Creating Conditions for Serious

Mentoring: Implications for Induction

Policy

SHARON FEIMAN-NEMSER
Brandeis University

CYNTHIA L. CARVER
Oakland University

During the 1980s, mentoring became a favored strategy in the improve-

ment of teaching. Assigning veterans to assist beginning teachers was
seen as a clear improvement over the abrupt, unassisted, “sink or swim”
induction that most beginning teachers experienced, as well as a way to
reward and renew strong experienced teachers. Mentoring and induc-
tion programs sprang up around the country, and policy makers and edu-
cators hailed mentor teachers as the key ingredient in their success
(Huling-Austin, 1990).
As concerns about the shortage of teachers, the quality of teaching,
and the high rates of attrition on the part of new teachers increased, so
did the scale and scope of induction activity. Between 1990 and 2000, the
proportion of new teachers participating in induction programs nearly
doubled, from approximately 40% in 1990 to almost 79% in 2000 (Smith
& Ingersoll, 2004). During this time, half the states initiated some induc-
tion programming, and many school districts, especially in urban centers,
provided some form of induction support to new teachers, most often by
assigning them a mentor teacher (Fideler & Haselkorn, 1999). Still,
many fewer teachers received the degree of support associated with a

National Society for the Study of Education, Volume 111, Issue 2, pp. 342–364
Copyright © by Teachers College, Columbia University
0077-5762
 Serious Mentoring 343

“comprehensive” approach to induction, defined as high-quality mentor-

ing, ongoing professional development, access to an external network of
other novice teachers, and standards-based evaluation (Alliance for
Excellent Education, 2004; Moir & Gless, 2001; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004;
Wood & Stanulis, 2009).1
At its best, mentoring can make the difference between a successful
and an unsuccessful induction experience (Darling-Hammond, 1999;
Gold, 1996; Little, 1990; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004; Strong, 2009). Mentors
can answer new teachers’ questions, observe their teaching, assist with
planning, provide curricular resources, offer emotional support, and
even stretch them to consider new possibilities. When new teachers per-
ceive their mentors as helpful, they are more likely to report a positive
teaching experience and indicate their intention to stay in teaching (e.g.,
Kapadia, Coca, & Easton, 2007; Smith & Ingersoll, 2004). Case studies of
thoughtful mentors at work show how “educative” mentoring, as distin-
guished from “feel-good support,” can help beginning teachers shift
their focus from self to students and provide more ambitious learning
opportunities to the students in the classroom (e.g., Athanases &
Achinstein, 2003; Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Wang, Strong, &
Odell, 2004). Furthermore, researchers have begun to document the
effects of mentored support on student achievement (e.g., Fletcher &
Strong, 2009; Fletcher, Strong, & Villar, 2008).
In short, the work of mentoring matters. Whether we are looking at the
broad-scale enactment of induction programming or the individualized
attention focused on new teachers’ learning and development, mentors
play a pivotal role in new teacher retention and development. As a result,
mentors are in a good position to interpret and enact induction policy at
the local level. In light of their unique role, what conditions are needed
to ensure that mentors have time to mentor as well as opportunities to
develop a mentoring practice that promotes effective teaching? Given
the importance of mentoring and the vagaries of local control, how can
induction policy play a constructive role in promoting educative mentor-
ing?
Researchers have identified factors that make for an effective mentor-
ing relationship. Proximity, grade-level and/or subject matter matches,
personal compatibility, and allocated time affect the availability of men-
tors and the quality of mentoring. Unfortunately, these conditions are
not always easy to arrange. In many instances, mentors are full-time
teachers with little time for observing, let alone coplanning and coteach-
ing in the novice’s classroom. In other cases, the availability of qualified
grade-level and subject-area mentors are insufficient to the need. Thus,
having a mentoring program in place is no guarantee that new teachers
344 National Society for the Study of Education

will get the assistance they need, nor can mentoring compensate for dif-
ficult working conditions or a school culture that discourages teacher col-
laboration (Johnson & The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers,
2004; Williams, Prestage, & Bedward, 2001).
Mentor selection, training, and ongoing development further influ-
ence mentors’ role orientation and practice (e.g., Evertson & Smithey,
2000; Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009; Wang, Odell, &
Schwille, 2008). Without an opportunity to examine their assumptions
about learning to teach and develop their practice as mentors, experi-
enced teachers may not know whether to act as “local guides” or “educa-
tional companions” or realize how much they are bound by norms of
autonomy, noninterference, and congeniality that shape the culture of
teaching (Feiman-Nemser & Parker, 1993). Serious mentoring both sup-
ports and stretches new teachers, helping them with immediate problems
and moving their practice forward. It challenges the prevailing culture of
teaching (Little, 1990) and depends on skills of observation, analysis, and
communication that go beyond those mastered by most classroom teach-
ers (Feiman-Nemser, 1998). Unfortunately, many mentoring programs
seem to rest on the assumption that those who know how to teach auto-
matically know how to assist a novice in learning to teach.
In this chapter, we offer lessons learned from studying mentor policy
and practice in three well-regarded induction programs. In the tradition
of research on the intersection of education policy and classroom prac-
tice (e.g., Coburn, 2001; Cohen & Ball, 1990; Cohen & Hill, 2001;
Spillane & Thompson, 1997), we examine how state and district policies
surrounding new teacher induction shape the practice of mentors and
the learning of beginning teachers. As our analysis demonstrates, weak
systems of mentor support contribute to uneven mentoring practices,
which ultimately result in missed learning opportunities for novice teach-
ers and their students. What role can induction policies play in shaping
these systems?

