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

net/publication/236734809

Teacher induction and mentorship policies: The Pan-Canadian overview

Article  in  International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education · June 2012

DOI: 10.1108/20466851211279484

CITATIONS READS

18 931

1 author:

Benjamin Kutsyuruba
Queen's University
81 PUBLICATIONS   618 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Leadership & Doctoral Supervision View project

YJC Evaluation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Benjamin Kutsyuruba on 01 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education
Emerald Article: Teacher induction and mentorship policies: the
pan-Canadian overview
Benjamin Kutsyuruba

Article information:
To cite this document: Benjamin Kutsyuruba, (2012),"Teacher induction and mentorship policies: the pan-Canadian overview",
International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, Vol. 1 Iss: 3 pp. 235 - 256
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20466851211279484
Downloaded on: 12-11-2012
References: This document contains references to 149 other documents
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Emerald Author Access

For Authors:
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.
Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in
business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as
well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is
a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-6854.htm

Teacher
Teacher induction induction and
and mentorship policies: mentorship
the pan-Canadian overview
Benjamin Kutsyuruba 235
Faculty of Education, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this exploratory article is to address the questions of teacher attrition and
retention by examining the policies supporting beginning teachers in different jurisdictions (provinces
and territories) in Canada through teacher induction and mentorship programs.
Design/methodology/approach – This research study relied on the collection of documents as the
primary method of data collection. Both policy documents as means of external communication and
the informal responses to formal policies by various stakeholders were analyzed in a complementary
fashion in this study. The study examined numerous government documents, websites, program/
policy memoranda, newsletters, as well as academic reviews pertaining to beginning teacher induction
programs across Canada.
Findings – Data analysis revealed significant policy variability across the provinces and localities, with
comprehensive induction programs instituted only by the educational authorities in New Brunswick,
Ontario, and Northwest Territories. A fundamental building-block of the induction programs was the
creation of a formal mentoring program that matched experienced teachers with teachers who were new
to the profession and/or to the province/territory.
Research limitations/implications – Policy makers should consider the implementation of
structured induction programs that successfully inculcate new teachers into school cultures and result
in decreased teacher attrition and increased retention of beginning teachers. Mentoring is at the core of
successful induction programs. Evident in all policy-mandated induction programs under study was
the importance of the school principal’s role in effective functioning of mentoring programs. This
aspect of the principal’s role should be further examined and researched to understand the
administrator role in the implementation and functioning of effective induction and mentoring
programs for beginning teachers not only in Canada but worldwide.
Practical implications – In considering implementation of teacher induction programs,
policymakers need to be aware that comprehensive, intensive support programs for new educators
are both an effective and an efficient public investment. If mandated by policies at the macro levels as
part of formal induction programs, mentoring programs have the potential to transform schools into
collaborative places by establishing a culture of mentoring in schools.
Originality/value – Despite the perceived and actual benefits, government-instituted induction
programs for new teachers are not very common in Canada. While the discussions of such programs
are certainly present in the educational literature, this exploratory pan-Canadian review of induction
and mentoring policies has the ability to inform provincial and territorial policymakers about the
variability in institutionalizing those programs.
Keywords Mentoring, Teacher induction, Beginning teacher, Teacher attrition, Teacher retention,
Teachers, Canada
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
A growing concern in the field of education has been the staffing of schools with International Journal of Mentoring
qualified teachers. The quality of a child’s teacher is the most important school-based and Coaching in Education
Vol. 1 No. 3, 2012
factor determining how much that child learns (Rivkin et al., 2005). In light of pp. 235-256
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
generations of veteran teachers approaching retirement age, an integral part of this 2046-6854
challenge has become the need to improve the development of beginning or novice DOI 10.1108/20466851211279484
IJMCE teachers. However, the low numbers of beginning teachers remaining in the profession
1,3 are daunting at times: despite their initial enthusiasm, far too many novice teachers
abandon the profession, depressed, and discouraged (Boreen et al., 2009) with the
most talented beginning teachers among those most apt to leave (Colb, 2001). Such
teacher attrition spans international boundaries: the UK (Smithers and Robinson,
2003), Australia (Stoel and Thant, 2002), the USA (Smith and Ingersoll, 2004;
236 Darling-Hammond, 2001; Ingersoll and Smith, 2003), and other countries (Organization
for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), 2005). Indeed, despite their
heavy financial and educational investment in pursuing a teaching career, most
teachers quit the profession in their first two to five years; in some extreme cases,
teachers drop out even before the end of their first year (Black, 2001). According to the
Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF), only six in ten of the 1995 graduates from
elementary and secondary teacher education degree programs in Canada were
employed as full-time teachers five years after graduation; almost one-quarter of them
never went into teaching at all (CTF, 2003). The estimated teacher turnover in Canada
is approximately 30 percent in the first five years of service (CTF, 2004). Certain
segments of the teaching profession are disproportionately affected by attrition.
For example, a majority of French immersion or French as a second language teachers
leave teaching in the first five years of service (with 50 percent in the first two years)
(Karsenti et al., 2008). According to the statistics, it is the first three to four years after
initial training that are crucial in teachers’ decision whether to remain in the profession
or not ( Jones, 2003).
These statistics lead policy makers and educational leaders to wonder why so many
beginning teachers are leaving the profession in the first few years and what school
systems can do to help retain teachers. As education is a provincial/territorial
responsibility in Canada, with attendant variations in school systems and policies,
responses to these two concerns tend to be compartmentalized, such that lessons
learned from one jurisdiction remain unavailable for other jurisdictions experiencing
teacher attrition. Thus the purpose of this exploratory pan-Canadian document
analysis study was to address the questions of teacher attrition and retention by
examining the policies supporting beginning teachers in different jurisdictions
(provinces and territories) in Canada through teacher induction and mentorship
programs. More specifically, the research objectives were to examine the policy
frameworks around: the organization and mandates of teacher induction programs in
each jurisdiction and the role of mentorship as an aspect of teacher induction programs
in each jurisdiction. Upon the initial review of the literature on teacher attrition,
induction, and mentorship, the paper describes the variability of current systemic
approaches to teacher induction and mentoring across the Canadian jurisdictions.
Following the analysis of three provincially and territorially mandated policy
frameworks aimed at supporting the growth, professional development, and retention
of new teachers, the paper emphasizes the need for establishing mentoring cultures in
schools through formal teacher induction programs and highlights the pivotal role of
school principals as leaders in this process.

