See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257579633

Collegial support and novice teachers’ perceptions of working conditions

Article  in  Journal of Educational Change · November 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s10833-013-9221-x

CITATIONS READS

20 782

1 author:

Ben Pogodzinski
Wayne State University
26 PUBLICATIONS   252 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ben Pogodzinski on 10 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J Educ Change
DOI 10.1007/s10833-013-9221-x

Collegial support and novice teachers’ perceptions

of working conditions

Ben Pogodzinski

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Using survey data gathered from novice teachers at the elementary and
middle school level across 11 districts, this study examined variation in perceptions
of working conditions related to workload and access to resources and further
identified the association between these perceptions and the quality of support the
novices received from their formal mentors and other colleagues. The findings from
this study indicate that the quality of mentor support is positively associated with
novice teachers’ ability to manage their assigned workload, while the quality of
support from other colleagues is positively associated with novices’ ability to meet
the requirements of their administrative tasks. Novices’ perceptions of the admin-
istrative climate varied little over the course of one school year, and there were only
slight variations in novices’ perceptions based on years of experience and level
taught. Novices did vary significantly from their veteran colleagues in their per-
ceptions of working conditions. The findings from this study have implications for
understanding the role that formal and informal teacher support has in mediating the
expectations and demands of novice teachers’ work, which can then help guide
improvements in novice teacher induction and working conditions.

Keywords Empirical paper  Organizational context  Novice teachers 

Socialization  Working conditions

Introduction

Researchers have shown that teachers often self-select into particular types of
schools based on their individual preferences for work, including location, school/

B. Pogodzinski (&)
Department of Administrative and Organizational Studies, 377 College of Education, Wayne State
University, Detroit, MI 48202, USA
e-mail: ben.pogodzinski@wayne.edu

123
 J Educ Change

district reputation (e.g., student success), and working conditions (e.g., pay and
career structure, available resources, student behavior issues, and labor-relations
climate) (Achinstein et al. 2004; Boyd et al. 2005; Hanushek et al. 2004; Lankford
et al. 2002). Over time, through initial teacher-school match or transfer, the least
desirable schools to work in (with regard to working conditions) are often left with
teachers who are the least qualified in terms of measurable characteristics, such as
years of experience (Ballou 2000; Lankford et al. 2002). This is particularly
problematic for hard-to-staff schools, as new teachers have been shown to be less
effective than more senior teachers and are more likely to leave a particular school
or profession—thus continuing the churn of teacher turnover (Boyd et al. 2005;
Hanushek et al. 2004; Rockoff 2004; Smith and Ingersoll 2004).
To help improve working conditions for novice teachers (with the aim of
improving teacher effectiveness and reducing teacher attrition), the majority of
school systems have implemented induction programs to provide these teachers
with resources and supports, largely through professional development and
mentoring programs (Ingersoll and Strong 2011; Strong 2009). Yet, although
school systems often spend thousands of dollars to induct an individual teacher into
the profession and the local context, researchers have reported mixed results
concerning the impact such programs have on teacher effectiveness or retention
(Glazerman et al. 2010; Ingersoll and Strong 2011; Lopez et al. 2004).
In addition to, or in the absence of, formal induction, novice teachers often
receive resources and support from informal colleagues throughout a school. In
other words, novice teachers engage in professional and personal relationships with
colleagues throughout a school in part to help them address problems and concerns
that arise on the job (Feiman-Nemser 2010). These relationships reflect broader
elements of school culture related to expectations for collaboration and collective
responsibility which reflect the norms, values, and accepted modes of professional
practice that exist within a school (Bryk and Schneider 2002; Kardos et al. 2001). At
the school level, these relationships likely mediate the influence of formal induction
and other district policies on novices’ perceptions of their working conditions and
therefore on their practices and future career decisions (Coburn and Russell 2008;
Desimone et al. 2002; Flores and Day 2006; Penuel et al. 2010; Wechsler et al.
2010).
To further our understanding of novices’ working conditions and support
networks, the analysis presented here is directed at addressing the following
research question: To what extent is the quality support novices receive from their
formal mentors and other colleagues associated with their perceptions of key aspects
of their working conditions? More specifically, building upon previous studies
which have examined teacher socialization and teacher outcomes (e.g., Achinstein
et al. 2004; Flores and Day 2006; Glazerman et al. 2010; Grossman and Thompson
2004; Ingersoll and Strong 2011; Johnson 2004; Smith and Ingersoll 2004; Weiss
1999), the purpose of this study was to do the following: (a) identify the extent to
which perceptions of working conditions varied amongst novice teachers by years
of experience (first, second, and third-year status) and level taught (elementary vs
middle school), (b) identify the extent to which these perceptions varied between
novice and veteran teachers, and (c) identify the association between novices’ rating

123
J Educ Change

of the support they received from formally assigned mentors and other colleagues
and their perceptions of working conditions.

Teachers’ work and organizational context

Novice teachers work in an environment marked by specific characteristics which

not only define the nature of teachers’ work but also the extent to which novice
teachers are supported both formally and informally by colleagues (Lounsbury and
Ventresca 2003; Meyer and Rowan 1977; Meyer et al. 1981). While administrators
play a significant role in influencing novice teachers’ attitudes and behaviors
regarding their work because they directly impact teachers’ work assignments,
access to resources, and evaluations (Youngs 2007; Ebmeier 2003; Spillane 2003),
novices’ perceptions of their working conditions are likely also influenced by the
quality of support that they receive within the social context of the school. In other
words, the ways in which novice teachers perceive their working conditions related
to their specific professional responsibilities (e.g., workload and access to resources)
may be mediated by the quality of support they receive through both formal
mechanisms (e.g., formal mentoring) as well as through informal relationships with
colleagues throughout a school (Allen and Meyer 1990; Coburn and Russell 2008;
Van Maanen and Schein 1979). Additionally, according to Weiss (1999), teachers’
perceptions of their working conditions ‘‘shape the extent of their willingness to do
their best work, to commit to teaching as a career choice again, and to plan to stay in
teaching’’ (p. 869).

Working conditions

Economic theory of utility maximization suggests that teachers seek working

conditions that will maximize their happiness (Boyd et al. 2005; Hanushek et al.
2004; Horng 2009; Stinebrickner 2001). Furthermore, organizational theory
suggests that working conditions are directly related to worker satisfaction and
productivity (Herzberg 1968; Maslach and Jackson 1981). Researchers have
identified several characteristics of working conditions which impact job attitudes
and have been found to be associated with teacher performance and turnover,
including teacher, student, and school attributes, as well as administrator support
and economic factors (e.g., salary and benefits) (Boyd et al. 2006; Goldhaber et al.
2011; Guarino et al. 2006; Hanushek et al. 2004). The focus of the work presented
here is on working conditions related to the elements of the work environment
which directly impact teachers’ ability to perform their job, particularly those at
least partially under the discretion of school administrators. Specifically, this study
focused on teacher perceptions of working conditions related to teacher workload,
administrative duties, and access to resources because they are (a) directly related to
the technical core of teaching, (b) are of particular concern for novice teachers, and
(c) are often the intended focus of induction programs (Ingersoll and Strong 2011;
Strong 2009).

