BEST PRACTICES IN TEACHER AND

ADMINISTRATOR INDUCTION
PROGRAMS
California County Superintendents Educational
Services Association

June 2016

In the following report, CCSESA presents a compilation of the

work done by CCSESA and Hanover Research relating to best
practices in teacher and administrator induction programs.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3

PRELIMINARY KEY FINDINGS ...........................................................................................................3

Section I: Teacher Induction ............................................................................................ 4

OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................4

EFFICACY OF TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAMS ....................................................................................4

PROGRAM COMPONENTS AND SCOPE ...............................................................................................6

MENTORING ...............................................................................................................................7

COMPARABLE STATES OF INTEREST ..................................................................................................9

Section II: Administrator Induction ................................................................................ 14
OVERVIEW ...............................................................................................................................14

EFFICACY OF TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAMS ..................................................................................14

PROGRAM COMPONENTS AND SCOPE .............................................................................................15

MENTORING .............................................................................................................................16

COMPARABLE STATES OF INTEREST ................................................................................................18

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
Numerous studies indicate that the challenges faced by new teachers and administrators may
contribute to the high rates of attrition observed during the first few years of employment.1
Induction programs – defined as post-hire, in-service training programs completed during the
few years of employment – provide additional support and foster skill acquisition among
teachers and administrators. However, the nature and scope of teacher and administrator
induction programs vary greatly between states and districts. This report discusses findings
regarding best practices in teacher and administrator induction and outlines statewide
induction standards in 5 states: Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. In
addition, we highlight common themes in teacher and administrator induction programs
identified in our research.

PRELIMINARY KEY FINDINGS

Induction programs have a positive impact on retention and student outcomes.
However, not all induction programs are created equal. Programs with more supports
and greater mentee/mentor contact are strongly correlated with retention and
student outcomes while programs that only provide basic supports have little or no
impact on retention and student outcomes.
Mentoring plays a key role in effective induction programs for teachers and
administrators.
o When selecting mentors, important attributes include: character, competence,
experience, communication skills, interpersonal skills, and an understanding of
the setting and context in which a mentee works.
o The type and intensity of training and support provided to mentors may impact
the efficacy of an induction program. Ongoing support and scheduling
adjustments to compensate for the time and effort needed to sustain effective
mentorships encourages participation and raises overall program quality.
Although induction is correlated with positive outcomes for both teachers and
administrators, support for, and participation in, administrator induction programs
has lagged behind teacher induction programs. 27 states require that all new
teachers participate in some form of induction or mentorship program. Alternatively,
only 16 states require that new administrators receive “some form of professional
support” and only 3 of those states require new administrators to participate in a full
induction program.

1[1] Ingersoll, R. “Beginning Teacher Induction: What the Data Tell Us.” Kappan Magazine, 93(8), May 2012.
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/pdf/rmi/PDK-RMI-2012.pdf
[2] Prothero, A. “For Principals, Continuous Learning Critical to Career Success.” Education Week, January 21, 2015.
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/01/21/for-principals-continuous-learning-critical-to-career.html

Page 3
SECTION I: TEACHER INDUCTION
This section analyzes common themes and practices in teacher induction. While the structure
and content of teacher induction programs vary across states and districts, this report defines
teacher induction as a post-hire, in-service program to socialize beginning teachers into the
profession and provide support during the first few years of teaching.

OVERVIEW
Over the past two decades, participation in teacher induction programs has increased
substantially—from roughly half of new teachers in the 1990-1991 academic year to more
than 90 percent by 2007-2008. 2 As of 2010-2011, 27 states required that all new teachers
participate in some form of induction or mentorship program, 15 states had established
formal induction program standards, and 11 states required induction and mentorship for all
first- and second-year teachers. 3

Since 1998, California law has required teachers to complete a two-year induction program
to earn a full teacher license (“Clear Credential”). 4 California county offices of education,
districts, and other entities design and implement induction programs that align with the
California Standards for the Teaching Profession and the California Standards of Quality and
Effectiveness for Professional Teacher Induction Programs.5

EFFICACY OF TEACHER INDUCTION PROGRAMS

In 2011, renowned education researchers Richard M. Ingersoll and Michael Strong published
a meta-analysis of 15 empirical studies—conducted over the previous 25 years—examining
teacher induction programs. 6 Ingersoll and Strong found that, despite varying program
components and intensity, induction programs have a consistently positive impact in three
areas: 7
Teacher retention: Participation in an induction programs increases the likelihood
that a teacher will remain in the field. It also increases the likelihood that the teacher
will remain at that particular school.
Classroom instructional practices: Beginning teachers who participate in some form
of induction are more effective in various aspects of teaching, including: keeping

2 Ingersoll, Op. cit.

3 Goldrick, L. et al. “Review of State Policies on Teacher Induction.” New Teacher Center, February 2012, pp. iv, 7.
http://newteachercenter.org/sites/default/files/ntc/main/pdfs/brf-ntc-policy-state-teacher%20induction.pdf
4 Koppich, J.E. et al. “California’s Beginning Teachers: A Bumpy Path to a Profession.” SRI International, J. Koppich

Associates, and Inverness Research, 2012, p. v. http://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/sri_bumpy-road.pdf

5 “Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Induction.” Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Induction.

http://www.btsa.ca.gov/
6 Ingersoll, R., and M. Strong. “The Impact of Induction and Mentoring Programs for Beginning Teachers: A Critical

Review of the Research.” University of Pennsylvania, Scholarly Commons, 2011. p. 1.