Review of the literature

Teacher attrition
The first years of teaching are a “make or break” time, positioning the transition from
the teacher education programs into the teaching profession as a challenging process
for the novices (Howe, 2006; Halford, 1998; Kauffman et al., 2002). Indeed, teaching has
long been seen as an occupation that “eats its young” and in which the beginning of Teacher
new teachers’ journey is similar to a “sink or swim,” “trial/baptism by fire,” or “boot induction and
camp” experience. Some of the most significant challenges faced by beginning teachers
include egg-crate structure of schools, isolation, reality shock, inadequate resources mentorship
and support, lack of time for planning and interaction with colleagues, difficult work
assignments, unclear and inadequate expectations, intergenerational gap, dealing with
stress, lack of orientation and information about the school system, and institutional 237
practices and policies that promote hazing (Anhorn, 2008; Glickman et al., 2004;
Andrews and Quinn, 2004; Johnson and Kardos, 2002; Johnson and Kardos, 2005;
Patterson, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2003). Very often, teachers who do not receive
adequate support in their first years leave schools and abandon teaching in favor of
other professions.
Understanding the extent and nature of teacher attrition is often clouded by
definitional and methodological problems (Macdonald, 1999). The so-called “revolving
door” of teacher attrition is frequently positioned as either a problem for workforce
planning and resources or an indicator of the relatively poor quality of school life and
teacher morale; at the same time, the counter perspective views teacher attrition as a
necessity in that low levels of teacher attrition may lead to stagnation of the profession
and schooling (Macdonald, 1999; Ingersoll, 2001a). While a certain level of attrition
within the profession is both necessary and healthy (Ryan and Kokol, 1988; Ingersoll,
2001b), losing new teachers early in their career is neither desirable nor sustainable
(Plunkett and Dyson, 2011), as it is generally costly to schools and detrimental to
student learning (Guarino et al., 2006). In their meta-analytic review of teacher attrition
and retention, Borman and Dowling (2008) noted that an increasing amount of research
and policy rhetoric has addressed the issue of teacher attrition from the profession and
has explored factors that may help retain a greater proportion of the existing teaching
force. However, attrition and its associated costs to the system have not always been
systematically addressed by formal policies and interventions. Understanding who
typically leaves the profession and why they chose to do so could help policy makers
invest in initiatives that target the teachers most at risk for quitting and that help
ameliorate the conditions that appear most salient in teachers’ quit decisions. This
paper primarily addresses teacher attrition as a problem that poses risk to retention of
qualified novice teaching workforce. However, rather than shedding the light on who
leaves the profession and the associated reasons, this paper focusses on the teacher
induction policies and interventions set in place by various provincial and territorial
systems of education in Canada to support and retain novice professionals.