MENTOR POLICY IN THREE INDUCTION PROGRAMS

To develop our argument, we draw on findings from a comparative study

of three well-regarded induction programs—two at the state level and
one at the district level—that we conducted under the auspices of the
National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Education.
The three programs were: Connecticut’s Beginning Educator Support
and Training (BEST) program, as implemented in New Haven;
California’s Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) pro-
gram, as found in the Santa Cruz New Teacher Project (SCNTP); and
 Serious Mentoring 345

Cincinnati’s Peer Assistance and Evaluation Program (PAEP). At the time

of the study, each site had supported induction programming for more
than a decade, despite changes in administration and shifting resources,
and each figured prominently in the early induction literature (Fideler &
Haselkorn, 1999; National Commission on Teaching and America’s
Future, 1996). Further, all three programs relied on mentoring as the pri-
mary vehicle of induction, but definitions of the mentor’s role varied
across the programs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION

Our research focused on the dynamic relationship of induction pro-

grams, policies, and practices as they informed and shaped one another
in the context of new teacher support and development. In particular, we
wanted to know what induction policy implementation looked like at the
local level. What was it like to be a mentor teacher and a beginning
teacher in states and districts that took induction seriously? How did vari-
ations in induction policy affect the character and quality of induction
programs, especially the practice of mentors?
This interest in multiple contexts and their variations led to an embed-
ded case study design in which we could examine policy through a state,
district, and local lens (Yin, 1994). Data for the study, collected between
1999 and 2001, consisted of semistructured interviews with key players in
the local induction context; interviews and observations of a sample of
4–6 mentor teachers and beginning teachers; observations of key pro-
gram components, including mentor training; and analysis of written
documents associated with each program.2 To augment program-level
data, we identified 6 new teachers per site to follow through their first two
years of teaching. We observed and interviewed this cohort twice yearly,
once in the fall and again in the spring. We also observed them working
with mentors during each site visit and interviewed both about the
process.
For each observation, we wrote field notes, collected artifacts, and
recorded interviews for later transcription. Following each site visit, the
research team prepared analytic memos to identify emerging patterns
within and across sites (Miles & Huberman, 1997). From the program
data, we constructed case studies for each site organized around our
main research questions (Feiman-Nemser, 2000). We also analyzed the
quality of mentoring and its effects on beginning teachers (Norman &
Feiman-Nemser, 2005; Yusko & Feiman-Nemser, 2008), beginning teach-
ers’ assessments of different sources of influence (Katz, 2002), the efforts
of principals and mentors to support new teachers (Carver, 2002), and
346 National Society for the Study of Education

the power and limits of induction policy (Carver & Feiman-Nemser,

2009).
In the analysis reported here, we focus on the ways induction policy
shaped mentors’ work in the three sites. After introducing each site, we
offer a cross-site comparison of the policies that governed mentoring in
each context. In particular, we consider how induction policy sets condi-
tions for serious or “educative” mentoring by examining how mentors’
roles were defined across programs, what tools were provided to struc-
ture mentors’ work, what time was allotted for mentors to work with new
teachers, and what provisions were made for mentor training and devel-
opment. We conclude with a discussion of implications for induction pol-
icy as it relates to mentors’ work and development.

BEST in Connecticut

A leader in the development of statewide support for new teachers,

Connecticut made a commitment to raising standards for teacher educa-
tion and licensure in 1986 with passage of the Education Enhancement
Act (Wilson, Darling-Hammond, & Berry, 2000). A key component of
this comprehensive reform package was the Beginning Educator Support
and Training program, a two-year induction program that combined
first-year mentoring with second-year performance-based assessment as
the basis, along with a master’s degree, for a continuing professional
license (Connecticut State Department of Education, 1999a, 1999b).
As directed by legislation, the induction of new teachers in Connecticut
was considered a shared responsibility between the state and local dis-
tricts. Although school districts were encouraged to supplement the state
program, they were minimally required to provide a BEST-trained men-
tor for each first-year teacher. These mentors were expected to help new
teachers strengthen their knowledge of subject matter, students, and
instructional strategies, as well as their understanding of school, district,
and state standards, plus lay a foundation for continued professional
development.
By the end of their second year, beginning teachers were expected to
submit completed portfolios to the state for assessment. To fulfill this
requirement, teachers had to select a unit of instruction designed around
an essential concept, engage students in an exploration of that concept
over several lessons, assess and reflect on students’ learning, and reflect
on their own teaching. Regional subject-specific clinics and workshops
were offered to help support new teachers in preparing their portfolios,
which were scored by state-trained assessors using rubrics based on state
teaching and learning standards. Although mentors were not required to
 Serious Mentoring 347

work with new teachers during their second year of teaching, novices
often turned to their mentors for guidance in assembling these portfo-
lios.
At the time of our study, BEST mentors in New Haven were full-time
teachers selected on the basis of personal interest, as expressed in a for-
mal application and confirmed by the recommendation of administra-
tors and colleagues. Prior to being assigned a new teacher, each mentor
was expected to complete three days of state-sponsored training in which
they were introduced to the BEST program and guided in the use of state
standards. Once trained, mentors were assigned to novice teachers in
their buildings based on grade level and subject-area expertise. State
guidelines stipulated that BEST-trained mentors be assigned to new
teachers within 10 days of hire or placement in a school. Although the
intent was to have a BEST-trained mentor in each building (and by sub-
ject area in secondary schools), the district was unable to meet this goal
during the time frame of our research.