123
 J Educ Change

Manageability of workload

Novice teacher workload is an important element of school working conditions

because it has been shown to be related to teacher stress, self-efficacy, job
satisfaction, and career decisions (Collie et al. 2012; Flores 2006; Horng 2009;
Johnson and Birkeland 2003; Kardos et al. 2001). Ideally, novice teacher induction
would be characterized as a phase in teacher professional learning and a process of
socialization into the broader profession and the local school context (Feiman-
Nemser 2010; Feiman-Nemser et al. 1999). For example, Kardos and Moore
Johnson (2007) state: ‘‘(Novice status) suggests a set of formal practices or
prevailing attitudes about new teachers that recognize and accommodate their needs
as beginners. A new teacher with novice status is expected and encouraged to seek
help, is provided with extra assistance, and is given roles appropriate to her or his
experience and expertise. New teachers with novice status are sheltered somewhat
from the full range of responsibilities shouldered by their more experienced
colleagues’’ (pp. 2095–2096).
Yet, the teaching profession is often marked by a ‘‘sink or swim’’ reality where
job responsibilities and expectations for performance are the same for novice
teachers as they are for their more senior colleagues (Kardos et al. 2001; Kennedy
2005; Lortie 1975). For example, Kardos and Moore Johnson (2007) analyzed
survey data from 486 first- and second-year teachers across four states and reported
that 44 % of respondents indicated that they were expected to be as effective as their
experienced colleagues. Additionally, they reported that 52 % of respondents
indicated that they did not have enough time for planning and preparation and 36 %
indicated that their workload was too heavy, while only 23 % indicated that they
had fewer official responsibilities than their more experienced colleagues (Kardos
and Moore Johnson 2007). This is compounded by the fact that novice teachers are
given the most difficult teaching assignments (Ballou 2000; Clotfelter et al. 2005).

Administrative duties

Administrative duties are largely an expansion of workload for all teachers, and this
aspect of teachers’ work has taken on greater significance in the wake of increased
high stakes accountability (Bartlett 2004; Lieberman and Miller 1999). As put by
Bartlett (2004), ‘‘For at least two decades, advocates of teaching reforms—
especially those focused on professionalization—have taken pride in a steady
expansion of teachers’ work roles and responsibilities’’ (p. 567). Additionally,
Lieberman and Miller (1999) suggest that more and more teachers’ work is moving
outside of the classroom to participate in and coordinate reform activities. More
responsibility in and of itself is not necessarily a negative thing, as researchers have
shown that giving teachers more leadership responsibilities can lead to greater
satisfaction and commitment (e.g., Spillane 2003, 2006). At the same time, teachers
may also be overwhelmed by the additional responsibilities as more and more
reforms are implemented over time (Lohman and Woolf 2001).
Like other aspects of teacher workload, the implications of extra administrative
duties on teacher outcomes (e.g., stress, self-efficacy, effectiveness, and commitment)

123
J Educ Change

are particularly salient for novice teachers. Therefore, how these administrative tasks
are structured and supported are of great importance. For example, in a qualitative
study of 26 teachers, Bartlett (2004) reported, ‘‘Schools that have integrated the
expanded teaching role into the regular structure of the working day are more likely to
sustain the engagement and commitment of their teachers; while schools that have
layered the expanded aspects of the role on to an unaltered and already full traditional
teaching schedule are more likely to overload and exhaust their teachers’’ (p. 568).

Access to resources

The availability of resources (broadly defined with respect to human and physical
resources) are related to elements of working conditions as they impact teachers’
ability to effectively complete their assigned tasks, both within and outside of the
classroom. Additionally, access to resources has been reported to impact teacher
effectiveness and career decisions (Grissom 2011; Horng 2009; Loeb et al. 2005).
For example, Collie et al. (2012) reported that access to adequate amounts of school
resources was significantly associated with teachers’ reported levels of job stress.
More specifically, the greater the access to adequate resources, the less reported
stress. They further reported an indirect association between access to resources and
teachers’ reported levels of self-efficacy and job satisfaction.
Individual teacher characteristics are also related to teachers’ ability to access
and utilize school resources, as social dynamics of schools and teachers’
interpersonal skills make some teachers more adept at accessing resources than
others (Hart and Murphy 1990; Weiss 1999). On average, novice teachers need
more resources to effectively teach given their inexperience and the likelihood that
they have more difficult teaching assignments (Ballou 2000; Boyd et al. 2005;
Darling-Hammond and Sclan 1996; Weiss 1999). Yet, although they are often
targeted for induction programs, the quality of support they receive has been found
to significantly vary across and within schools (Flores 2006; Glazerman et al. 2010;
Ingersoll and Strong 2011).

Formal mentoring

Interactions with colleagues (in both formal and informal settings) communicate the
norms and expectations of professional practice (Feiman-Nemser 2010; Feiman-
Nemser et al. 1999) and also provide networks through which novice teachers may
access resources and support (Coburn and Russell 2008; Coleman 1988; Penuel
et al. 2009, 2010). To help facilitate that access to resources and support, the vast
majority of novice teachers now receive some form of formal induction, largely
through formal mentoring—which is aimed at not only communicating expectations
but also at improving novice teacher effectiveness (Feiman-Nemser 2010).
Although mentoring relationships are most often a one-to-one relationship, they
are often more structured to elicit certain responses because they are specifically
aimed at meeting administrative objections (i.e., improving novice teacher
effectiveness and retention) (Fullagar et al. 1995; Jones 1986). For example, formal
mentors are often tasked with helping novice teachers implement the school

123
 J Educ Change

curriculum and improve their instructional techniques (Achinstein et al. 2004;

Grossman and Thompson 2004). Therefore, the extent to which mentor teachers
have expertise in the areas/grade level that the novices are working impacts the
quality of support that novice teachers receive (Youngs 2007).
As such, the quality of mentoring can vary greatly not only between schools but
amongst mentoring pairs. Effective mentoring has been shown to relate knowledge
and skills that are grounded in best practice and authentic teaching tasks which
allow novice teachers to grow over time (Ball and Cohen 1999; Feiman-Nemser and
Beasley 1997; Schwille 2008). Yet, we know that the quality of mentoring can vary
greatly even within a single school based on the characteristics of the mentor, the
novice teacher, and the personal and professional bonds formed between them
(Flores and Day 2006; Ingersoll and Strong 2011; Youngs 2007). For example,
according to Feiman-Nemser et al. (1999), ‘‘If mentors do not represent shared
standards of practice or promote a sense of collective responsibility for student
learning, novices may not come to see themselves as part of a broader collectivity
working toward improved teaching and learning for all students’’ (p. 29). In other
words, the quality of mentoring support that novice teachers receive may directly
impact their perceptions of their working conditions and their own work efforts.