Teacher induction
As support in the initial phase of teaching careers is believed to be crucial for retention
of novice teachers, efforts are made to enhance the use of induction programs in order
to stop the leakage of teachers leaving the profession (Wynn et al., 2007; Richardson
et al., 2010). The basic purposes of such programs are to provide instruction in classroom
management and effective teaching techniques; reduce the difficulty of the transition
into teaching; and maximize the retention rate of highly qualified teachers. Induction
programs, as socialization initiatives, include all support, guidance, development, and
orientation efforts aimed at improvement in the performance and retention of novice
educators (Richardson et al., 2010; Rippon and Martin, 2006; Wynn et al., 2007).
According to Breaux and Wong (2003), induction is a long-term process that helps new
teachers acculturate to a school. Prevalently, induction is viewed as a comprehensive,
IJMCE coherent, and sustained professional development process, organized by a specific
1,3 jurisdiction to train, support, retain new teachers, and help them develop a lifelong
learning program (Wong, 2004). Some specific definitions of induction refer to formal
and highly structured professional development programs that begin before the first
day of school and continue for two or more years, while other definitions view
induction as a fairly informal socialization process that varies from school to school.
238 Ultimately, new-teacher induction programs and their component parts are aimed at
solving the teacher attrition dilemma (Anhorn, 2008).
As induction programs vary as to their purpose, the type of support beginning
teachers receive in induction programs also varies widely (Davis and Higdon, 2008;
Ingersoll and Smith, 2004). This variability may also result in shortcomings of
induction programs for beginning teachers in terms of support and guidance ( Jones
et al., 2002). Research shows that there are inconsistencies and problems inherent in
any induction program (Doerger, 2003; Abell et al., 1995; Lawson, 1992; Wildman et al.,
1992). According to Lawson (1992), implementation of induction programs is often
problematic because: most programs try to do too much; some programs can
unintentionally foster competition among teachers; programs are designed in ways
that often neglect teachers’ real needs; and programs fail to accommodate the personal-
developmental needs of teachers. Jones (2002) found that school’s context or structural,
social, and cultural factors inherent in the school setting influence the induction
outcome. As indicated by a number of studies (Bleach, 1998; Wechsler et al., 2008;
Jones, 2002; Turner, 1994), rather important is the administrators’ commitment to the
program, which could either support and promote the retention of novice teachers or
undermine the success of induction and result in teacher attrition.