BTSA in California

Like Connecticut, California was an early leader in making new teacher

induction the focus of state policies targeted toward improved teaching
and learning, of which the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment
program was a prime example (Olebe, 2001). The California New
Teacher Program was created in the 1980s to study alternative models for
supporting and assessing first- and second-year teachers. Its larger mis-
sion was to inform future policy around a comprehensive statewide strat-
egy for the certification and induction of new teachers. Early success led
to the creation of BTSA in 1992, which viewed teaching as a “complex,
challenging profession that requires reflective, collegial practices that
develop over time while new teachers gain expertise and confidence as
professional decision-makers” (Bartell & Ownby, 1994, p. 8).
From the beginning, emphasis was placed on developing a standards-
based program to complement the teacher credentialing system. Toward
that end, the California Standards for the Teaching Profession were
adopted to facilitate the induction of beginning teachers into their pro-
fessional roles and responsibilities by providing a common language and
a new vision of the scope and complexity of teaching (California
Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of
Education, 1997). Several years later, in accordance with continuing
BTSA legislation, the state created a performance-based formative assess-
ment system, aligned with the California teaching standards, to guide the
assessment of new teachers. The California Formative Assessment and
348 National Society for the Study of Education

Support System soon became a required component of all BTSA pro-

grams, unless a suitable alternative was approved by the state. Notably,
summative assessment remained in the hands of building principals.
Unlike most BTSA programs at the time of the study, mentors in the
SCNTP were released full time from their classroom responsibilities.3
This arrangement was possible because of a partnership between the pro-
ject and participating districts that placed a premium on supporting
mentors’ work. With a caseload of 12–14 new teachers, mentors were
expected to meet weekly with their assigned teachers. To the extent pos-
sible, mentors were matched by grade level and subject area, although
the program also sought to reduce travel time between schools by cluster-
ing mentors in schools with large numbers of beginning teachers.
Program staff actively recruited new mentors, with selection based on
principal recommendations and interviews by program staff and experi-
enced mentors. In preparation for their role, mentors completed a two-
day initial training session and then participated in weekly staff meetings
during the year.

PAEP in Cincinnati

Cincinnati’s Peer Assistance and Evaluation Program was established in

1985 to assist and evaluate beginning teachers and to assist experienced
teachers with serious instructional concerns. Motivated by criticism of
urban schools and by the American Federation of Teachers’ call for
greater teacher professionalism and involvement in policy-oriented deci-
sions, key union and school representatives joined in establishing PAEP.
This agreement stipulated that all new teachers or interns would be
assisted and evaluated by a PAEP consulting teacher (CT) and must
receive a satisfactory evaluation within 2 years (Cincinnati Public
Schools, 1998). A 10-member panel, composed equally of union-
appointed teachers and board-appointed administrators, provided over-
sight.
As an induction program, PAEP’s distinguishing feature was its commit-
ment to coupling on-site assistance with high-stakes assessment. Like the
other programs studied, PAEP relied primarily on mentor relationships
between experienced teachers and beginning teachers. CTs, selected
from the ranks of interested “lead teachers” by members of the panel,
were released full time from their classroom teaching duties to work with
as many as 14 teachers. These CTs had direct responsibility for most of
the major components and functions of PAEP, including facilitation of
biweekly seminars, plus the observation, assistance, and evaluation of
new teachers. With few exceptions, CTs were paired with new teachers
 Serious Mentoring 349

based on grade-level and subject-area matches. Guiding their work was a

set of district standards for student learning, which provided detailed
guidance about what to teach, what kind of student work to collect, and
how to assess this work, as well as the various proficiency levels expected
for each standard.

CHARACTERIZING MENTOR SUPPORT ACROSS PROGRAMS

Our interest in examining induction policy as it relates to mentors’ work

stemmed from differences in mentoring across the three sites. Having
chosen programs that assigned different functions to mentor teachers,
we wanted to understand better what those differences meant in practice
and how state and district policy promoted or impeded serious mentor-
ing of beginning teachers.
In the SCNTP, we observed a developmental approach to mentored
learning to teach. Mentors visited new teachers in their classrooms on a
weekly basis, using their observations to support evidence-based discus-
sions of teaching and to promote novices’ growth toward high standards
of performance. The mentors we shadowed consistently used formative
assessment strategies to inform their work and to focus the new teachers’
attention on issues of student learning. On repeated visits, we witnessed
lively and engaged conversations about teaching and learning between
mentors and their new teachers.
In Cincinnati, we saw an equally focused approach to mentoring that
combined high-stakes evaluation with ongoing standards-based assis-
tance. Contrary to conventional wisdom, CTs were able to foster trustwor-
thy relationships despite their role as formal evaluators. Although the
observation and feedback process they followed was highly structured to
meet due process guidelines, the conversations that we observed between
CTs and new teachers focused on the steady improvement of classroom
management and instruction.
In New Haven, some mentor teachers eagerly embraced their assign-
ment, whereas others, assigned by the principal because they were the
only BEST-trained mentors in the building, expressed ambivalence.
Whether mentoring occurred on a regular basis often depended on the
principal’s commitment to arrange the schedule or the mentor’s commit-
ment to find the time. In interviews with mentor teachers, we did not
detect any common language or shared mentoring practices, and we had
difficulty arranging to observe mentors working with novices because
they taught full time.
To understand more fully the significance of these differences and
their implications for induction policy, we now consider four policy-
350 National Society for the Study of Education