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1127&context=gse_pubs
7 Text adapted from: Ingersoll, Op. cit., pp. 50-51.

Page 4
 students on task; developing workable lesson plans; using effective student
questioning practices; adjusting classroom activities to meet student interests;
maintaining a positive classroom atmosphere; and demonstrating successful
classroom management.
Student achievement: Students of beginning teachers who participate in some kind
of induction generally have higher scores and/or larger gains on academic
achievement tests.

Although Ingersoll and Strong found that participation in a teacher induction program was
consistently correlated with increased teacher retention and student achievement, their
research also revealed that the strength of the correlation was highly dependent on the
extent and intensity of the particular induction program. Significant research supports these
findings.

With regard to retention rates:

 The number of induction components has a multiplying effect on the rate of teacher
retention. Alternatively, teachers with minimal induction supports were nearly as
likely to leave the field as teachers who did not participate in induction. 8
 Having a mentor who works (or worked) at the same school decreases attrition rates
for beginning teachers. 9
 Beginning teachers with a mentor in the same subject area, common planning with
teachers in the same subject area, and regularly scheduled collaboration time, are
significantly more likely to stay in teaching. 10

With regard to student achievement:

 Students of teachers who are highly engaged in an induction program outscore

students of teachers with low levels of engagement in an induction program even
after controlling for API. 11
 The students of a beginning teacher in a high-intensity induction program are
predicted to gain between 6 to 8 points in reading, while the students of a beginning
teacher in a low intensity induction program are likely to lose points. 12
 Teachers who received more hours of mentoring had higher student achievement
scores in both math and reading than those who had fewer mentoring hours. 13

8 Ingersoll, R. and T. Smith. “Do Teacher Induction and Mentoring Matter?” University of Pennsylvania, Scholarly
Commons, March 2004. http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1134&context=gse_pubs
9 Rockoff, J. “Does Mentoring Reduce Turnover and Improve Skills of New Employees? Evidence from Teachers in New

York City.” National Bureau of Economic Research, March 2008. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13868.pdf

10 Ingersoll, R., and M. Strong. Op cit., p. 35.
11 Thompson, M. et. al. “Relationship of BTSA/CFASST Engagement and Student Achievement.” Educational Testing

Service, April 2004. https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-04-32.pdf

12 Strong, M. “Effective Teacher Induction and Mentoring.” Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 2009.
13 Rockoff, J. Op cit. Abstract

Page 5
  Students of teachers who received 49 hours or more of professional development
over a 1 year period gained approximately 21 percentile points more than other
students. However, teachers receiving 14 hours or less of professional development
saw no statistically significant increase in student test scores. 14

PROGRAM COMPONENTS AND SCOPE

As noted above, the scope and intensity of induction programs vary significantly between
districts and states. A comprehensive induction program generally includes all of the
following components:
Formal or Informal Orientation: Includes a review of basic school procedures and
policies such as how to order supplies, how to organize a classroom, and where to
find instructional resources.
Mentoring: Mentors and mentees are required to meet periodically to review
progress and discuss challenges. Mentors conduct observations and assessments and
provide feedback.
Professional Development: Incorporates the opportunity to engage in ongoing
learning through coursework, in-service development, and/or participation in
professional learning communities (PLCs).

The National Education Association (NEA) Foundation lists three types of induction models
outlined by teacher preparation expert Barry Sweeny. These models vary in their intensity
and incorporation of program components:
Basic Orientation Model: Basic orientations introduce teachers to general district
procedures, policies, and responsibilities. The program may consist of a series of
professional development activities, including the assignment of a mentor. Mentors
may give occasional advice but are not actively involved in modeling instructional
practice.
Instructional Practice Model: This model links induction with local and state
standards for teaching, using skilled mentors to help bridge the gap between theory
and practice for new teachers. Induction may last two or more years and offers
teachers continued opportunities for in-depth learning.
School Transformational Model: While relatively uncommon, this model weaves
attributes of both the orientation and instructional practice models into a system
promoting continuous improvement in student learning. It engages new teachers in
school reform and connects their professional growth to student learning goals. This
model views teachers as a community of learners and enables faculty to work
collaboratively in all aspects of their jobs. 15

