education Degree from the University
of Texas A&M-Commerce, I am conducting a research study entitled Beginning
Teachers Induction Practices in Texas: A Comparative Analysis. The purpose of this
study is to compare the induction practices of schools in school districts utilizing the
TxBESS systems and schools that are using their own form of induction.
You have been selected for this study. I would appreciate it if you would take about 20
minutes to respond to the enclosed questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed
envelope provided. Your responses, together with others, will be combined and used for
statistical summaries only. Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may
refuse to answer any question or withdraw at any time without a penalty. Only a
small sample of administrators will receive the questionnaire, so your participation is
vital to the study. It is important to note that this study has no anticipated physical harm,
psychological harm, discomforts, inconvenience, risk to the participants. However, your
participation is extremely valued.
After compilation of the responses, all surveys will be destroyed. The unique number
that is on the cover page of the survey will be used for survey return purposes only and
will be clipped when the survey is received in the self-addressed, stamped envelope.
The Institutional Review Board has examined this research and approved the procedures
to protect human subjects. You may contact Gerald Hudson at (972) 463-6161 or the
chairperson of this committee Carolyn Kneese, Ed.D., Educational Administration Texas
A&M University-Commerce, P.O. Box 3011 Commerce, Texas, 75429-3011 at
cckneese@aol.com with any other questions or concerns. Questions pertaining to the
protection of human subjects may be directed to the Chairperson of the IRB committee
Dr. Tracy Henley at thenley@tamu-commerce.edu. A copy of the results may be
requested via e-mail at ghudson@garlandisd.net. Thank you in advance for your
participation in this study.
Thank you for your help, and I greatly appreciate your cooperation.
Cordially,
Gerald B. Hudson
Assistant Principal-Naaman Forest High School
Garland Independent School District
Education Administration Student
Texas A&M University-Commerce
142

144
Gerald B. Hudson
6505 Amesbury Lane
Rowlett, Texas 75089
(972) 463-6161
Informed Consent
To the Participant:
The purpose of this study is to investigate the beginning teacher induction
practices in the state of Texas. There will be minimal risk involved. Your responses,
together with others, will be combined and used for statistical summaries only. Only a
small sample of administrators will receive the questionnaire, so your participation is
vital to this study. The survey should take less than 20 minutes of your time to complete.
Please do not hesitate to ask any questions if anything appears uncertain. All of your
responses will be anonymous. This form is the only one that will have your name on it,
and it will be separated from the rest of the packet once it is received in the selfaddressed, stamped envelope. Your participation in this study is voluntary and you
may refuse to answer any question or withdraw at any time without a penalty. Your
cooperation is very much appreciated.
After reading the above, I hereby voluntarily consent to participation in this study.
Print name:

Date:

Signature:
School:
District:
If you have any questions about the study, You may contact Gerald Hudson at
(972) 463-6161 or the chairperson of this committee Carolyn Kneese, Ed.D., Educational
Administration Texas A&M University-Commerce, P.O. Box 3011 Commerce, Texas,
75429-3011 at cckneese@aol.com with any other questions or concerns. Questions
pertaining to the protection of human subjects may be directed to the Chairperson of the
IRB committee Dr. Tracy Henley at thenley@tamu-commerce.edu.

Appendix B

From:

"Natalie Henderson" <Natalie_Henderson@TAMU-Commerce.edu>

Add to Address Book

To: geraldhudson@yahoo.com
Subject:
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 16:26:22 -0600

Gerald,

Your dissertation proposal has been approved. I am mailing you a copy.

Thanks.
Natalie

Natalie Henderson
Doctoral Degree Coordinator
Texas A&M University-Commerce
Graduate Studies & Research
P O Box 3011
Commerce, TX 75429-3011
Phone: 903/886-5161
Fax: 903/886-5165
The Mission of Graduate Studies and Research is to provide leadership and direction for all aspects of
graduate education and to promote research at Texas A&M University-Commerce.
As a major Doctoral/Research Intensive university in the Northeast Texas region, we are committed to
embody and model the best practices in graduate education and research to meet the needs of a
constantly changing regional, national, and global environment