relevant dimensions of mentoring: role definitions, tools for mentoring,

time for mentoring, and provisions for learning to mentor.4

DEFINING THE MENTOR’S ROLE: ASSISTANCE AND ASSESSMENT

The literature on mentoring reflects a widespread belief that those who

assist new teachers cannot also assesses them; however, the programs in
this study challenged that position. In Connecticut, the combination of
assistance and assessment occurred at three levels: Mentors provided in-
classroom assistance, building principals conducted separate district-level
teacher evaluations, and state assessors assumed responsibility for assess-
ing licensure portfolios. California induction policy supported a tradi-
tional two-person model, separating mentored assistance from principal
evaluation. In contrast, Cincinnati mentors assumed the dual roles of
assistance and evaluation. Like other peer review programs, PAEP princi-
pals had no formal responsibility for teacher evaluation. How did the
relationship between assistance and assessment, as defined by state and
district policies, influence the practice of mentoring and the experiences
of new teachers in the three sites?
In California, BTSA policy prohibited mentors from engaging in sum-
mative assessment, and there was no formal link between induction sup-
port and district tenure or state licensure. Further, there was no direct
link between induction and related teacher quality measures.
Nevertheless, BTSA guidelines clearly stated that mentors’ task was to
move novices toward standards-based teaching through a coherent set of
formative assessment tools designed for use across the school year. In
California, the mentor’s role was clearly defined to include assistance
informed by ongoing formative assessment. As a result, new teachers in
the SCNTP experienced weekly mentored support integrated with stan-
dards-based formative assessment. Further, SCNTP mentors were part of
a strong professional community that created a public forum for their
work, raising their sense of professional accountability.
Like California, induction policy in Connecticut separated the func-
tions of assistance and summative evaluation. Whereas the process of
preparing and submitting a portfolio for review by regional committee
was clearly a high-stakes event for second-year teachers, first-year mentor-
ing was a locally driven event disconnected from the portfolio process.
According to program guidelines, BEST mentors were to provide instruc-
tional assistance through reflective conversations during the beginning
teacher’s first year, and principals were to complete classroom observa-
tions for the purpose of reappointment decisions. What this looked
like in practice was a matter of local policy. In contrast with the highly
 Serious Mentoring 351

structured portfolio review process, the lack of state policy guidance sur-
rounding mentors’ work with first-year teachers contributed to much
local variation.
The opposite was true in Cincinnati, where new teacher support and
evaluation were fundamentally connected. Under PAEP, consulting
teachers were responsible for conducting a series of formal observations
and, based on those observations, recommending new teachers for con-
tract renewal at the end of their first year of teaching. Prior to PAEP, this
was the principal’s responsibility. When beginning teachers failed to per-
form at reasonable levels of competence, CTs were expected to respond
with carefully targeted assistance. For beginning teachers in Cincinnati,
assistance and assessment were experienced as a tightly coupled activity.
In these sites, induction policy set boundaries for the mentors’ role and
work. Depending on how the functions of assistance and assessment were
assigned, the mentors’ role was either expanded or limited. Policy deci-
sions regarding assistance and assessment also determined how many
individuals shared responsibility for new teacher development, their
respective roles, the stakes surrounding each of these roles, and the
degree to which they were expected to work together. As these cases high-
light, variations in policy contributed to significant differences in prac-
tice, even when programs adopted a similar stance toward mentoring.

TOOLS FOR MENTORING

Instead of treating mentoring as an idiosyncratic practice, all three pro-

grams supplied mentors with various conceptual and practical tools to
use in their work with beginning teachers. For example, across the three
sites, mentors were supplied with teaching and content standards, proto-
cols for formative and summative assessment, and/or formats for docu-
menting classroom observations and mentoring interactions. From a
practical perspective, these tools had the power to structure and focus
mentors’ interactions with beginning teachers. From a policy perspective,
they helped to standardize mentoring practices and hold participants
accountable to a shared vision of serious mentoring. Collectively, these
tools also helped mentors enact the orientation and expectations associ-
ated with their respective roles in each site.
The use of various tools, however, was uneven across programs. In
California and Cincinnati, mentors regularly used content and/or teach-
ing standards to guide their work and focus their conversations with new
teachers. In these sites, the presence of standards helped to ensure that
mentoring centered on classroom teaching and student learning. In New
Haven, however, we did not see much evidence of standards-based men-
352 National Society for the Study of Education

toring. Although standards were prominent in the second-year portfolio

development process and introduced in the mentor training as the
means for guiding the first-year mentoring process, we did not observe
them being used consistently or regularly in the field.
Standards were not the only tools for mentoring that we observed. In
Santa Cruz, we found an integrated set of formative assessment strategies
that included a protocol for analyzing student work, which mentors were
expected to introduce in advance of the first marking period. Mentors
were also asked to keep written summaries of their interactions with new
teachers using the collaborative log, a standards-driven record of accom-
plishments, challenges, short-term goals and “next steps” for new teach-
ers and mentors. Finally, several times a year, mentors were expected to
assess new teachers’ growth using the Developmental Continuum of
Teaching Abilities (New Teacher Center, 2002), a performance rubric for
determining levels of practice for the various California teaching stan-
dards. Mentors used this assessment to help new teachers set professional
learning goals, as recorded on an individual development plan.
In Cincinnati, practical tools took the form of detailed observation pro-
tocols that doubled as a formal record of CTs’ classroom visits. Program
policy stipulated that each new teacher would be observed six times dur-
ing the year and that written feedback for each observation would be
shared within 5 working days. CTs reported that these write-ups, which
followed a prescribed framework, could take up to 8 hours to complete,
highlighting the high-stakes nature of this event and the role of this tool
in guiding mentors’ work.
As these examples highlight, mentors in California and Cincinnati
were expected to use tools flexibly to meet the unique needs of their indi-
vidual mentees and to align those tools with existing standards in order
to guide novices’ growth and development. In comparison, tools for men-
toring remained an underdeveloped aspect of the induction process in
Connecticut. Although standards and protocols were central to the port-
folio review process at the state level, they were not connected to men-
tors’ local work in any significant way. In contrast with the other two sites,
this omission stood out as a missed opportunity for policy makers to
shape mentors’ work in a meaningful way.