14 Yoon, K., et. al. “Reviewing the Evidence on How Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement.”
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assessment, U.S. Department of Education, October 2007.
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_2007033_sum.pdf
15 “Using Data to Improve Teacher Induction Programs.” NEA Foundation, Summer 2002, p. 2.

https://www.neafoundation.org/downloads/NEA-Using_Data_Teacher_Induction.pdf

Page 6
MENTORING
Mentorship is a key component of effective teacher induction programs. Mentors provide
beginning teachers with practical information, guide teachers as they develop instructional
skills, and offer feedback and opportunities for reflection. The NEA Foundation suggests that
beginning teachers should receive three stages of mentoring, as shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Mentoring Stages for Beginning Teachers

STAGE FOCUS
 Practical skills and information:
o Where to order supplies
First Stage o How to organize a classroom
o Where to find instructional resources
o What kind of assistance the teacher association can provide
Second Stage  The art and science of teaching and on polishing classroom management skills
Third Stage
 A deeper understanding of instructional strategies and ongoing professional
development that is based on the assessed needs of students
Source: National Foundation for the Improvement of Education 16

Significant research on teacher induction suggests that the most effective mentoring models
are designed to support greater frequency and length of contact between mentor and
mentee. 17 In addition, new teachers who meet with their mentors weekly, as opposed to a
few times per year, self-report substantially greater improvement in instructional skills
(36% improvement versus 88% improvement). 18 Based on this data, induction experts
encourage districts to guarantee adequate “protected time” – between 1.25 and 2.5 hours –
for observation and discussion between mentors and mentees during each week of the
mentorship. 19

In addition, experts urge districts to consider the extent to which participant confidentiality
should be protected to ensure an honest dialogue between mentors and new teachers. The
NEA Foundation recommends introducing clear confidentiality policies at the beginning of
a mentorship. 20

SELECTING AND SUPPORTING MENTORS

State policies that establish mentor qualifications generally address experience levels,
interpersonal skills, and teaching ability. 21 In specific terms, the NEA Foundation outlines the
“qualities of effective mentors” presented in Figure 1.2.

16 Adapted from: “Creating a Teacher Mentoring Program.” The National Foundation for the Improvement of Education,
(1) 1999. p. 12.
http://www.neafoundation.org/downloads/NEA-Creating_Teacher_Mentoring.pdf
17 Ingersoll and Strong, Op. cit., p. 17.
18 “Creating a Teacher Mentoring Program,” Op. cit., p. 4.
19 Goldrick et al., Op. cit., p. 17.
20 Jones, as cited by: “Creating a Teacher mentoring Program,” Op. cit., p. 6.
21 Goldrick et al., Op. cit., p. 10.

Page 7
 Figure 1.2 Characteristics of an Effective Mentor Teacher
ATTITUDE AND CHARACTER
 Willing to be a role model for other teachers  Is reflective and able to learn from mistakes
 Exhibits strong commitment to the teaching  Is eager to share information and ideas with
profession colleagues
 Believes mentoring improves instructional  Is resilient, flexible, persistent, and open- minded
practice  Exhibits good humor and resourcefulness
 Willing to advocate on behalf of colleagues  Enjoys new challenges and solving problems
 Willing to receive training to improve mentoring  Demonstrates a commitment to lifelong learning
skills
PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE AND EXPERIENCE
 Is regarded by colleagues as an outstanding  Maintains a network of professional contacts
teacher  Understands the policies and procedures of the
 Has excellent knowledge of pedagogy and school, district, and teacher association
subject matter  Is a meticulous observer of classroom practice
 Has confidence in his/her own instructional skills  Collaborates well with other teachers and
 Demonstrates excellent classroom - administrators
management skills  Is willing to learn new teaching strategies from
 Feels comfortable being observed by other protégés
teachers
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
 Is able to articulate effective instructional  Uses email effectively
strategies  Is efficient with the use of time
 Listens attentively  Conveys enthusiasm and passion for teaching
 Asks questions that prompt reflection and  Is discreet and maintains confidentiality
understanding
 Offers critiques in positive and productive ways
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS
 Is able to maintain a trusting professional  Works well with individuals from different cultures
relationship  Is approachable; easily establishes rapport with
 Knows how to express care for a protégé’s others
emotional and professional needs  Is patient
 Is attentive to sensitive political issues
Source: National Foundation for the Improvement of Education 22

Because mentors require superior experience and skill, many districts struggle to employ
enough qualified mentors to staff their induction programs. 23 To attract mentors, most
districts provide incentives, such as a stipend, a reduced or modified course load, or
opportunities to shape the mentorship program. In some states, districts may also offer
additional incentives by collaborating with state education agencies to grant mentors credit
towards re-licensure or recertification, where applicable. 24

22 “Creating a Teacher Mentoring Program,” Op. cit., p. 8.