Mentoring
A major component of many teacher induction programs is mentoring that matches
experienced teachers with novices to help them survive and thrive in the beginning
phase of a teaching career (Wong, 2004). Based on a process of “critical friend” (Costa
and Kallick, 1993), mentorship involves facilitation of instructional improvement
wherein an experienced educator (mentor) works with a novice or less experienced
teacher (protégé) collaboratively and non-judgmentally to study and deliberate on
ways instruction in the classroom may be improved (Cumming-Potvin and MacCallum,
2010). Mentors support the being of their protégés, providing coaching, guiding,
advocacy, counseling, help, protection, feedback, and information that they would
otherwise not have. Ultimately, a primary goal of mentoring is personal learning
of the protégé (Bennetts, 1995; Lankau and Scandura, 2002; Portner, 2008). In addition
to professional benefits, mentoring has personal benefits for novice teachers, such
as stronger self-confidence, reduced stress, and increased motivation and learning
(Allen and Eby, 2007; Lacey, 2000).
Most of the time, one-on-one mentoring by experienced teachers effectively supports
new teachers in their work (Ingersoll and Kralik, 2004); however, it often fails due to
inappropriate matches, unsuccessful new teacher/mentor dyads, lack of mentors, lack
of mentor training, or teacher burnout (Johnson and Kardos, 2005; Benson, 2008;
Doerger, 2003). Research has shown that if new teachers have no professional respect
for their mentors, the relationship is perceived as less useful than if they did have
this respect (Abell et al., 1995). Therefore, the traditional one-on-one definition of
mentoring has been reconceptualized into a “multiple relationships” phenomenon,
where a protégé has a network of mentors, each providing different functions (Higgins
and Kram, 2001; Baugh and Scandura, 1999). In recent years, the field of education has Teacher
moved away from thinking that beginning teachers should mimic or copy the methods induction and
of experienced teachers; the emphasis now is on “new teachers becoming reflective
thinkers who explore their own individual teaching style” (Boreen et al., 2009). mentorship
Furthermore, there is a shift in the notion of the roles of mentor and mentee from
veteran and neophyte to co-learners and colleagues in a more collaborative
environment (Clandinin et al., 1993; Graham et al., 1999; Howe, 2006; Kochan and 239
Trimble, 2000).
For mentoring to be effective, it must be used in combination with the other
components of the induction process (Kardos, 2004; Smith and Ingersoll, 2004; Johnson
and The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers, 2004; Wong, 2004). The most
effective induction programs use expert mentors and intensive in-service training
(Howe, 2006). A critical review of research revealed empirical support for the claim that
induction programs for beginning teachers, and high-quality teacher mentoring
programs in particular, have a positive impact in terms of increased teacher
effectiveness, higher satisfaction, commitment, and early-career retention of novice
teachers, as well as improved classroom instruction and student achievement
(Ingersoll and Strong, 2011; Henry et al., 2011; Glazerman et al., 2010; Richardson et al.,
2010; Guarino et al., 2006; Odell and Ferraro, 1992; Fagan and Walter, 1982). However,
research also suggested that without consistency in mentoring standards, established
guidelines for the selection of mentors, and training and instruction to help mentors
develop their role as support teachers, the quality of the mentoring, and induction
programs may be negatively affected (Benson, 2008; Conway et al., 2002; Gratch, 1998).