TIME AND MONEY

Next, we look at how each program structured and financially supported

mentors’ time with new teachers. In Cincinnati and in the SCNTP, men-
tors were released full time from teaching duties. As a result, their sole
responsibility was to the induction program and the mentees assigned to
 Serious Mentoring 353

their care. In Santa Cruz, mentors were encouraged to visit their begin-
ning teachers on a weekly basis. In Cincinnati, visits were at least 2 weeks
apart because of the demands surrounding the formal observation
process. Our field observations confirmed that mentors in both sites hon-
ored these expectations. We observed mentors taking time with their
novices, visiting in and outside of the classroom. We also witnessed men-
tors working together as colleagues, sharing ideas and talking through
problems.
In New Haven, where mentors were full-time teachers, visits with the
new teacher were squeezed into planning hours and before or after
school. When the mentor–novice match was in the same building (a dis-
trict goal), visits tended to be more frequent and, according to new teach-
ers, more productive. To ameliorate the challenges associated with a
mentor model that did not provide regular release time, the BEST pro-
gram stipulated that each mentor–novice pair should be encouraged to
take 8 half-days of release time each year. Our interviews with BEST men-
tors and new teachers in New Haven suggested that this provision was
unevenly practiced for a variety of reasons, including the difficulty of
being gone from the classroom for even a few hours.
Decisions about program length also impacted mentors’ work and the
learning opportunities offered to new teachers. Understandably, long-
term relationships are more amenable to long-term learning goals. Both
Connecticut and California mandated a 2-year induction process, reflect-
ing awareness that learning to teach takes time. This implies that new
teachers have things to learn that they could not have learned before-
hand and that regular, ongoing feedback (from mentors) around estab-
lished teaching and/or content standards can help guide this learning.
Still, only California guaranteed (and paid for) two full years of ongo-
ing mentored support for all new teachers. Connecticut’s BEST program
provided a blended model that combined one year of district-supported
mentoring, with a second year of state-sponsored workshops designed to
help novices complete their performance-based portfolio. In contrast
with the other two sites, Cincinnati’s PAEP contract limited new teacher
support to one year of assistance unless more time was needed to prove
professional competence. In this case, after recommendation by the con-
sulting teacher and approval by the 10-member oversight panel, a second
year of assistance could be, and occasionally was, offered.
As this discussion reveals, both Connecticut and California invested
tremendous sums in developing a coherent set of statewide policies and
tools that could be adapted for use at the local level. However, their
investment in supporting districts with local implementation differed. At
the time of data collection, California provided local districts with $3,200
354 National Society for the Study of Education

per new teacher, whereas Connecticut provided $200 per new teacher.
As a result, Connecticut districts (like New Haven) were left each year
with having to decide which induction-related practices they most
needed and could afford. Districts in California, on the other hand,
could concentrate on growing and developing their local induction-
related resources. In our two cases, the difference was most noticeable in
the time accorded to mentors’ work. In Santa Cruz, full-time mentors
had adequate time to meet with new teachers. In New Haven, with con-
siderably less financial support from the state, mentors were largely
expected to find time to mentor around the edges of full-time teaching,
which limited the opportunities for novices to learn with and from their
mentors.
As demonstrated in the California and Connecticut cases, when states
provide funds to support local efforts such as mentoring, they increase
the likelihood of fidelity to state goals. As an alternative model,
Cincinnati’s PAEP was both neatly woven into district programming and
protected by a joint district/union agreement. As a result, everyone was
equally invested in program success.

MENTOR TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

If we assume that mentoring is a professional practice distinct from class-

room teaching, then induction programs must take up the problem of
mentor training and development. What opportunities did experienced
teachers have to learn about their role as mentors and to develop a flex-
ible mentoring practice? Although mentoring was a core instrument of
induction policy, only two sites mandated mentor training. Connecticut
required two days of state-sponsored mentoring training, whereas
California required three days of state-approved mentor training. An
important note is that neither required ongoing mentor development,
although the local control encouraged by BTSA, plus the funding offered
to local sites, made this possibility more likely. This was the case in the
SCNTP, where we observed a well-developed system for ongoing mentor
support and development.
In contrast, PAEP policy did not specifically mandate mentor training,
although new CTs had access to informal support and problem-solving
through planned and spontaneous conversations with more experienced
consulting teachers, and CTs received formal training in the use of dis-
trict evaluation forms according to local standards. Moreover, oversight
by the PAEP panel ensured accountability and provided consulting teach-
ers with monthly opportunities to get help with specific problems from
panel members and to learn how to mentor effectively and fairly. Next we
 Serious Mentoring 355

describe how each site approached the orientation, training, and devel-
opment of mentor teachers.

MENTOR TRAINING IN CONNECTICUT

In Connecticut, state induction policy dictated that mentor training be

provided by BEST trainers in regional centers. The state tried to ensure
that all mentors received the same basic information by providing train-
ers with detailed training manuals and scripts. According to the training,
BEST mentors’ primary job was to provide general and subject-specific
instructional support. “Reflective conversations” were presented as a core
mentoring strategy, and mentors were encouraged to use such skills as
reflective questioning, active listening, and giving objective feedback in
their interactions with new teachers.
Because BEST mentors were supposed to base their mentoring on
teaching and content standards, trainers introduced the Common Core
of Teaching, Connecticut’s vision of effective teaching, and gave mentors
practice in looking for evidence of content standards in sample teaching
artifacts such as classroom videotapes. Mentor teachers also learned
about portfolio assessments. They studied handbooks designed to help
new teachers develop their teaching portfolios, reviewed sample entries,
and learned about the scoring process. Although mentor teachers were
not required to work with second-year teachers, they were asked to
encourage beginning teachers to attend state-sponsored portfolio work-
shops.
Despite these efforts, field observations in New Haven suggested that
the state’s vision of mentors as facilitators of reflective conversations
around standards-based artifacts of practice remained at cross-purposes
with a mentoring structure that required mentors to be full-time teach-
ers. It was difficult to see how the model of mentoring promoted in the
training could be enacted without dedicated time for reflective conversa-
tions and without a teaching culture that supported serious collaboration
and close analysis of teaching. None of the mentors we observed prac-
ticed or talked about reflective conversations. Even if mentor teachers
could develop the skills and dispositions required for reflective conversa-
tions in two days of initial training, a questionable assumption, the men-
tors we observed simply did not have time for such interaction.