23 Id., p. 9.
24 “Creating a Teacher Mentoring Program,” Op. cit., p. 9.

Page 8
To foster effective mentorships, induction experts encourage districts to provide mentors
with both initial training and ongoing support. Successful mentor programs generally include
one or more of the following supports: mentor training programs that last anywhere from
one day to a few weeks, linking mentors with higher education faculty, supplying common
office space to encourage collaboration among mentors, and protecting mentors from
additional administrative duties. 25

ACCOUNTABILITY
According to the New Teacher Center, for an induction program to thrive, districts should
develop systems that maintain accountability and improve program quality. Specifically,
accountability systems help to:
Assure compliance with state laws, regulations, and policies;
Lessen the disconnect between policy regulations and implementation practices;
Focus on program improvement; and
Assess the effect of induction programs on student achievement and teacher
outcomes. 26

To promote accountability, most states develop clear mentorship program standards and/or
require districts to submit plans that detail accountability processes at each level. 27 These
induction plans generally require districts to consider: how mentors will be assessed, what
evidence will be used to evaluate and document the effectiveness of the program, and how
a mentee’s progress in the program will be tracked. 28

COMPARABLE STATES OF INTEREST

To provide national context, CCSESA examined teacher induction programs in 5 states: Ohio,
North Carolina, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. Although California’s unique
characteristics make it difficult to draw direct comparisons to other programs, these states
were selected because they share the following characteristics with California: high ADA,
above average rates of ethnic and racial diversity, state-mandated participation in induction
program for beginning teachers, and statutorily established tenure rights. In addition, all 5
states studied are aligned with the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, have
received national recognition for statewide or district-level induction programs, and rank in
the top third of states for education.

25 “Creating a Teacher Mentoring Program,” Op. cit., p. 9-11

26 Adapted from: Goldrick, L. et al. “Review of State Policies on Teacher Induction.” New Teacher Center, February
2012, p. 11. http://newteachercenter.org/sites/default/files/ntc/main/pdfs/brf-ntc-policy-state-
teacher%20induction.pdf
27 Goldrick et al., Op. cit., p. 30.
28 National Foundation for the Improvement of Education

Page 9
 Figure 1.3 summarizes the statewide mandates for induction programs. Although each state
allows districts to create and implement their own induction plans, the district plan must
meet the minimum state requirements as outlined in Figure 1.3. Many districts mandate
supplemental program components in addition to the state requirements.

Figure 1.3 Statewide Teacher Induction Requirements

PROGRAM PROGRAM ASSESSMENTS AND
STATE DETERMINATION OF CERTIFICATION
LENGTH COMPONENTS OBSERVATIONS
YRs 1 and 2: Mentors
complete 1 annual formal
Once a candidate completes the
observation. YR 3: Mentees
induction program and passes the RESA,
Mentoring, take the Resident Educator
the district superintendent or
assessment, Summative Assessment
professional development committee
counseling, (RESA). Formative
Ohio 4 years chair signs the application and submits it
other assessments may NOT be
to the Ohio Department of Education.
optional used for formal teacher
The Department reviews all applications
activities evaluation or employment
and provides final approval before
decisions and mentors may
issuing a credential.
NOT participate in formal
teacher evaluations.
3 summative assessments
After completion of the program, the
Formal per year conducted by a
program official identified in the
orientation, trained teacher. Mentors
district’s Beginning Teacher Support
North mentoring, may participate in formal
3 years Program Plan approves or denies the
Carolina professional teacher evaluations if
conversion of the teacher’s certificate to
development, agreed to in the collective
a Standard Professional Two credential
assessment bargaining agreement
(i.e. a clear teaching credential).
(CBA).
Mentors and mentees must
Mentoring, participate in formative
professional assessments and classroom
Illinois 2 years
development, observation for the purpose
assessment of improving classroom
practices.
After completion of the program, the
Provisional teachers are school principal submits the final
Professional evaluated 3 times per year evaluation to NJ Secretary of Education
New development, by a trained principal or with one of three recommendations:
1 year
Jersey orientation, administrator. Mentors may approval, insufficient, or disapproved. If
mentoring NOT participate in formal a provisional teacher receives two
teacher evaluations. insufficient rating, he/she is deemed
disapproved.
Mentoring
Upon completion of the program, the
(other
Mentors may participate in district superintendent must submit a
New program
1 year formal teacher evaluations verification form to the state attesting
York elements are
if agreed to in the CBA. that the new teacher has completed the
negotiated
required induction components.
locally)
*Please note: If the space was left blank, it means that information for that category was unavailable.

Page 10
 Figure 1.4 demonstrates how mentors are selected, supported, and assigned. In addition,
“Mentor/Mentee Contact” outlines the frequency of interactions between mentors and
mentees mandated by state law. Again, many districts require additional mentor/mentee
contact in excess of the state requirement.