Informal relationships

While novice teachers often interact with their formally assigned mentors in more
structured ways, novice teachers interact informally with other colleagues on a daily
basis in both personal and professional ways. These informal relationships also
provide support and resources to novice teachers and can mediate the effects of their
perceptions of their work and work environment (Bryk and Schneider 2002; Coburn
and Russell 2008; Desimone et al. 2002; Penuel et al. 2010). At the same time, this
type of support is distinct from that received from formally assigned mentors in part
because novice teachers enact personal agency when entering into these relation-
ships. Additionally, because they interact with several individuals with varying
levels of expertise on a host of different topics, they are exposed to a myriad of
information in a much less structured manner. This type of socialization is likely to
elicit less standardized responses from novice teachers as they weigh the
information received in these informal settings (e.g., discussions in the teachers’
lounge regarding a change in discipline policy) (Feldman 1989; Fullagar et al. 1995;
Jones 1986; Meyer et al. 1981).
Novice teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions are also mediated by
these informal relationships, but the degree to which these perceptions are mediated
is a direct result of whom these novice teachers chose to seek out for assistance
(Van Maanen and Schein 1979). Although teaching is often solitary work, most
teachers become members of particular subgroups of teachers within a school, and
these subgroups have their own expectations regarding their work and working
conditions which then relate to the type and level of support that they give each
other (Coburn and Russell 2008; Frank and Zhao 2005; Granovetter 1978; Macy
1990). Therefore, each novice teacher will have a relatively unique support network
associated with the key colleagues with whom they choose to interact with on a

123
J Educ Change

regular basis, as opposed to a more structured and narrowed focus of formal

mentoring (Normore 2004; Van Gennep 1960; Van Maanen 1976). Additionally,
these collegial relationships have been shown to impact teacher outcomes, including
their perceptions of their working conditions and career decisions (Kapadia et al.
2007; Smith and Ingersoll 2004).
Therefore, this study presented here is guided by an understanding that formal
and informal teacher relationships likely provide different types of resources and
support to novice teachers and differentially mediate novice teachers’ perceptions of
their working conditions (Van Maanen and Schein 1979). Although each formal
mentoring relationship will be unique, because it emerges from formal policy, it will
generally be targeted toward providing support in specific areas of concern of the
administration (e.g., instructional improvement and classroom management), while
informal relationships may communicate and offer support for the more subtle
aspects of work demands and expectations (Ostroff and Kozlowski 1992; Schein
1968; Van Maanen 1976). Although formal and informal relationships provide
support and resources for novice teachers as they seek to improve their craft, the
novice teachers’ likely draw upon these different types of support to address
different work-related concerns (Feldman 1977; Louis et al. 1983; Ostroff and
Kozlowski 1992).

Methods of data collection and analysis

This study utilized survey data to examine novices’ perceptions of their working
conditions in the context of teacher socialization. Data were collected during the
2007–08 school year in 11 districts, six in Michigan and five in Indiana (see Table 1
for descriptive information about the districts). The districts were purposefully
targeted for inclusion in the study because they were medium-to-large districts
within two states conveniently located to the researcher and served varying student
populations with regard to socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity. Additionally,
each of the districts had hired at least 10 new teachers in the previous few years
prior to data collection.

Novice teacher sample

All novice teachers in their first 3 years of the profession (N = 380) in the 11
districts were invited to participate in the study, which consisted of completing one
survey in the fall of 2007 (October/November) and one survey in the spring of 2008
(April/May). Additionally, the novice teachers had to be teaching in a general
education classroom at the elementary level or in a core content area (math, science,
English language arts, or social studies) at the middle school level. Survey
completers were compensated with a $20 gift card to Barnes and Noble. A total of
184 novice teachers completed both the fall and spring surveys (fall response rate of
63 % and a spring retention rate of those teachers of 76 %—total response rate of
48 %). The majority of the respondents were white females (over 80 %), and the
majority were teaching at the elementary level (*70 %). Approximately 27 % of

123
 J Educ Change

Table 1 2007–08 enrollment and demographic information for participating districts

Student enrollment District Free/reduced lunch Non-white
category (approximate) (%) (approximate) (%)

23,000–20,000 District A (MI) 60–65 75–80

District B (IN) 60–65 55–60
District C (MI) 10–15 10–15
15,000–19,999 District D (MI) 50–55 10–15
District E (IN) 40–45 55–60
10,000–14,999 District F (IN) 60–65 45–50
District G (IN) 55–60 55–60
District H (IN) 45–50 80–85
District I (MI) 25–30 15–20
7,000–9,999 District J (MI) 40–45 45–50
District K (MI) 35–40 45–50

the respondents were in their first year of teaching, while 44 % were in their second
year, and 29 % in their third year.
There was concern regarding the overall response rate of 48 %. Based on known
characteristics gathered from district data of the targeted novice teacher sample (i.e.,
level taught and years of experience), respondents did not significantly differ from
non-responders. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in
baseline measures of focal variables between those who completed both surveys and
those who only completed the fall survey. At the same time, there may be important
characteristics of responders and non-responders which cannot be accounted for.

Colleague sample

A particular goal of this analysis was to identify variations in perceptions of specific

elements of teacher-working conditions by novice status, and to consider the social
context within which novice teachers evaluate the working conditions within their
schools. Therefore, to gauge the broader context at the school level, in the fall of
2007 survey, novice teachers were asked to list their mentor and up to eight
colleagues they felt were sources of support. Although these colleagues may not be
representative of the school as a whole, they represent the key sources of support
and resources that the novice teachers draw upon within their school context. As
such, the two groups (novices and school-based colleagues) should not be
considered independent of each other as they represent particular social networks
within each individual school, but it is likely that novices and their senior colleagues
are distinct given their different status in the profession and more importantly within
individual schools.
Surveys were sent to these colleagues to measure their perceptions of the working
conditions within their schools. In addition to the 184 novice teachers who
completed both the fall and spring surveys, a total of 287 of their more senior

123
J Educ Change

teacher colleagues completed a survey in the winter of 2008 (December/January),

with a response rate of 60 %. As expected, the vast majority of the veteran
colleague sample was composed of white females (over 80 %) and also teaching at
the elementary level (over 60 %).

Measures

In both the fall 2007 and spring 2008 surveys, novice teachers were asked to
indicate their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) to
the following statements: (a) I am teaching with adequate resources and materials to
do my job properly; (b) Administrative duties/paperwork do not interfere with my
teaching; and (c) My workload is manageable. These three variables were derived
from the Maslach Burnout Inventory and are specifically related to the discretion
school administrators have over teachers’ work as they are largely responsible for
the distribution of resources, teacher workload, and teacher assignments (Maslach
and Jackson 1981). Additionally, the novice teachers were asked to rate the quality
of support (1 = not at all important to 4 = very important) that they received from
(a) their formal mentor and (b) other colleagues whom they considered key sources
of support. Descriptive information on all measures included in the analysis is
provided in Table 2.