144

Appendix C
PRINCIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE
This survey is being administered to gain important information about teacher induction practices
in Texas. Participation in this survey is voluntary. You may choose not to respond to the
questionnaire, or to answer only some of the questions. Please note that for the purpose of this
survey, beginning teachers include all teachers with zero years of teaching experience, whether
they are fully certified or on permit. The questionnaire responses are anonymous and cannot
be linked to specific schools, districts, or higher education institutions. All information we
receive from principals will be summarized.
If you would like to provide us with additional information, please feel free to write on the back
of this form or to attach additional sheets.
Please complete this questionnaire and return it by January 22, 2004, in the enclosed postagepaid envelope.
We recognize that your time is valuable and appreciate your help in gathering this
information.
Thank you for responding.
Demographic Information
1. How many years of teaching experience do you have? (Consider only public school K-12
teaching)
____ None
____ One year
____ Two to four years
____ More than four years
2. How many years of experience did you have serving as a principal at the beginning of this
school year?
____ None
____ One year
____ Two to four years
____ More than four years
3. Which of the following best describes your school?
____ Elementary school
____ Middle school
____ High school
____ K-8 or K-12 school
____ Alternative education program or Juvenile Justice setting school
____ Charter school

145

147

Team Selection, Logistics, and Duties

4. How many teachers work at your campus this year?
____ Fewer than 10
____ 11 to 30
____ 31 to 50
____ 51 to 70
____ 71 or more

5. How many teachers on your campus this year had zero years of experience at the
beginning of this school year?
____ 0
____ 1 to 3
____ 4 to 6
____ 7 to 10
____ 11 to 15
____ More than 15
____ I am not sure

6. How many teachers on your campus participated in a Beginning Teachers Induction

program this year?
____ 0
____ 1 to 3
____ 4 to 6
____ 7 to 15
____ More than 15
____ I am not sure

7. Was participating in a Beginning Teachers Induction program a choice for you or a

requirement?
____ A choice

____ A requirement

8. Were you the person responsible for pairing beginning teachers with mentors? If no,
skip to question 10.
____ Yes

____ No

9. What criteria did you use to pair mentors with beginning teachers? Check all that
apply.
____ Physical proximity in the school building
____ Teaching experience in similar subject area or grade level
____ The beginning teacher requested a particular mentor
____ The mentor teacher requested a particular beginning teacher
____ Other_____________________________________________________________

148
10. Which of the following were you able to provide to your beginning teachers and their
mentors?
Check all that apply.
____ The same planning period
____ The same lunch period
____ Classrooms within close proximity to one another
____ Release time to conference with or observe one another
____ Release time to attend a Beginning Teachers Induction program training
____ Other _________________________________________________________________

11. What do you see as your most important role in supporting beginning teachers?
Check only one.
____ Taking time to get to know the beginning teachers
____ Making the best match between beginning teachers and mentors
____ Scheduling beginning teachers and mentors so they have more opportunities to meet and confer
____ Making sure the beginning teachers have adequate supplies and materials
____ Making sure the beginning teachers know the school policies and procedures
____ Conducting walk-throughs to observe the teachers
____ Other _______________________________________________________________________

12. Check any of the methods listed below that your school uses to optimize beginning
teachers chances
for success. Check all that apply.
____ Beginning teachers have teaching assignments only in their areas of preparation/certification.
____ Beginning teachers have their own classrooms.
____ Beginning teachers have a smaller than average number of students with special needs.
____ Beginning teachers have fewer than average extracurricular responsibilities.
____ Beginning teachers have release time to observe other teachers and get additional training.
____ I would like to make accommodations to help beginning teachers but cannot because our school
has limited time and resources.

13. On average, how much time per week did you spend on beginning teacher support
activities? Select
only one.
____ Less than an hour per week
____ 1-2 hours

____ 3-5 hours

____ More than 5 hours

14. How often did you typically meet with each beginning teacher on your campus?
Select only one.
____ More than once a week
____ Once a week
____ About every two weeks

____ Once a month

____ Less than once a month
____ Did not meet

149
15. How often did you meet with mentors or other support-team members about
beginning teacher needs?
(The support-team might include, for example, a mentor teacher, a faculty member from
higher
education, or a representative from the Regional Education Service Center.) Select only
one.
____ I did not meet with the other support-team members
____ We met once
____ We met 2 to5 times
____ We met more than 5 times