Research methodology
To examine the teacher induction policy frameworks in 13 jurisdictions (provinces and
territories) in Canada, this exploratory research study used document analysis as a
qualitative research method of data collection and analysis. Although often neglected
and underutilized in methodological research, document analysis is increasingly
recognized as an innovative strategy for collecting and assessing data (Berg, 2001;
Hodder, 2000). Document analysis is a systematic procedure for reviewing and
evaluating documents, both in printed or electronic (computer-based and internet
transmitted) formats, which entails finding, selecting, appraising, and synthesizing
data contained in the documents (Bowen, 2009). Documents are not simply content
containers; they are social products of collective, organized action (Prior, 2003).
Documents are produced in and reflect specific social and historical circumstances
(Miller and Alvarado, 2005). The social nature of the production, exchange, and
consumption of documents means that they offer “social facts” rather than transparent
or consistent representations of social reality (Atkinson and Coffey, 1997).
Based on classic and recent methodological sources on content analysis of
documents (Mayring, 2000; Lombard et al., 2010; Merriam, 1998; Salminen et al., 1997;
Neuendorf, 2002; Krippendorff, 1980), a rigorous set of steps was developed for
conducting analysis. Considering the methodological advantages and limitations of
document analysis (Caulley, 1983; Bowen, 2009), data analysis was determined by both
the research objectives (deductive) and multiple readings and interpretations of the
data from the documents (inductive). The phases of content analysis of documents
included domain definition, category construction, sampling, data collection, data
analysis, and interpretation (Merriam, 1998). Furthermore, the process of domain
definition consisted of such steps as describing a set of candidate documents for
IJMCE analysis, partitioning the candidate documents into subdomains, and selecting the
1,3 subdomains for further analysis (Salminen et al., 1997).
Although this research considered many different types and sources of records, it
prevalently dealt with official documentary records (Berg, 2001). Official policy
documents as both the means of external communication and the informal responses to
formal policies by various stakeholders (McMillan and Schumacher, 2010) were
240 analyzed in a complementary fashion in this study. For a more nuanced understanding
of education policy documents, we used the content analysis approach to policy
analysis, i.e. an empirical description of the content of an existing public policy
intentions, problem definition, goals, and instruments (Pal, 1987). In addition, we used
a framework for analyzing documents consisting of content and context analytic
approaches: the analysis of documents for their content (content analytic); the analysis
of documents as commentary (context analytic); and the analysis of documents as
actors (context analytic) (Miller and Alvarado, 2005). Of particular significance for this
research was the latter approach in terms of uncovering the production, exchange,
operation, or action of policy documents (Prior, 2003; Miller, 1997).
The analysis included Ministry of Education documents, policies, web sites,
newsletters, program/policy memoranda, legislation, and procedures, as well as key
documents from other provincial ministries and from federal ministries and
agencies that pertained to beginning teacher induction programs across Canada.
We also examined Canadian research and academic reviews of teacher induction
and mentorship to inform the analysis. Using the method of constant comparison to
develop categories, we engaged in reflexive movement between inductive and
deductive analysis (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2006), continuously engaging in
category development, sampling, data collection, data coding, data analysis, and
interpretation (Altheide, 1987). We constructed a protocol of questions, items,
categories, or variables that guided data collection from documents – and used protocol
analysis for data comparison and summary of the types and meanings of the
documents under investigation, further associating the documents with conceptual and
theoretical issues (Altheide, 1996). Two major categories emerged within the first phase
of data analysis: provinces and territories that offered policy mandated formal
induction programs and jurisdictions that followed some other formats (professional
association/union, hybrid, or decentralized models for induction programs). The
second phase of data analysis involved comparing and contrasting data from these two
categories, first within and then between categories. Finally, because the team of
individual coders was involved in analyzing the documents, we followed guidelines
for assessing and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis studies (Lombard
et al., 2010).

Overview of induction and mentoring programs in Canada

Despite the perceived and actual benefits, induction opportunities that further prepare
new teachers for their career have often been overlooked at the policy level worldwide.
In the USA, according to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), in 2001 only 33
states had induction policies on legislative books while only 22 mandated them and
had funding available for these programs (AFT, 2001). In England, it was not until
1999 that a statutory induction policy was introduced, requiring all newly qualified
teachers to complete an induction period (Jones et al., 2002; Jones, 2002). In comparison,
formal induction programs for new teachers are proportionately less common in
Canada (Glassford and Salinitri, 2007).
 As education is provincial/territorial responsibility in Canada, teacher induction is Teacher
also the responsibility of the various provinces and territories. Data analysis revealed induction and
that not all jurisdictions have established teacher induction programs, but instead
decentralized them to local school boards/divisions, whereas they are implemented mentorship
at the school level at the discretion of the principal. Mandatory participation
requirements vary across the provinces and localities, as well as funding for induction
programs lies within the scope of provincial, local, or school mandates. Furthermore, 241
several provinces were found seeking to reform their induction systems.
Comprehensive induction programs have been instituted by the government
structures in the following provinces and territories: New Brunswick (New Brunswick
Department of Education, 1999), Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010), and
Northwest Territories (Government of the Northwest Territories, 2008) (however, as
discussed in detail below, the induction program in New Brunswick has been recently
cancelled). In several provinces – Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia,
and Prince Edward Island – beginning teacher induction programs were initiated
by the provincial teacher associations or unions (NLTA, 2006; NSTU, 2001; ATA,
2003; PEITF, 1999). In Nunavut, Department of Education and Nunavut Teachers’
Association, under the direction of Nunavut Professional Improvement Committee
have established a Teacher Induction and Mentoring program (NPIC, 2010). In the
province of Quebec, despite the previously employed probation system for beginner
teachers as part of teacher certification, there is currently no province-wide framework
for teacher induction into the profession, and the decentralized approach to induction
policies lead to considerable variability in the nature and content of existing programs
(COFPE, 2002; Sacilotto-Vasylenko, 2009). Similarly, the province of Saskatchewan
does not currently regulate a mandatory, formal teacher induction program positioning
it as the responsibility of individual school divisions (Hellsten et al., 2009). Although
British Columbia has no established provincial program to support induction and
mentoring, discussions have been started by the British Columbia Teachers Federation
for improved and systemic induction and mentoring across the province (Lombardi,
2006b). While induction type programs for beginning teachers do exist in Manitoba,
they are not provincially mandated and only offered by a few school divisions in the
province (MTS, 2002). In Yukon, the Department of Education in collaboration with
local First Nations hosts new teacher orientation programs to provide newly hired
teachers with the introduction to culture and languages and to familiarize them with
administrative matters (Yukon Department of Education, 2010).
Further analysis of the three statutory induction programs, instituted at the
governmental level in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Northwest Territories, has pointed
to the fact that mentoring was one of the fundamental building-blocks. A major
component of the induction programs was the creation of a formal mentoring program
that matched experienced teachers with teachers who were new to the profession and/
or to the province/territory. Each of the abovementioned programs is detailed in the
following sections, whereas special attention is given to the role of mentorship in each
of the programs.