Analytic approach

The first stage of the analysis was focused solely on identifying variation in
perceptions of these aspects of working conditions amongst novice teachers
themselves. I began the analysis by calculating the Pearson’s correlation coefficients
amongst the three variables. I then identified the mean change in response to the
variables from the fall to spring and tested for statistical significance of those
differences (based on Wilcoxon signed rank test). Next, I compared the average
response of the novice teachers based on their years of experience (i.e., first-,
second-, and third-year teachers) and tested for statistical significance of those
differences (based on Kruskal–Wallis test, an extension of the Wilcoxon–Mann–
Whitney test for more than two levels). Finally, I compared the mean responses to
the variables by level taught (i.e., elementary or middle school) and tested for
statistical significance of those differences (based on Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney
test).
In the next stage of analysis, I identified the difference in perceptions of working
conditions between the novice teachers and the veteran teachers they named as
mentors and key sources of support. I first compared the overall mean response to
the survey items between novices and their senior colleagues and tested for
statistical differences (based on Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test).
In the final stage of analysis, the focus was on identifying the association between
the reported quality of support novices received from their mentors and other
colleagues and their perceptions of working conditions. Therefore, in this stage of
analysis, I estimated a series of logistic regression to model the relationship between

123
 J Educ Change

Table 2 Description information

Variable Description Mean SD Min. Max.

Resourcesa Teaching with adequate resources 3.110 0.722 1.00 4.00

Admin dutya Administrative duties do not interfere with work 2.533 0.896 1.00 4.00
Workloada Workload is manageable 2.800 0.772 1.00 4.00
Mentor Rating of quality of support received from formally 3.101 0.924 1.00 4.00
supportb assigned mentor
Colleague Rating of quality of support from informal colleagues 3.472 0.682 1.00 4.00
supportb
First year Novice teacher in first year of the profession 0.268 0.444 0.00 1.00
Middle school Novice teacher at the middle school level 0.283 0.451 0.00 1.00
Female Novice teacher is female 0.827 0.379 0.00 1.00
Lunch Percent of students eligible for free/reduced price 0.551 0.213 0.019 0.958
lunch
White students Percent of students who were white 0.486 0.278 0.018 0.989
a
1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = agree; 4 = strongly agree (measured spring 2008)
b
1 = not at all important; 2 = somewhat important; 3 = very important; 4 = extremely important
(measured in fall 2007)

the quality of support received from both mentors and other colleagues and novices’
perceptions of working conditions. The basic model is as follows:
lnfP½Agreet ¼ 1=1  P½Agreet ¼ 1g ¼ h0 þ h1 Mt1 þ h1 Ct1 þ h03 T þ h04 S þ e
ð1Þ
The model predicts the probability that a novice teacher agreed on the spring
2008 survey with the survey statement regarding their working conditions (Agreet),
as a function of their reported quality of support received from their mentor in the
fall of 2007 (Mt-1), the reported quality of support received from their other
informal colleagues in the fall of 2007 (Ct-1), time invariant teacher attributes (T),
and time invariant school attributes (S). The error term (e) is assumed to follow a
Bernoulli distribution. I estimated three separate logistic regressions pertaining to
the three measures of working conditions: (a) I am teaching with adequate resources
and materials to do my job properly; (b) Administrative duties/paperwork do not
interfere with my teaching; and (c) My workload is manageable. The models were
estimated using the proc logistic and the stepwise function in SAS 9.2 with a
threshold of 0.20 (Chi square and p value) for entry into the model and a threshold
of 0.20 to remain in the model. Setting these restrictions allowed me to focus on the
variables that best fit the model.
For this analysis, the outcome variables were dichotomized (1 = agree/strongly
agree; 0 = disagree/strongly disagree) in part due to the distribution of responses
(i.e., relatively low number of responses for strongly agree and strongly disagree)
and for ease of interpreting results. The focal independent variables of interest for
reported quality of support received from the mentors and other key colleagues were
also dichotomized (1 = very important/extremely important; 0 = not at all

123
J Educ Change

important/somewhat important) due to the distribution of responses and for ease of

interpretation. With regard to teacher attributes, I controlled for the novice teachers’
gender (1 = female; 0 = male), first-year teacher status (1 = first year; 0 = sec-
ond/third year), and level taught (1 = middle school; 0 = elementary). With regard
to school attributes, I controlled for the percentage of students in the school who
were eligible for free or reduced lunch and percentage of students who were white.
It should be noted that this stage of analysis was restricted to data from teachers who
reported that they had a formally assigned mentor (n = 121).
Due to the nested structure of teachers in schools, I did initially estimate
unconditional multi-level models to examine the distribution of variance amongst
teachers and between schools. Based on this initial analysis of the data, there was no
statistically significant variation between schools with regard to the outcome
variables; therefore, single-level logistic regression models were estimated for this
stage of the analysis.

Findings

The findings section is organized to address: (a) variations in perceptions of the

working conditions amongst novice teachers, (b) variations in perceptions of
working conditions between novice teachers and their senior colleagues, and (c) the
association between novices’ reported levels of quality of support and their
perceptions of working conditions. This section is followed by a discussion section
which explores the implications of the findings for practice and research as well as
limitations of this study.

Variations amongst novices

As shown in Table 3, the largest correlation coefficient in magnitude is between the

measure of administrative duty not interfering with teachers’ work and workload
manageability (r = 0.677). This makes intuitive sense since the more administrators
shield teachers from burdensome administrative duties, the more manageable their
workload becomes. The remaining correlations, although smaller in magnitude,
were positive in direction.
The next step in the analysis was to identify the extent to which novices’
perceptions of their working conditions changed from the fall to the spring. The
results presented in Table 4 indicate that novices’ mean response was slightly
higher in the spring for the measure of teaching with adequate resources and having
a manageable workload, while the response was lower in the spring for the measure
of administrative duty. Yet, the responses from fall to spring were fairly stable, with
none of the changes being statistically significant (p \ 0.10).
Table 5 reports the mean responses of novices based on years of experience
(first-, second-, and third-year teachers). Except for the measure of teaching with
adequate resources, the first-year teachers viewed their working conditions in a
slightly more positive light compared to their second- and third-year colleagues, but
none of the differences in the measures were statistically significant (p \ 0.10).

123
 J Educ Change

Table 3 Correlations amongst

Variable 1 2 3
measures of working conditions
1. Resources 1.000 0.240 0.284
2. Admin duty 0.240 1.000 0.677
3. Workload 0.284 0.677 1.000

The last step was to identify the extent to which elementary novice teachers
differed in their responses compared to their middle school novice colleagues. The
results reported in Table 6 indicate fairly similar responses by elementary and
middle school teachers. Only the difference in reported levels of adequate resources
was statistically significant (p = 0.066). This may reflect the fact that elementary
schools are generally smaller organizations, and given the general curriculum of
elementary education, novice teachers may require less specialized resources.