16. How important were each of the following forms of communication in your efforts to
work with the
beginning teachers on your campus? Circle one number for each.
Very
Unimportant

Moderately
Unimportant

Moderately
Important

Very
Important

a. Regularly scheduled face to face meetings

b. Ad hoc meetings or conferences as needed

c. Informal conversations

d. Telephone calls

e. Written communication such as notes or

memos
f. E-mail

g. Through my beginning teachers mentors or

other support-team members

17. In what activities did you engage with your beginning teacher(s)? Check all that
apply.
____ Observations of his/her classes
____ Discussions about teaching methods
____ Discussions about classroom management and student discipline
____ Discussions about subject matter/content
____ Discussions about school or district policies
____ Discussions about student assessment and TAKS
____ Discussions about professional development
____ Discussions about planning lessons
____ Discussions about PDAS
____ Other ________________________________________________________________

150

18. What could increase your effectiveness in your efforts to support beginning teachers?
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

Team member Training

19. Did you receive any Beginning Teachers Induction training? If no, skip to question 22.
____ Yes

____ No

20. What kind of training did you receive?

____ One half day of training
____ A full day of training that included strategies for supporting/coaching beginning teachers
____ Literature on working with beginning teachers
____ Other support from the Regional Education Service Center (please describe)____________________
_________________________________________________________________________________

21. How would you rate your training?

____ Very high
____ Generally good
____ Fair
____ Generally poor (What could make it better?)________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

Overall Effectiveness

22. Is your school participating in the TxBESS(Texas Beginning Education Support

System) program? If no, skip to question 26.
____ Yes

____ No

23. If given the opportunity by your regional service center, would you like to see your
campus participate
in TxBESS again next year?
____ Definitely yes
____ Probably yes
____ I am not certain
____ Probably not
____ Definitely not

151
24. If your regional service center were not to have a TxBESS program in the future,
which of the following would you incorporate into your support of beginning teachers on
your campus? Check all that apply.
____ providing mentors for beginning teachers
____ using a team approach to beginning teacher support that includes a representative from higher
education
____ providing release time for the mentor teachers to observe and meet with beginning teachers
____ providing release time for beginning teachers to observe more experienced teachers and/or
conference with their mentor
____ providing stipends to mentor teachers for their work with beginning teachers
____ using the TAP formative assessment to guide beginning teacher support

25. In general, are TxBESS supported teachers doing better than other beginning teachers
that you have
worked with in the following areas? Circle one answer per line.
a. Integration into the faculty
b. Student discipline
c. Teacher attendance
d. Effectiveness of instruction

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

no
no
no
no

not sure
not sure
not sure
not sure

26. Please provide additional comments about activities, time, and resources that could
optimize a beginning teachers chances for success.
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for completing this survey.

Please return it by January 22, 2004, using the enclosed postage-paid envelope.
Gerald B. Hudson
6505 Amesbury Lane
Rowlett, Texas 75089
Phone: (972) 463-6161

Appendix D

151

Appendix E

152

Appendix F

153

155

156

157

VITA
Gerald Benard Hudson, son of Reverend Burley Hudson and Ola Jean Hudson,
was born January 22, 1971, in Dallas, Texas. He graduated from Skyline Career
Development Center with an emphasis in electronics in 1989. After graduating high
school, he enrolled at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, Texas. In the fall of 1996, he
received his Bachelor of Science Degree in Mathematics with a minor in Electrical
Engineering. He decided to stay an additional year to get his teaching certification and
enroll in the post-baccalaureate program at Texas Tech University. He accepted his first
job as a math teacher and coach at South Garland High School, in Garland, Texas, in the
fall of 1997. He enrolled in graduate school at Texas A&M University-Commerce in the
fall of 1999 and graduated a year later with a Master of Science in Education
Administration, and also started his new journey towards one of education highest honor
a Doctorate of Education. He was appointed assistant principal at B.G. Hudson Middle
School in the fall of 2000 and remained there for one year, until he was appointed to
Naaman Forest High School as an assistant principal. Texas A&M University
Commerce awarded a Doctor of Education to Gerald B. Hudson with a major in
Education Administration on August 7, 2004. He is married to Elizabeth Malveaux
Hudson.
Permanent Address:
6505 Amesbury Lane
Rowlett, TX. 75089

157