MENTOR TRAINING IN CALIFORNIA

Like Connecticut, California also mandated mentor training. By law, all

new BTSA mentors were expected to attend three days of state-approved
356 National Society for the Study of Education

mentor training as an orientation to their new role. Topics addressed

during these sessions included the use of formative assessment and the
California teaching standards. In keeping with the local orientation of
induction policy, this training varied somewhat by the needs of each site.
The training program we observed was developed by program adminis-
trators in the SCNTP.
The SCNTP program, Foundations of Mentoring, oriented new men-
tors to the multifaceted role of mentor and introduced specific tools and
strategies for making new teacher support as effective as possible. Many
of the topics covered in the Connecticut training, such as the importance
of building a trusting relationship, the needs of beginning teachers, and
the role of standards in assessing new teachers’ practice, appeared in the
Santa Cruz training. Like Connecticut, mentors also learned about
reflective conversations as a central activity of mentoring, and mentors
got the message that they were supposed to be “change agents” working
to transform the culture of teaching from individualistic to collaborative.
Initial training sessions also introduced mentors to a set of local tools, dis-
cussed earlier, that had been developed to assist and guide their work.
This included the Developmental Continuum of Teacher Abilities (New
Teacher Center, 2002), which enabled mentors and new teachers to iden-
tify varying levels of competency within each teaching standard.
More important in shaping the quality of mentor teachers’ practice,
however, was the additional support and development that mentors
received in the form of weekly 3-hour staff meetings. In these meetings,
mentors talked through problems that arose in the course of their ongo-
ing work with beginning teachers and practiced using the various tools
and processes provided by the program. Additionally, experienced men-
tors were paired with those new to the role to provide additional support
through peer mentoring.
Perhaps most critical to supporting mentors’ work, however, was the
early commitment by SCNTP partnering districts to release veteran
teachers from the classroom full time. Although a potential hardship for
districts who needed more, not fewer, master teachers, full-time release
ensured that mentors had time to mentor, and time to learn to mentor.
In this case, the combination of mandated policy, state funding, and local
vision created a platform from which the SCNTP could build a structure
for serious mentor teacher development.

CONSULTING TEACHER TRAINING IN CINCINNATI

Of the mentor trainings we observed, Cincinnati’s was the most informal.

We observed no training scripts or manuals, no overhead slides or struc-
 Serious Mentoring 357

tured group activities. The smallest of the three programs, Cincinnati’s

approach built on the accumulated expertise of district leadership. Prior
to school starting each fall, the coming year’s CTs gathered to organize
and prepare for the year ahead. The training aspect of these meetings dif-
fered from year to year depending on the number and experience level
of the CTs present. The training we observed was held in the PAEP office
one week before school began and lasted 3 days. Eight CTs attended, with
only one being new to the role. Those with experience rotated through-
out the meeting as training facilitators.
Unlike the other two sites, Cincinnati CTs were expected to both sup-
port and evaluate new teachers. To prepare CTs for the enormity of their
professional responsibility, the training we observed accomplished two
things. First, it provided all CTs, new and experienced, with detailed pro-
cedural guidance related to preparing observation-based documents,
including computer use. Training also served the purpose of preparing
CTs for their role as evaluators. Given the high-stakes nature of the eval-
uation process, neither came as a surprise.
Overall, the mentor role conveyed through training was one of respon-
sive, needs-based instructional support. As found in the program guide-
lines, CTs were expected to provide follow-up support in response to
observed difficulties. To illustrate, if a CT identified classroom manage-
ment during large-group instruction as an area of concern, direct assis-
tance would be given until that issue was resolved. Still, the Cincinnati
training stood out for its relative lack of attention to preparing mentors
for having conversations with beginning teachers about their practice.
Although the program clearly expected CTs to engage novice teachers in
conversations about teaching, the formal training offered limited oppor-
tunities for CTs to learn how to lead or structure such conversations.

Training With Ongoing Support

Together, these cases demonstrate some of the variations on mentor

training that are possible, from the largely informal, ongoing socializa-
tion of consulting teachers (as in Cincinnati); to state-mandated and pro-
vided up-front training (as in Connecticut); and state mandated but
locally provided up-front training coupled with locally sponsored ongo-
ing support and development (as in California). To meet each program’s
goal of standards-based mentoring for standards-based teaching, these
variations are clearly not equal.
Mentoring is a professional practice that must be learned, not some-
thing that comes automatically or easily to classroom teachers. Further,
effective mentoring draws on a specialized knowledge base and skill set
358 National Society for the Study of Education

that includes an extensive working knowledge of content, curriculum,

and pedagogy, plus skill in observing and analyzing teaching as well as
working with adult learners (see Athanases & Achinstein, 2003).
Although training in itself is a good thing, front-loaded training with lit-
tle or no opportunity for ongoing problem-solving and skill development
is shortsighted. Moreover, mentoring can be a powerful professional
development opportunity for experienced teachers and a chance to
develop teacher-leadership capacity. To realize these fuller purposes,
mentors need opportunities to develop their understanding of teaching
and learning to teach, as well as their mentoring repertoire, while they
are doing the work of mentoring. By combining formal training with
ongoing support and development, the SCNTP case gives us a new vision
of what is possible.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MENTORS’ POLICY AND PRACTICE

As we look across this cross-case comparison, two findings strike us as par-

ticularly noteworthy. First, it is hard to imagine an effective mentor pro-
gram that does not ensure time for mentoring and time for mentor
development. Second, thoughtful mentoring cannot occur without ongo-
ing assessment. Just as classroom teachers must assess the learning of
their students and use this information to guide their instruction and
planning, so too must mentors assess the learning of their mentees and
use this information to inform their practice

Ensuring Time for Mentoring

Time for mentoring is a critical yet often overlooked component of

induction policy. In New Haven, full-time classroom teachers served as
mentors because state-mandated induction policy provided no guidance
or funding to support full- or partial-release mentors. This left local dis-
tricts with the task of finding teachers who were willing to fit mentoring
into an already full work day rather than envisioning new structures, such
as team-based mentoring, reduced teaching loads, or floating substitutes.
In contrast, both the SCNTP and PAEP were able to support the release
of mentors from classroom duties. The SCNTP managed this provision
through a combination of state and local funds, and in Cincinnati, class-
room release was mandated and paid for entirely with district funds.
In both cases, mentors had extended periods of time to observe and
reflect on the problems of teaching and new teacher learning as they
unfolded across the year. Classroom release allowed mentors and new
teachers to engage in coplanning and coteaching on a regular basis, to
 Serious Mentoring 359

observe classrooms together and debrief afterward, and to explore

broader issues in teaching. Our research suggests the need for induction
policy to make new teacher development a priority by ensuring time for
mentors and new teachers to work together, even if it means structuring
teachers’ time through full and partial release. In doing so, states and dis-
tricts send a powerful message about the importance of high-quality sup-
port and guidance for new teachers.