Variation between novice and veteran teachers

The next stage of analysis was to identify variations in perceptions of the working
conditions between novice teachers and their veteran colleagues. Table 7 reports the
mean responses for novice teachers and all veteran teachers in the sample. Novice
teachers had slightly higher responses to all three measures of the working
conditions, with the differences for the measures of administrative duty and
workload being statistically significant. The difference between novices and their
veteran colleagues is particularly noticeable for the measure of administrative duty,
indicating that novices on average are less likely to feel that administrative duties
interfere with their work.

Rating of support and perceptions of working conditions

In the last stage of analysis, I estimated a series of logistic regression models to

identify the association between novice teachers’ rating of the support they received
from both their formally assigned mentor and other key colleagues with their
perceptions of their working conditions. The first regression estimated had the
novices’ perceptions of the adequateness of resources. The variable Mentor Support
did not meet the threshold for inclusion in the model, indicating that it did not
improve model fit and was not meaningfully associated with the outcome variable.
The variable Colleague Support did meet the criteria for inclusion in the model, but
as reported in Table 8, the coefficient was not statistically significant by traditional
standards (p \ 0.10). First-year teachers were more likely to indicate that they did

Table 4 Change from fall to

Variable Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Pr C |S|
spring in perceived working
mean mean
conditions
Resources 3.067 3.110 0.3830
Admin duty 2.609 2.533 0.1323
Workload 2.751 2.800 0.3482

123
J Educ Change

Table 5 Mean measures of perceived working conditions by years of experience (spring 2008)
Variable First year Second year Third year Statistical significance
of difference

Resources 3.020 3.202 3.057 –

Admin duty 2.694 2.463 2.491 –
Workload 2.833 2.823 2.736 –

* p B 0.10, ** p B 0.05, *** p B 0.01

Table 6 Mean measures of

Variable Elementary Middle school Statistical significance
perceived working conditions by
of difference
level taught (spring 2008)
Resources 3.169 2.961 *
Admin duty 2.492 2.635 –
* p B 0.10, ** p B 0.05, Workload 2.754 2.920 –
*** p B 0.01

Table 7 Novice and veteran

Variable Novice Veteran Two-sided
teacher mean measures of
Pr [ |Z|
perceived working conditions
Resources 3.110 3.007 0.1845
Admin duty 2.533 2.144 \0.0001
Workload 2.800 2.589 0.0029

not have adequate resources to perform their job, though this is not surprising given
their inexperience and their need for extra support.
The second regression that was estimated had the variable for the perceived level
of administrative duties as the outcome variable. In this model, both of the focal
independent variables met the criterion for inclusion in the model. As shown in
Table 9, the coefficient for Colleague Support was positive and statistically
significant (p \ 0.10), suggesting that those who rated the support from their
colleagues as more valuable were more likely to indicate that administrative duties
did not interfere with their job as a teacher. Interpreting the coefficient as
probability, a novice teacher who reported that the quality of support received from
colleagues was very important/extremely important was approximately 28 percent-
age points more likely to report that administrative duties did not interfere with their
job as a teacher, ceteris paribus. Conversely, the coefficient for Mentor Support did
not reach statistical significance by traditional standards; therefore, I cannot say that
the association between this variable and novices’ perception of the interference of
administrative duties was distinguishable from zero.
The final regression that was estimated had the variable for perceived
manageability of workload as the outcome variable. With regard to the focal
variables of interest, only the variable for Mentor Support met the criterion for
inclusion in the model. Similar to the previous model, the coefficient was positive,

123
 J Educ Change

Table 8 Estimated effects of support on perceived adequateness of resources

Variable h SE h e h (odds ratio) Wald confidence limit

Lower Upper

Constant 1.678** 0.773

Colleague support 1.208 0.806 3.346 0.689 16.249
First year -1.663*** 0.598 0.190 0.059 0.612
Middle school -0.854 0.603 0.426 0.130 1.388
Model fit (AIC)
Intercept only 101.100
Intercept and covariates 96.112

* p B 0.10, ** p B 0.05, *** p B 0.01

Table 9 Estimated effects of support on perceived interference of administrative duties

Variable h SE h e h (odds ratio) Wald confidence limit

Lower Upper

Constant -0.039 1.031

Mentor support 0.718 0.476 2.050 0.806 5.211
Colleague support 1.252* 0.745 3.496 0.812 15.054
Middle school 0.946* 0.517 2.576 0.936 7.089
Female -0.747 0.559 0.474 0.159 1.415
Lunch -1.689* 0.987 0.185 0.027 1.278
Model fit (AIC)
Intercept only 157.785
Intercept and covariates 154.656

* p B 0.10, ** p B 0.05, *** p B 0.01

but in this estimation, the coefficient was of larger magnitude and statistically
significant (p \ 0.05). Based on this estimation, a novice teacher who rated the
quality of support received from her formally assigned mentor as very important/
extremely important was approximately 26 percentage points more likely to report
that their workload was manageable, ceteris paribus (Table 10).

Discussion

Novices’ perceptions of specific working conditions reflects novices’ evaluation of

school personnel’s policies, practices, attitudes, and beliefs which ultimately
impacts their own behavior regarding effort, commitment, and career decisions
(Gilmer 1966; Hoy and Miskel 2008; Litwin and Stringer 1968; Poole 1985; Tagiuri
1968). Therefore, the findings from the work presented here, although primarily

123
J Educ Change

Table 10 Estimated effects of support on perceived manageability of workload

Variable h SE h e h (odds ratio) Wald confidence limit

Lower Upper

Constant 1.485 1.173

Mentor support 1.195** 0.533 3.305 1.164 9.384
Female -2.197** 1.066 0.111 0.014 0.898
White students 1.518* 0.843 4.563 0.875 23.806
Model fit (AIC)
Intercept only 128.535
Intercept and covariates 120.541

* p B 0.10, ** p B 0.05, *** p B 0.01

descriptive in nature, have important implications for school leaders and researchers
as they not only investigate the demands on teachers’ work but also the extent to
which novice teachers are adequately supported by their colleagues.