Figure 1.4 Statewide Teacher Mentor Requirements

MENTOR TRAINING AND ASSIGNMENT TO MENTOR/
STATE MENTOR SELECTION CRITERIA
PD MENTEE MENTEE CONTACT
Holds a teacher certification
Matched according
and a five-year professional
to proximity of There must be “protected
development license;
location to mentee time for mentor-mentee”
completes the district 2-day mentor
Ohio and familiarity with collaboration and
application process and is training program
school and district. observation; no hour
selected to serve; successfully
Ideally 1:1 ratio, but requirement specified
completes the mentor
can be greater
training program.
Mentor orientation Minimum of 4 in-person
and foundational observations per year;
Demonstrated record of training program, “mentors and mentees
North
success; other locally ongoing participation must have protected time
Carolina
determined criteria in PLCs and PD to participate in
related to “refining mentoring and induction
mentoring skills” activities”
Foundational mentor
training, ongoing
Matched according
Demonstrated effective participation in a PLC
to certifications, YR1: Minimum of 30
teaching practice; strong and regularly
experience, current hours in-person contact;
intra and inter-personal skills; scheduled PD related
Illinois assignments, and YR2: Minimum of 20
demonstrated knowledge of to “deepening
proximity of location hours in-person plus 10
pedagogy and diverse mentoring skills,”
to mentee. 1:1 ratio hours virtual contact
learning needs and completion of
required.
periodic self-
assessments
Holds a teacher certification,
preferably in the same
subject area as the mentee; Once per week for first 8
at least 3 years of teaching weeks for mentees who
experience and has taught have not completed a
New full time for 2 of the last 5 Mentor training teacher prep program.
Jersey years; demonstrated record program Once per week for first 4
of success in the classroom; weeks for mentees who
familiar with district norms, have completed teacher
resources, and opportunities; prep program.
completes the mentor
training program.
Holds a valid NY teacher
Recommended that
New certification (same subject No statewide hour
the ratio not exceed
York area not required); completes requirement identified
1:10.
the district selection process.
*Please note: If the space was left blank, it means that information for that category was unavailable.

Page 11
 Figure 1.5 summarizes how districts in each state develop and administer their induction
plans and identifies the role that the state plays in program oversight.

Figure 1.5 Teacher Induction Program Administration

STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION OVERSIGHT
Developed by a district leadership team
comprised of teachers, administrators, The district’s program Program coordinators must
and stakeholders. Must incorporate the coordinator must register conduct an annual self-
Ohio Standards for the Teaching all induction participants assessment to ensure that the
Ohio
Profession and be developed in and update completion of district’s program is aligned
accordance with the Ohio Resident program criteria in a state- with Resident Educator
Educator Program Standards Planning maintained database. Program standards.
Tool.
Option 1: Developed by the Department Programs must submit annual
The mentee, mentor, and
of Public Instruction, the State Board of reports to the Department of
principal annually update
Education, and the University of North Public Instruction that
the new teacher’s
Carolina (UNC). Implemented by the demonstrate evidence of
Professional Development
North Carolina New Teacher Support mentor success in meeting
Plan. After three years of
Program located at institutions across the standards and proficiency on
North induction, the local
state. (Used in 43 districts) BTSP standards. Every 5 years
Carolina program coordinator must
Option 2: Developed and implemented the Department reviews
approve or deny the
by the district in accordance with the programs for evidence of
automatic conversion of a
Beginning Teacher Support Program proficiency. Programs that do
new teacher’s certificate
(BTSP) standards; approved by the State not supply sufficient evidence
to a fully credentialed
Board of Education. (Used in all other of proficiency are placed on
certificate.
districts) improvement plans.
Developed by the district in accordance The State Board of Education
with the State Board of Education and the State Teacher
requirements. Must incorporate the Certification Board are required
Illinois Illinois Standards of Quality and to contract with a third party to
Effectiveness for Beginning Teacher conduct evaluations of all
Induction Programs. induction programs every 2
years.
District must register
Traditional route induction programs: provisional teachers with
Developed by the district’s chief school the state. Once the
administrator and approved by the board provisional teacher has
of education and school improvement met state induction
panel. Must annually certify to state requirements, the district
New
education agency that the district submits the teacher’s
Jersey
program meets all requirements. name to the state agency
Alternative route induction programs: along with the appropriate
Operate under a contract with the state documentation and
educational agency. The content of the evaluations required for
program is approved by the state. granting a permanent
certificate.

Page 12
STATE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION OVERSIGHT
The district and Board of
Cooperative Education
Services must maintain
Programs must develop their
Developed by the district. The State records on all provisional
New own evaluation models based
Department of Education provides 10 teachers and document
York on identified program
recommended program standards. the teacher’s assigned
outcomes.
mentor, mentoring
activities completed, and
number of hours logged.
*Please note: If the space was left blank, it means that information for that category was unavailable.