Integrating Assessment With Support

Although all three sites mandated mentoring for beginning teachers,

each differed in how it defined the nature and scope of the mentor’s
responsibility. In Connecticut, mentors were expected to provide one
year of instructional support, whereas evaluation for the purpose of licen-
sure was handled by state-trained assessors. Although many school-based
mentors were likely guided by BEST portfolio requirements, nothing in
the state policy stipulated this connection. The clear-cut separation of
assistance and assessment reflects conventional wisdom in the field of
induction, but perhaps not best practice.
Neither California nor Cincinnati defined the mentor’s role in sup-
portive terms exclusively, but their approaches differed in significant
ways. California required mentor teachers to provide two years of individ-
ualized assistance informed by regular formative assessment. Like
Connecticut, this was done intentionally to ensure that mentors
remained outside the evaluation loop. In contrast, PAEP policy in
Cincinnati assigned responsibility for both assistance and high-stakes
assessment to CTs, who not only helped first-year teachers teach to the
district’s content standards but also made recommendations about
whether their contract should be renewed. This decision to combine
assistance and assessment reflects a professional stance toward evaluation
that encompasses peer review.
Our research suggests that policy makers and program developers
need to examine the assumptions that shape definitions of the mentor’s
role. For example, our data call into question the widespread belief that
thoughtful mentoring will only occur if assistance and assessment are sep-
arated. In fact, we found that professional accountability was strongest in
sites where mentors had some responsibility for both assisting and assess-
ing new teachers’ performance. In New Haven, where the mentor’s role
was limited to instructional support, the degree of professionalism and
accountability was dependent on the individual mentor who had to make
time to work with her assigned new teacher. As a result, we saw a great
deal of variance in mentoring practices across this urban district.
360 National Society for the Study of Education

In contrast, SCNTP mentors who integrated formative assessment with

ongoing assistance tended to have a clearer sense of direction for their
mentoring (Norman & Feiman-Nemser, 2005). We attributed this to their
consistent use of carefully crafted standards-based formative assessment
tools and the strong professional community of practice created among
the mentors. Even more dramatically, in Cincinnati, we saw how the
responsibility to make consequential decisions about new teachers con-
tributed to a strong, collective sense of professional accountability (Yusko
& Feiman-Nemser, 2008). The tools and processes designed to support
peer evaluation in Cincinnati seemed to enable mentors to serve the dual
functions of support and assessment.

SUPPORTING SERIOUS MENTORING THROUGH INDUCTION POLICY

As an induction strategy, educative mentoring can be a powerful influ-

ence in new teacher learning. At its best, it offers an individualized form
of professional development situated in a particular context, oriented
around shared goals and standards, and aimed at helping new teachers
create an effective instructional program for their students. Through
dedicated time and thoughtfully designed tools and strategies, serious
mentoring goes well beyond advice-giving and “feel-good support” to
focus novice learning and development. When new teachers have regu-
lar opportunities to learn with and from an experienced teacher-mentor,
they not only grow as teachers; they also experience the power of collab-
oration and joint problem-solving.
But learning to mentor in ways that take new teacher development seri-
ously takes time. First, mentors need to understand the intentions of the
induction policy that stipulates their role. Second, mentors need to
develop a mentoring practice that enables them to guide and support
new teachers’ learning. This requires more than a few days of up-front
training. Mentors also need regular opportunities to discuss questions
and problems that arise in the course of their ongoing work with new
teachers and to extend their knowledge and skills as teachers and men-
tors. Investing in the professional development of mentors has the added
benefit of producing a cadre of teacher leaders who can help foster a cul-
ture of collaboration and accountability in schools and districts.
Although policy is a blunt instrument for shaping the work of mentors
and beginning teachers, it can ensure a more even distribution of
resources and increase the likelihood that mentoring will be treated as a
professional practice and a serious strategy for new teacher development.
Such outcomes depend on induction policies that not only legislate
actions but also “teach” the meaning of those actions to the relevant local
 Serious Mentoring 361

actors. In the case of mentoring, that includes helping program leaders,

district and school administrators, and mentors teachers understand the
potential of development-oriented mentoring and the conditions on
which it depends. It also means ensuring that mentors have adequate
opportunities to develop a serious mentoring practice aimed at fostering
new teacher learning in the service of student learning. If serious men-
toring is a key component in comprehensive induction programs, then
induction policy must play its part in increasing the likelihood that it will
become an integral and constructive part of beginning teaching.

Notes

1. Smith and Ingersoll’s (2004) analysis of the 1999–2000 SASS data found that 26%
of beginning teachers received a “basic induction + collaboration” package of support,
which they defined as subject-area-matched mentors, collaborative planning time with col-
leagues, supportive communication with administrators, plus novice seminars.
2. Funding for this study came from the National Partnership for Excellence and
Accountability in Teaching and the Walter F. Johnson Foundation.
3. Although we use the term mentor in this chapter, the preferred term in the SCNTP
was advisor, and the term used in BTSA was support provider.
4. The analysis reported here is necessarily limited to data collected at the time of the
study and is not meant to reflect current policy or practice in these sites.