Variation in perceptions of working conditions amongst novices

The findings indicate that over one school year, novices’ perceptions of specific
working conditions on average were generally quite positive and relatively stable.
Although it is expected that some policies and practices which influence the nature
of teachers’ work are adopted over the course of a school year, barring a shock to
the organization (e.g., administrative turnover), key aspects of teachers’ work do not
change significantly over the course of a year. In other words, routine policies and
practices that impact teachers’ work likely did not change significantly in the short
time span of this study. Stability in policies and practices, particularly as it relates to
teachers’ work, likely creates a more predictable working environment for novice
teachers and is one less thing for them to navigate early in their careers.
The findings also show that there were no statistically significant differences in
novices’ perceptions of their working conditions based on their years of experience,
suggesting that for teachers in this sample who were in the first few years of the
profession, the perceptions of their working conditions were essentially the same.
This may also reflect the generally flat career ladder associated with the teaching
profession (Johnson and Papay 2009). In other words, even across a teacher’s career
(particularly in the beginning years), work expectations and demands vary little
from year to year.
Additionally, many formal induction programs are targeted toward teachers in
the first few years of the profession; therefore, there is continued support and
additional resources from year to year early in their careers. For example, in
Michigan, by law, teachers were to receive formal mentoring and additional
professional development during their first 3 years in the profession. In Indiana,
formal mentoring and induction was only required for first-year teachers, although
in several of the Indiana districts, in this sample, it was extended to the second and

123
 J Educ Change

third years. This indicates that several novice teachers in this sample received
additional resources and support due to their novice status regardless of whether
they were a first-, second-, or third-year teacher, which likely influences their
perceptions of their working conditions.
Regarding variation amongst novices by level taught, the findings indicated that
only the difference in perceived adequacy of resources was statistically significant
by traditional standards (with elementary teachers indicating a slightly more
positive environment in this regard). This has implications for how resources and
supports are distributed by administrators in different types of organizations, and the
need to identify how certain administrative practices may be perceived differently at
the elementary and secondary levels. Particularly, at the secondary level, the
specialization of teachers’ work and the role of department chairs add an additional
layer onto the administrative landscape which should be accounted for when
considering the expectations and demands that novice teachers face.

Variations by novice status

It was also necessary to place novice teachers’ perceptions of their working

conditions within the broader context of the school, particularly as it relates to
veteran teachers’ perceptions of the working conditions in the school. In other
words, although novice teachers may be distinct given their relative lack of
experience, they work with veteran colleagues throughout the school who on
average may view the working conditions differently based in large part on their
own personal experiences. Therefore, investigating variations by novice status
provides insight into differences in work demands and expectations based on years
of experience beyond an initial induction period.
The findings indicated that on average novice teachers had a more positive view
of their working conditions compared to their veteran colleagues, particularly as it
relates to the perceptions of administrative duties and the manageability of
workload. This may simply reflect the fact that novice teachers on average have
fewer school-wide responsibilities compared to their senior colleagues. For
example, novices may be shielded from various committees and additional non-
classroom work such as being a member of the school-improvement team. It may
also reflect the extra resources and support novices receive as part of formal
induction activities.
Conversely, it may be that novice teachers on average simply view teachers’
work differently than their more senior colleagues. For example, although shielded
from specific aspects of non-classroom work, novice teachers are often called upon
to fill certain extracurricular roles such as sponsoring an after school club or
organizing a dance, but they may see this as a fundamental aspect of their job rather
than an intrusion into their work lives. Additionally, recent research suggests that
novice teachers may be fundamentally different than their more senior colleagues in
several respects, including their openness to education reforms (e.g., pay for
performance) and their understanding of teaching as a lifelong career (Goldhaber
et al. 2007; Jacob and Springer 2008; Johnson and Papay 2009). In other words, if
the newest generation of teachers view their jobs in a fundamentally different

123
J Educ Change

manner than previous generations of teachers, they likely also perceive the practices
and policies within a school differently.
At the same time, working conditions are largely a characteristic of an entire
school organization. Although a novice teacher may have a generally positive
perception of the routine policies and practices within a school, if she is surrounded
by disgruntled veteran colleagues, her overall perceptions of the working
environment may suffer over the long run. This likely will impact her commitment
to the organization which will then be reflected in the amount of effort she puts
forward in her job and ultimately her career decisions. Therefore, school leaders
need to be attuned not only to novices’ understanding of the working environment
but also how the working environment is reflected in attitudes and practices of the
veteran colleagues with whom novice teachers establish relationships with.

Mentor and collegial support

The results from estimating the regressions showed mixed findings with regard to
the association between mentor and colleague support and measures of novices’
perceptions of their working conditions. There were no significant associations
between the measures of the quality of support and the extent to which novices’
reported having adequate resources. It is likely that although formal mentors and
other colleagues provide valuable support to novice teachers, the actual physical
resources that they provide are minimal compared to the direct resources received
from the school and district administration—e.g., classroom supplies, textbooks,
technology, and curricular materials. So although colleagues may provide some
particular lesson plans and other supplemental materials, due to the nature of
resource distribution in schools, these networks may not significantly aid in the
distribution of resources to novice teachers.
Conversely, the quality of support received from informal colleagues was
positively associated with novices’ perceptions of the extent of their administrative
duties not interfering with their teaching work. Many teachers have increasingly
been burdened with additional responsibilities with regard to compliance with state
and federal school accountability policies (e.g., NCLB and IDEA). For example, as
schools strive to make adequate yearly progress, teachers are often called upon to
gather, process, and analyze more and more information regarding their students’
achievement growth. Although related to their teaching work, it is often seen as
outside of their primary responsibilities. This is in addition to the numerous school-
and district-level policies which require teachers’ attention, such as those related to
student behavior and absences (amongst others). Colleagues can be key sources of
support as they help novice teachers navigate this ever increasing web of paperwork
and administrative duties. Specifically, colleagues can help novice teachers
prioritize their administrative tasks, follow appropriate procedures, and work
toward greater efficiency as they balance their daily teaching responsibilities with
secondary responsibilities.
Interestingly, the quality of mentor support was not significantly related to
novices’ perceptions of their administrative duties. It is likely that novice teachers
on average interact less frequently with these formally assigned mentors (Author

123
 J Educ Change

2012), so when an administrative issue arises, they turn to those colleagues with
whom they interact on a daily basis, such as their neighbors within the school or
those whom they have a more personal relationship with. In other words, for many
of these novice teachers, there was a network of colleagues to whom they leaned on
for support with regard to administrative duties.
The opposite seemed to be true with regard to novices’ reported levels of general
workload manageability, where there was no significant relationship between
colleague support and perceived workload, but there was a positive relationship
between mentor support and workload. This is likely because formal mentoring is in
large part designed to help improve novice teachers’ effectiveness in providing
instruction and managing classrooms. Specifically, formal mentoring related to
instruction, curriculum, and student assessment not only engage novice teachers in
learning activities but also more clearly communicates work expectations and
demands because it comes from a source sanctioned by the administration
(Achinstein et al. 2004; Grossman and Thompson 2004; Johnson 2004; Stein and
D’Amico 2002; Youngs 2007).
Given the high correlation between the measures of manageability of workload
and administrative duties (as would be expected), it may be expected that the
association between formal and informal support and novices perceptions of these
working conditions would be similar, but the findings suggest that formal mentors
and informal colleagues may play significant yet varying roles in supporting
teachers and influencing their perceptions of their working conditions. Specifically
colleagues with whom novice teachers interact with on a regular basis offer support
for problems and issues that arise on a daily basis. These colleagues are often more
accessible because these relationships emerge due to similarities in location within a
building, schedules, and personal and professional interests. Therefore, for problems
and issues that need immediate attention (e.g., I need to fill out an incidence report),
these colleagues are there to offer support and guidance. Formal mentors though are
often charged with a much more specific task, specifically to help novice teachers
improve in their craft. Therefore, the focus is often more specific to curricular and
instructional matters, as well as classroom management. These more specific
elements of teaching are more directly related to the key aspect of teachers’ work
but may be less contextualized because they do not necessarily take place ‘‘in the
moment.’’ Both types of support appear to be important for novice teachers as they
seek to improve their effectiveness and establish themselves within a school setting.