Page 13
SECTION II: ADMINISTRATOR INDUCTION
OVERVIEW
Administrator induction programs are somewhat newer and less well established than
teacher induction programs. 29 As of 2010-2011, only 16 states required “some form of
professional support” for first-time school principals, and only 3 required induction or
mentoring for first- and second-year school administrators. 30 Nevertheless, recent research
highlights the importance of professional development for administrators. In one 2014
report, the School Leaders Network estimates that the cost of developing, hiring, and
onboarding a school principal is $75,000. Thus, investments in principal retention – for
example, through induction and ongoing professional development – may improve school
performance in a cost-effective manner. 31

In 2013-2014, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing implemented program

standards for administrative services credentialing. Credentialing programs for
administrators are divided into several steps, including a “clear credential program” centered
on a job-embedded, in-service induction model. This coaching-based program spans two
years and is informed by candidate assessment, coach observations, and district focus.
Professional development activities such as seminars and courses are required; additionally,
participants meet with mentors to reflect on their practices as administrators. 32

DEFINING ADMINISTRATORS
Induction programs may include administrators in many positions – including supervisors,
assistant principals, principals, assistant superintendents, and superintendents. However, the
literature on administrator induction programs focuses primarily on beginning principals,
perhaps because “the principalship is often the entry point from teacher to administrator,
unless someone has served in an assistant principal position.” 33 Thus, this section analyzes
reports and studies that focus almost exclusively on principal induction.

EFFICACY OF ADMINISTRATOR INDUCTION PROGRAMS

While research on the efficacy of administrator induction is not as prolific as that on teacher
induction, some of the most respected names in education research have released reports
indicating that completion of an induction program can increase both an administrator’s
effectiveness and the likelihood that he or she remains in the field.

29 Hartzer, L. and T. Gavin. “Administrator Induction Programs: Summary of Research and Promising Practices.” The
Connecticut Principals’ Center, June 30, 2003. p. 3. http://www.casciac.org/pdfs/admin_induction.pdf
30 Goldrick et al., Op. cit., p. 4.
31 “Churn: The High Cost of Principal Turnover.” School Leaders Network, 2014. p. 2.

http://connectleadsucceed.org/sites/default/files/principal_turnover_cost.pdf
32 “Administrative Services Credential Program Standards.” Commission on Teacher Credentialing, February 2014. pp.

8, 10. http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/svc-admin-handbook-2014.pdf
33 Hartzer and Gavin, Op. cit., p. 30.

Page 14
Linda Darling-Hammond’s comprehensive review of administrator induction studies
concluded that administrators who participate in innovative induction programs report
significantly higher perceptions of their training and stronger leadership outcomes. 34
However, as with teacher induction programs, the correlation between effectiveness and
participation in an administrator induction program is highly dependent upon the quality of
the program. Darling-Hammond found that administrators who participated in exemplary
induction programs that included school visits, peer observations and principal networking
were judged to be much more effective than administrators who participated in traditional,
less intensive induction programs. 35 Another study that surveyed teachers’ perceptions of
principal’s leadership effectiveness found that participation in an induction program with
more comprehensive features (such as completion of an internship and pedagogy on
instructional strategies) was strongly correlated with principal effectiveness. 36

PROGRAM COMPONENTS AND SCOPE

According to the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, in-service administrator induction
programs typically belong to one of four program types depending on the entity that
administers the program: university-based programs, district programs, third-party
programs, and partnership programs. 37 The Institute describes partnership programs as
“highly contextualized” collaborations – generally between districts and postsecondary
institutions – that often occur in areas “where the district and university partners have
developed a common vision of education and school leadership and where the principal
preparation offered by the university is closely consistent with the instructional initiatives of
the district and features internships in the district’s schools.” 38

Studies suggest that the design of administrator induction can differ based on the program’s
intended purpose (i.e., support versus licensure assessment) and the length and breadth of
pre-service administrator training. 39 However, successful administrator induction programs
tend to share similar features regardless of program type. A 2007 report on exemplary
leadership development programs from the Stanford Educational Leadership Institute found
that high-quality in-service programs share three main characteristics: 40
A learning continuum operating systematically from pre-service preparation through
induction and throughout the career, involving mature and retired principals in mentoring
others

34 Darling-Hammond, L., et al. “Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership
Development Programs.” Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, 2007. p. 17
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/key-research/Documents/Preparing-
School-Leaders.pdf
35 Id., p. 47.
36 Ibid.
37 Darling-Hammond, L. et al. “Developing Successful Principals.” Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, 2005. pp.

15. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.123.7780&rep=rep1&type=pdf
38 Id., p. 19.
39 Hartzer and Gavin, Op. cit., p. 23.
40 Taken verbatim from Darling-Hammond, L., et al. “Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from

Exemplary Leadership Development Programs.” Op. cit, p. 146.

Page 15
 Leadership learning grounded in practice, including analyses of classroom practice,
supervision, and professional development using on-the-job observations connected to
readings and discussions and organized around a model of leadership
Collegial learning networks, such as principals’ networks, study groups, and mentoring or peer
coaching, that offer communities of practice and sources of ongoing support for problem
solving

Research also highlights the importance of coordinating pre-service programs with in-service
models. As Linda Hartzer and Tom Galvin write for the Connecticut Principals’ Center, “The
more we coordinate the preparation with the current expectations for school leadership, the
less the need or concern to ‘add’ requirements during induction… when administrators are
most overwhelmed and in need of support and assistance with daily job expectations.” 41

MENTORING
Experts consistently emphasize the value of mentorships in administrator induction
programs. The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), for example, describes high-quality
mentors as “the key” to improving training for aspiring principals in an effective manner.42
However, the ability of a mentorship to improve new administrators’ skills and capabilities
depends on factors such as program length and funding, as well mentor quality and training.
To support an effective program, the Wallace Foundation recommends structured
mentorships focused on developing new principals who: 43
Put learning first in their time and attention and know how to rally their entire school
communities around that goal;
See when fundamental change in the status quo is needed in order to make better
teaching and learning happen; and
Have the courage to keep the needs of all children front and center and not shrink
from confronting opposition to change when necessary.

SELECTING AND SUPPORTING MENTORS

Careful selection of mentors helps foster the development of substantive relationships with
mentees. Experts recommend the selection of instructional leaders who possess a “solid
knowledge about current learning theories, curriculum, assessment and school organization,”
a successful record, and a detailed understanding of the organizational context in which the
mentee is operating. 44 Although experts suggest that the mentor should have some
familiarity with the mentee’s environment, employment in the same district does not appear

41 Ibid., p. 64.
42 “Good Principals Aren’t Born--They’re Mentored.” Southern Regional Education Board. p. 11.
http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/principal-training/Documents/Good-
Principals-Arent-Born-Theyre-Mentored.pdf
43 Ibid., p. 9.
44 Hartzer and Gavin, Op. cit., p. 31.

Page 16
to be essential. 45 Philosophical compatibility also may factor into strong mentorships, as
mentees may struggle to work with leaders who advocate educational theories and beliefs
wildly different from their own. 46

Logistically, researchers urge the selection of mentors who are capable of committing the
time required of a meaningful mentorship. Specifically, the Connecticut Principals’ Center
observes that, when selecting current principals as mentors, “care must be taken to select
only those principals whose schools are sufficiently strong so that the school will not suffer
as a result of the time and energy spent by the principal.” 47 Likewise, the NYC Leadership
Academy, a privately-funded organization designed to recruit, prepare, and support the city’s
principals, previously abandoned the use of sitting principals as mentors in the belief that
retired leaders could “spend more time and attention on their new principals.” 48

Notably, mentor compensation may affect the quality and quantity of leaders who participate
in mentorship programs, leading some researchers to conclude that stipends should be
“commensurate with the importance and time requirements of the task.” 49 In Kentucky, for
example, Jefferson County Public Schools found that the $1,400 annual stipend provided to
mentors was an insufficient incentive to attract high-quality principals to mentorship roles. In
addition to the low stipend, two other factors posed a challenge to mentorship in the district:
a requirement that mentors spend at least 50 contact hours with new principals and be
consistently available for advice beyond those hours; and a reliance on active principals as
mentors. 50

As with teacher induction, research suggests that the type and intensity of training that
administrator mentors receive may impact a mentor’s ability to cultivate the specific skillset
needed to successfully coach mentees. The Wallace Foundation identifies “weak or non-
existent training for mentors” as a key problem underlying contemporary mentorship
programs, even in states that mandate mentorships, and advises mentorship programs to
provide high-quality training for mentors on a routine basis.51

45 [A] Ibid.
[B] Darling-Hammond, L., et al., "Preparing School Leaders for a Changing World: Lessons from Exemplary
Leadership Development Programs," Op. cit., p. 146.
[C] Dukess, L. “Meeting the Leadership Challenge.” New Visions for Public Schools, 2001. pp. 1–2.
http://b.3cdn.net/nvps/1b09a4b6c9285c247c_bkm6bnkhs.pdf
46 Gates, S.M. et al. “Preparing Principles to Raise Student Achievement: Implementation and Effects of the New

Leaders Program in Ten Districts.” RAND Corporation, 2014. pp. 29–30.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR500/RR507/RAND_RR507.pdf
47 Hartzer and Gavin, Op. cit., p. 31.
48 “Getting Principal Mentoring Right: Lessons from the Field.” The Wallace Foundation, March 2007. p.11.

http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/principal-training/Documents/Getting-
Principal-Mentoring-Right.pdf.
49 Ibid., p. 4.
50 Ibid., p. 15.
51 Ibid., p. 4.