References

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2004). Tapping the potential: Retaining and developing high-
quality new teachers. Washington, DC: Author.
Athanases, S., & Achinstein, B. (2003). Focusing new teachers on individual and low per-
forming students: The centrality of formative assessment in the mentor’s repertoire of
practice. Teachers College Record, 105, 1486–1520.
Bartell, C. A., & Ownby, L. (1994). Report on the implementation of the beginning teacher support
and assessment program, 1992-1994. Sacramento: California Commission on Teacher
Credentialing and California Department of Education.
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of Education.
(1997). California standards for the teaching profession: A description of professional practice for
California teachers. Sacramento: Author.
Carver, C. L. (2002). Principals’ supporting role in new teacher induction (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Michigan State University, East Lansing.
Carver, C. L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2009). Using policy to improve teacher induction:
Critical elements and missing pieces. Educational Policy, 23, 295–328.
Cincinnati Public Schools. (1998). Peer assistance and evaluation program guidelines.
Cincinnati, OH: Author.
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate policy
in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145–170.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 331–338.
362 National Society for the Study of Education

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (1999a). Connecticut’s commitment to excellence in
teaching: The second generation. Hartford: Author.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (1999b). A guide to the BEST program for begin-
ning teachers. Hartford: Author.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of the state pol-
icy evidence. Seattle: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of
Washington.
Evertson, C. M., & Smithey, M.W. (2000). Mentoring effects on proteges’ classroom prac-
tice: An experimental field study. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 294–304.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1998). Teachers as teacher educators. European Journal of Teacher
Education, 21, 63–74.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2000). Beginning teacher induction: A study of three promising programs.
Final report for the National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching
(NPEAT). East Lansing: Michigan State University.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Parker, M. B. (1993). Mentoring in context: A comparison of two U.S.
programs for beginning teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19,
699–718.
Fideler, E. F., & Haselkorn, D. (1999). Learning the ropes: Urban teacher induction programs and
practices in the United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.
Fletcher, S. H., & Strong, M. (2009). Full-release and site-based mentoring of elementary
grade new teachers: An analysis of changes in student achievement. New Educator, 5,
329–341.
Fletcher, S., Strong, M., & Villar, A. (2008). An investigation of the effects of variations in
mentor-based induction on the performance of students in California. Teachers College
Record, 110, 2271–2289.
Gold, Y. (1996). Beginning teacher support: Attrition, mentoring and induction. In J. Sikula
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 548–594). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Huling-Austin, L. (1990). Teacher induction programs and internships. In W. R. Houston
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 535–548). New York: Macmillan.
Hobson, A. J., Ashby, P., Malderez, A., & Tomlinson, P. D. (2009). Mentoring beginning
teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 207–216.
Johnson, S. M. & The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers. (2004). Finders and keep-
ers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kapadia, K., Coca, V., & Easton, J. Q. (2007). Keeping new teachers: A first look at the influences
of induction in the Chicago Public Schools. Research report by the Consortium on Chicago
School Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Katz, D. (2002). Every possible chance—New teachers’ understanding and use of learning opportu-
nities within induction (Unpublished dissertation). Michigan State University, East
Lansing.
Little, J. W. (1990). The “mentor” phenomenon and the social organization of teaching. In
C. Cazden (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 16, pp. 297–351). Washington, DC:
American Educational Research Association.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1997). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Moir, E., & Gless, J. (2001). Quality induction: An investment in teachers. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 28, 109–114.
 Serious Mentoring 363

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most:
Teaching for America’s future. New York, NY: Author.
New Teacher Center at University of California, Santa Cruz. (2002). Continuum of teacher
development. Santa Cruz: Author.
Norman, P. J., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2005). Mind activity in teaching and mentoring.
Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 681–697.
Olebe, M. (2001). A decade of policy support for California’s new teachers: The Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment Program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28, 71–84.
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring
on beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41, 681–714.
Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The
local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 185–203.
Strong, M. (2009). Effective teacher induction and mentoring: Assessing the evidence. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Wang, J., Odell, S. J., & Schwille, S. A. (2008). Effects of teacher induction on beginning
teachers’ teaching: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Teacher Education, 59,
132–152.
Wang, J., Strong, M., & Odell, S. J. (2004). Mentor-novice conversations about teaching: A
comparison of two U.S. and two Chinese cases. Teachers College Record, 106, 775–813.
Williams, A., Prestage, S., & Bedward, J, (2001). Individualism to collaboration: The signif-
icance of teacher culture to the induction of newly qualified teachers. Journal of Education
for Teaching, 27, 253–267.
Wilson, S. M., Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (2000). Teaching policy: Connecticut’s long
term efforts to improve teaching and learning. Paper prepared for the Center for Teaching
Policy, University of Washington, Seattle.
Wood, A., & Stanulis, R. (2009). Quality induction: “Fourth-wave” (1996–2006) teacher
induction programs. New Educator, 5, 1–23.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yusko, B., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (2008). Embracing contraries: Combining assistance and
assessment in new teacher induction. Teachers College Record, 110, 923–953.

SHARON FEIMAN-NEMSER is the Mandel Professor of Jewish

Education at Brandeis University and director of the Mandel Center for
Studies in Jewish Education. Her research focuses on teacher education
and learning to teach, with a special focus on mentoring and new teacher
induction. She is currently working on an edited collection, Teachers as
Learners, to be published by Harvard Education Press, and a comparative
study of beginning teachers in Catholic, Jewish, and urban public schools
and the programs where they prepared to teach.

CYNTHIA CARVER is an assistant professor of educational leadership at

Oakland University, where she is actively engaged in the preparation of
school leaders. Her research and teaching interests are focused on the
practice of principal instructional leadership, particularly as it impacts
teacher development. Currently, she is doing research on school leader’s
364 National Society for the Study of Education

content knowledge and teacher leader preparation. Dr. Carver’s research

has been published in a variety of journals, including Educational Policy,
Journal of Teacher Education, and Educational Leadership.