New Brunswick
The beginning teacher induction program was established by New Brunswick
Department of Education in 1995 in all Anglophone districts of the province for
teachers new to the profession (Gill, 2004). The ultimate goals of the program were
“orientation, support, acquisition and refinement of teaching skills, developing a
IJMCE philosophy of education, self-assessment and self-evaluation, and retention of
1,3 beginning teachers” (New Brunswick Department of Education, 1999). The program
was funded by the both the provincial Department of Education and the New
Brunswick Teachers’ Association (NBTA). The Department of Education allocated
$500 for each pair of participants (mentor/beginning teacher), which was intended for
the professional development of the beginning teachers so they could participate in
242 activities that focus on the skills, knowledge, and attitudes required of them as
teachers (such as release time to visit each other’s classrooms, or to meet to plan jointly,
or to prepare for upcoming events like parent interviews or report cards). The NBTA
funding was a fixed amount ($30,000), forwarded to the districts which developed
criteria for spending the money; therefore, the amount available to each beginning
teacher/mentor pair varied from year to year, depending on the number of pairs each
year (Scott and Mirchandani, 2002). Although, applicants needed to identify their goals,
proposed activities, and how they were planning to spend the money in order to receive
the funding, program guidelines encouraged participants to buy release time for such
professional activities as inservice, classroom observation, and mentor-beginning
teacher discussions (Scott, 1997).
The program was designed around pairs of mentor – beginning teacher ( protégé).
Mentoring aspect of the induction process played a pivotal role, as it enabled the
program to offer distinctive and tailored learning opportunities for new teachers, such
as orienting new teachers to the profession, helping them gain greater subject-area and
pedagogical confidence, and helping them develop good classroom management
practices (Lombardi, 2006a). Mentors worked with novice teachers throughout the first
year of teaching, providing help with easy questions such as those regarding the
location of resources in the school or more complicated questions about teaching
strategies or curriculum delivery. Beginning teachers were also involved in a variety
of orientational professional development opportunities throughout their first year,
often related to classroom management, discipline, teacher evaluation, finance and
payroll, staffing, communication, teaching students with exceptionalities, and other
curriculum-related topics.
The procedures for program and mentor selection have been established by a joint
province/teacher union policy-development process through collaboration and
negotiation (Lombardi, 2006a). Province-wide introductory workshops were held for
beginning teachers and for school principals on supporting beginning teachers.
Principals’ main involvement with the program consisted of matching mentors and
beginning teachers at the school level, providing orientation to the school, and
monitoring the progress of beginning teachers (Glassford and Salinitri, 2007). Scott
(1997) found that vast majority of the mentors in his study were asked by their
principal if they would act as a mentor for a beginning teacher, while a few were
approached by a vice-principal, department head, or district contact person, and some
by beginning teachers themselves. Evaluation of the program was conducted through
the survey run by the University of New Brunswick, sent to beginning teachers,
mentors, and principals late in the school year, in order to assess the positive aspects
and concerns of the year’s activities, to gauge the overall effect of the mentor/protégé
teaming process, and to inform decision making for the Provincial Steering Committee.
Numerous reports and studies have indicated that beginning teacher induction
program in New Brunswick was successful and generated interest from other
jurisdictions in Canada and other countries (Mugglestone, 2004; Scott, 1998; Scott
and Compton, 1996; Scott and Doherty, 2002; Scott and Mirchandani, 2001; Scott and
Surette, 1999; Scott et al., 1995). Based on the survey of 2003-2004 program, Gill (2004) Teacher
reported that all principals and district coordinators and an overwhelming majority of induction and
mentors and beginning teachers supported the continuation of the program. As she
reported, “the benefits of the BTIP program are innumerable”: beginning teachers mentorship
benefitted from having a mentor and being able to visit other schools and classrooms,
while mentors benefited from helping new teachers find their feet in the profession,
sharing knowledge and expertise, learning new teaching strategies and techniques, 243
and having time for reflection on their own teaching. Other studies have also reported
that the program has been very useful in helping new teachers get off to a good start in
their teaching careers and for retaining new teachers in the profession (Gill and Betts,
2003; Gill, 2005; Scott, 1997; Scott and Mirchandani, 2002).
Unfortunately, the province of New Brunswick has recently cancelled its nationally
recognized program “formerly dedicated to providing support and mentorship for
beginning teachers as they began their careers” (Hirschkorn, 2010, p. 12). As evident
from the general 2009-2010 budget document for the province (New Brunswick
Department of Finance, 2009, p. 27), “expenditure restraint savings [resulted] in the
elimination of some programs and services including: the beginning teacher induction
program [y].” Upon the cancellation of BTIP, the NBTA decided to continue to allot
the budget line in order to assist new teachers; however, it was unfeasible to replicate
the BTIP program without proper funding and staff support. Acknowledging “the
necessity to provide support for teachers entering the profession, and to encourage
their participation in professional growth” (NBTA, 2010, p. 27), the NBTA has
introduced the Orientation and Induction of New Teachers (POINT) Program. Each of
the 27 association branches has a liaison (teacher volunteer) who takes responsibility
for POINT, organizing a welcome event early in the school year and a “rejuvenation”
event mid-winter. The association distributes the funding to the branches in support of
these two events. District supervisors responsible for new teachers also partner with
the association, occasionally holding joint District-POINT events. The activities vary
depending on the size of the branch; largest branches can have over 700 teachers,
whereas smallest branches may only have around 20 teachers. Therefore, the
cancellation of BTIP has now placed schools, district offices and the universities at the
center of the induction of new teachers (Hirschkorn, 2010).