Limitations and implications for future research

As this study was largely descriptive in nature, no causal claims should be drawn
based upon the findings, but the findings do have important implications for future
research. One limitation is that the data collected from novice teachers only
included two time periods over one school year. An extended time period of data
collection would help researchers identify trends in changing perceptions of their
working conditions. Although this would also reflect possible major shifts in the
school environment (e.g., a new administrator), it would help address whether or not
novice status (e.g., through additional support and resource) is particularly related to

123
J Educ Change

perceptions of working conditions or whether the newest generation of teachers are

fundamentally different in their perceptions of teachers’ work and the working
environment.
Additionally, the measures of working conditions in this study were limited in
breadth. While the measures used in this study get at important elements of the work
environment which are shaped by administrative decision making, future work
should also include additional measures geared toward identifying perceptions of
the degree of respect and cooperation between teachers and the administration, the
extent to which the administration gives teachers autonomy, teachers’ participation
in decision making, the degree of bureaucratic restrictions, and the presence of
frequent and genuine praise (Halpin and Croft 1963). This may be particularly
important for understanding novices’ perceptions of the working conditions within
the broader social context of the school (including their relationships with veteran
colleagues).
With regard to investigating the social context, more sophisticated social network
analysis would help identify the extent to which veteran colleagues influence novice
teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions. Specifically social network tools
can aid researchers in more deeply understanding novices’ interactions with their
colleagues and account for the social context of the school (Coburn and Russell
2008; Frank 1998; Penuel et al. 2010). Particularly, it is important to understand
how the content and frequency of novice teachers’ interactions with their colleagues
manifests in their perceptions of the working conditions. It may be necessary to
expand data collection to entire schools (rather than egocentric social network data
collection) in order to more broadly measure teachers’ and administrators’
perceptions of working conditions in schools.
Finally, it will be necessary to identify associations between novices’ perceptions
of their working conditions and specific teacher outcomes, such as measures of their
effort, commitment, and career decisions. This would lead to extensive implications
for practitioners and researchers interested in novice teacher effectiveness and
retention. So although researchers have examined the relationship between
perceptions of working conditions and teacher outcomes, this needs to be coupled
with examining changes in novices’ perceptions over time and how it also relates to
the broader social context of support from both formal mentors and other
colleagues.

Conclusions and implications for practitioners

Novices adapt to their working environment in part based on their perceptions of

their working conditions. This adaptation likely varies not only by individual
characteristics, but also by specific organizational characteristics including the
social dynamic of support within those schools. School administrators not only in
large part define what those working conditions are, but they can also greatly
influence the level and type of support that novice teachers receive—which as this
study has shown can mediate novice teachers’ perceptions of their working
conditions. School administrators are most often the individuals who assign formal

123
 J Educ Change

mentors to novice teachers, and they can help ensure that these relationships are
productive by ensuring that mentors and novices are aligned both professionally
(e.g., teach similar grade levels or content areas) and personally (e.g., complimen-
tary personalities) (Achinstein et al. 2004; Grossman and Thompson 2004; Kristof-
Brown et al. 2005). Additionally they can foster a climate of collaboration across a
school which encourages veteran teachers to offer support to novice teachers and
communicates to novices that it is ok and expected that they seek assistance from
their colleagues (Bidwell 2001; Boyd and Crowson 1981; Friedkin and Slater 1994;
Johnson 2004; Parsons 1960; Penuel et al. 2010; Spillane 2006).
Therefore, school administrators have a great responsibility to help institute an
organizational environment that promotes individual commitment and organiza-
tional effectiveness (e.g., providing adequate resources and professional develop-
ment) for all teachers within the school. Teachers would be willing to put more
effort into their jobs and remain in an environment marked by support from both
formal mentors and other colleagues throughout a school (Johnson 2004). Although
administrators often establish policies and practices which provide additional
support and resources to novice teachers, they also need to attend to the ways in
which the broader organizational context impacts novices’ perceptions of their
working conditions.

References

Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Speiglman, A. (2004). Are we creating separate and unequal tracks of
teachers? The impact of state policy, local conditions, and teacher characteristics on new teacher
socialization. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 557–603.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal analysis of links to
newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 847–858.
Author. (2012).
Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practices, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-
based theory of professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as
the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ballou, D. (2000). Teacher contracts in Massachusetts. White Paper No. 12. Boston: Pioneer Institute for
Policy Research.
Bartlett, L. (2004). Expanding teacher work roles: A resource for retention or a recipe for overwork?
Journal of Education Policy, 19, 565–582.
Bidwell, C. (2001). Analyzing schools as organizations: Long-term permanence and short-term change.
Sociology of Education, 74, 100–114.
Boyd, W. L., & Crowson, R. (1981). The changing conception and practice of public school
administration. Review of Research in Education, 9, 311–373.
Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in entry
requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and
Policy, 1, 176–216.
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2005). The draw of home: How teachers’ preferences
for proximity disadvantage urban schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24,
113–132.
Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. (2005). Who teaches whom? Race and the distribution of
novice teachers. Economics of Education review, 24, 377–392.
Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235.