Page 17
ACCOUNTABILITY
Overall, experts and policy-makers emphasize the importance of external standards in
ensuring that mentorships meet established guidelines. Massachusetts Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education regulations, for example, require districts to report the
number of site-based visits made by mentors and the number of hours mentors spend with
mentees. 52 The Wallace Foundation also recommends explicit accountability measures,
stating that all organizations requiring mentorships should gather “meaningful information
about its efficacy: especially, how mentoring is or is not contributing to the development of
leadership behaviors and dispositions that are needed to change the culture of school
towards improved teaching and learning.” 53 Surveys and other forms of self-reporting may
be insufficient means of gathering comprehensive and/or reliable information on program
activities, outcomes, and satisfaction levels. Thus, states and districts may need to conduct
more formal evaluations of the extent to which mentees have gained useful skills and habits
as a result of the mentorship. 54

COMPARABLE STATES OF INTEREST

CCSESA examined the statewide requirements for administrator induction programs in 5

comparable states: Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. The findings are
consistent with the literature review above – most administrator induction programs are
newer and less well established than teacher induction programs. 55

52 “Guidelines for Induction and Mentoring Programs.” Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education, April 2015. p. 27. http://www.doe.mass.edu/educators/mentor/guidelines.pdf
53 “Getting Principal Mentoring Right: Lessons from the Field,” Op. cit., p. 4.
54 Ibid., p. 8.
55 Hartzer, L. and T. Gavin. “Administrator Induction Programs: Summary of Research and Promising Practices.” The

Connecticut Principals’ Center, June 30, 2003. p. 3. http://www.casciac.org/pdfs/admin_induction.pdf

Page 18
Figure 2.1 demonstrates that statewide administrator induction requirements are much more
limited in scope and applicability than teacher induction requirements. Only one state – New
Jersey – unconditionally requires candidates to complete an induction program to receive
certification.

Figure 2.1 Statewide Administrator Induction Requirements

PROGRAM
STATE REQUIREMENT PROGRAM COMPONENTS
LENGTH
Mentoring and professional
development. Depending on the
Required only Principals: 3 years.
candidate experience and certificate
for alternative Superintendents: 4 years.
Ohio sought, may also include: self-
certification Administrative Specialists:
assessments, development of personal
pathways. 4 years.
plan, college coursework requirements,
and completion of a licensure exam.
North No statewide
Carolina requirement.
Required
contingent to
Principal: 1 year.
Illinois an annual state Mentoring
Superintendent: 2 years.
budget
appropriation.
Required for all
Principal: 2 years.
new principals Mentoring, professional experiences,
New Jersey School Administrators: 1-
and training, and instruction.
2 years.
administrators.
Required, but
can opt-out
School building leaders: Mentoring
New York with 2+ years
1 year.
of teaching
experience.
*Please note: If the space was left blank, it means that information for that category was unavailable.

Page 19
Figure 2.2 summarizes how programs are administered in each state and to what extent
oversight and support is provided by a statewide agency or association.

Figure 2.2 Administrator Induction Program Administration

STATE MENTOR SELECTION CRITERIA PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION OVERSIGHT
The Ohio Department of Education is
Districts. Some training
Holds a standard responsible for ensuring the
and support is provided
principal/superintendent/ alternative certification requirements
by the state’s various
Ohio Administrator license; are fulfilled. If college coursework is
principal and
experience and required, the college must guarantee
superintendent
interpersonal skills those requirements have been
associations.
fulfilled.
Districts. The North
Carolina Principals and
Assistant Principals
North
Association offer
Carolina
professional
development modules
and support to districts.
3+ years of experience,
demonstrated success as
Mentors and mentees must certify
an instructional leader,
that program requirements have been
similar grade level or
completed. Program providers are
Illinois school type as mentee,
required to annually submit the
geographical proximity to
mentees progress to the State Board
mentee, understanding
of Education.
learning needs of new
principal/superintendent
Retired or current NJ The state contracts with Mentors act as agents of the Board of
school leader with 5+ two associations to Examiners. Mentors conduct
years of experience. provide administrator evaluations, ensure the mentee has
Experiences that are induction: the state fulfilled all requirements, and submit
New
similar to mentees association of principals documentation either recommending
Jersey
including: grade-level or and supervisors and the or denying certification to the
school-type; New Jersey Association mentee. A mentee who is denied
district/community type; of School certification by his/her mentor may
and positions held. Administrators. appeal the decision.
Completion of the program must be
New York verified by the superintendent of the
employing district.
*Please note: If the space was left blank, it means that information for that category was unavailable.

Page 20