123
J Educ Change

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
S95–S120.
Collie, R. J., Shapka, J. D., & Perry, N. E. (2012). School climate and social–emotional learning:
Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology,
104, 1189–1204.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sclan, E. M. (1996). Who teaches and why: Dilemmas of building a profession
for twenty-first century schools. Handbook of research on teacher education, 2, 67–101.
Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M., Suk Yoon, K., & Birman, B. (2002). Effects of professional
development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year study. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 24, 81–112.
Ebmeier, H. (2003). How supervision influences teacher efficacy and commitment: An investigation of a
path model. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18, 110–141.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2010). Multiple means of new teacher induction. In J. Wang, S. J. Odell, & R.
T. Clift (Eds.), Past, present, and future research on teacher induction: An anthology for
researchers, policy makers, and practitioners (pp. 15–30). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
Education and the Association of Teacher Educators.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Beasley, K. (1997). Mentoring as assisted performance: A case of co-planning. In
V. Richardson (Ed.), Constructivist teacher education: Building new understandings (pp. 108–119).
Washington, DC: Palmer Press.
Feiman-Nemser, S., Schwille, S. A., Carver, C., & Yusko, B. (1999). A conceptual review of literature on
new teacher induction. Washington, DC: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in
Teaching.
Feldman, D. C. (1977). The role of initiation activities in socialization. Human Relations, 30, 977–990.
Feldman, D. C. (1989). Socialization, resocialization and training: Reframing the research agenda. In I.
L. Goldsteing & Associates (Eds.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 376–416). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Flores, M. A. (2006). Being a novice teacher in two different settings: Struggles, continuities, and
discontinuities. The Teachers College Record, 108, 2021–2052.
Flores, M. A., & Day, C. (2006). Contexts which shape and reshape new teachers’ identities: A multi-
perspective study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 219–232.
Frank, K. A. (1998). The social context of schooling: Quantitative methods. Review of Research in
Education, 23, 171–216.
Frank, K. A., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Subgroups as a meso-level entity in the social organization of schools.
In L. W. Hedges & B. Schneider (Eds.), The social organization of schooling. New York, NY:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Friedkin, N. E., & Slater, M. R. (1994). School leadership and performance: A social network approach.
Sociology of Education, 67, 139–157.
Fullagar, C. J., Gallagher, D. G., Gordon, M. E., & Clark, P. F. (1995). Impact of early socialization on
union commitment and participation: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
147–157.
Gilmer, B. H. (1966). Industrial psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., et al. (2010). Impacts of
comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized controlled study. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Goldhaber, D., DeArmond, M., & DeBurgonmaster, S. (2007). Teacher attitudes about compensation
reform: Implications for reform implementation (Center on Reinventing Public Education. School
Finance Redesign Project Working Paper 20). Seattle, WA: CRPE, University of Washington.
Goldhaber, D., Gross, B., & Player, D. (2011). Teacher career paths, teacher quality, and persistence in
the classroom: Are public schools keeping their best? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
30, 57–87.
Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83,
1420–1443.
Grissom, J. A. (2011). Can good principals keep teachers in disadvantaged schools? Linking principal
effectiveness to teacher satisfaction and turnover in hard-to-staff environments. Teachers College
Record, 113, 2552–2585.
Grossman, P. L., & Thompson, C. (2004). District policy and beginning teachers: A lens on teacher
learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 281–301.

123
 J Educ Change

Guarino, C., Santibanez, L., & Daley, G. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the
recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76, 173–208.
Halpin, A. W., & Croft, D. B. (1963). The organizational climate of schools. Chicago, IL: Midwest
Administration Center of the University of Chicago.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2004). The revolving door. Education Next, 4, 76–82.
Hart, A. W., & Murphy, M. J. (1990). New teachers react to redesigned teacher work. American Journal
of Education, 8, 224–250.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees? (pp. 46–57). Boston: Harvard
Business Review.
Horng, E. L. (2009). Teacher tradeoffs: Disentangling teachers’ preferences for working conditions and
student demographics. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 690–717.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2008). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice. New
York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Ingersoll, R., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning
teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81, 201–233.
Jacob, B. A., & Springer, M. G. (2008). Teacher attitudes on pay for performance: A pilot study (National
Center on Performance Incentives Working Paper 2007-06). Retrieved May 7, 2010 from http://
www.performanceincentives.org/.
Johnson, S. M. (2004). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, S. M., & Birkeland, S. (2003). The schools that teachers choose. Educational Leadership, 60(8),
20–24.
Johnson, S. M., & Papay, J. P. (2009). Redesigning teacher pay: A system for the next generation of
educators. In S. P. Corcoran & J. Roy (Eds.), EPI series on alternative teacher compensation (Vol.
2). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279.
Kapadia, K., Coca, V., & Easton, J. Q. (2007). Keeping new teachers: A first look at the influences of
induction in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research,
University of Chicago.
Kardos, S. M., Johnson, S. M., Peske, H. G., Kauffman, D., & Liu, E. (2001). Counting on colleagues:
New teachers encounter the professional cultures of their schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 37, 250–290.
Kardos, S., & Moore Johnson, S. (2007). On their own and presumed expert: New teachers’ experience
with their colleagues. The Teachers College Record, 109, 2083–2106.
Kennedy, M. M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Boston: Harvard
University Press.
Kristof-Brown, A., Zimmerman, R., & Johnson, E. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A
meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Person-
nel Psychology, 58, 281–342.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A
descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37–62.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers-transforming their world and their work. The series on
school reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover
in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), 44–70.
Lohman, M. C., & Woolf, N. H. (2001). Self-initiated learning activities of experienced public school
teachers: Methods, sources, and relevant organizational influences. Teachers and Teaching: Theory
and practice, 7, 59–74.
Lopez, A., Lash, A., Shaffner, M., Shields, P., & Wagner, M. (2004). Review of research on the impact of
beginning teacher induction on teacher quality and retention. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability and helpfulness of socialization
practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857–866.
Lounsbury, M., & Ventresca, M. (2003). The new structuralism in organizational theory. Organization,
10, 457–480.

123
J Educ Change

Macy, M. W. (1990). Chains of cooperation: Threshold effects in collective action. American

Sociological Review, 56, 730–747.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 2, 99–113.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony.
American Journal of Sociology, 83, 431–450.
Meyer, J., Scott, R., & Deal, T. (1981). Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure:
Explaining the structure of educational organizations. In H. D. Stein (Ed.), Organization and the
human services (pp. 151–178). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Normore, A. H. (2004). Socializing school administrators to meet leadership challenges that doom all but
the most heroic and talented leaders to failure. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7,
107–125.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of
information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849–874.
Parsons, T. (1960). Structure and process in modern society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Joshi, A., Pearlman, L., Kim, C. M., & Frank, K. A. (2010). The alignment of the
informal and formal organizational supports for reform: Implications for improving teaching in
schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46, 57–95.
Penuel, W. R., Riel, M., Krause, A., & Frank, K. A. (2009). Analyzing teachers’ professional interactions
in a school as social capital: A social network approach. Teachers College Record, 11, 124–163.
Poole, M. S. (1985). Communication and organizational climates: Review, critique, and a new
perspective. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Thompkins (Eds.), Organizational communications:
Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 79–108). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel
data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.
Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Industrial
Management Review, 9, 1–16.
Schwille, S. A. (2008). The professional practice of mentoring. American Journal of Education, 115,
139–167.
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). Reducing teacher turnover: What are the components of
effective induction? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681–714.
Spillane, J. (2003). Educational leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 343–346.
Spillane, J. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stein, M. K., & D’Amico, L. (2002). Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning: A study of a
district-wide literacy initiative. Teachers College Record, 104, 1313–1344.
Stinebrickner, T. R. (2001). A dynamic model of teacher labor supply. Journal of Labor Economics, 19,
196–230.
Strong, M. (2009). Effective teacher induction and mentoring: Assessing the evidence. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Tagiuri, R. (1968). The concept of organizational climate. In R. Tagiuri & G. H. Litwin (Eds.),
Organizational climate (pp. 11–32). Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work,
organization, and society (pp. 67–130). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B. Staw
(Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wechsler, M. E., Caspary, K., Humphrey, D. C., & Matsko, K. (2010). Examining the effects of new
teacher induction. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Weiss, E. M. (1999). Perceived workplace conditions and first-year teachers’ morale, career choice
commitment, and planned retention: A secondary analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15,
861–879.
Youngs, P. (2007). How elementary principals’ beliefs and actions influence new teachers’ induction
experiences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 101–137.

123
View publication stats