Northwest Territories
In an effort to reduce the high teacher turnover rate (32 percent in 1999/2000), the
Department of Education, Culture and Employment, in conjunction with the Northwest
Territories Teachers’ Association recommended implementing a teacher induction
program (Mallon, 2004). A teacher induction program was established in 2001 to help
new and beginning teachers become competent and effective professionals in the
classroom and develop an understanding of the local school, community, and cultures.
The goals of the program are to improve teacher performance; to retain competent
teachers in the profession; to promote the personal and professional well-being of the
new and beginning teachers; to build a foundation for continued professional growth
through structured contact with mentors, administrators, and other veteran teachers;
and, to transmit the culture of the school and teaching profession (Government of
the Northwest Territories, 2011, p. 7). The model of the program consists of four
phases: pre-orientation; orientation; systemic sustained supports; and professional
development (Government of the Northwest Territories, 2008). Systematic professional
sustained support offers online resources in the forms of curriculum documents, lesson
IJMCE plan ideas, and networking (www.newteachersnwt.ca), and for professional
1,3 development teachers can obtain funding to attend professional conferences in other
parts in Canada (approximately $650 per teacher).
Situated within the systemic sustained support phase, formal mentorship program
became a major component of the new induction program; it is a formalized
partnership between an experienced northern teacher and a teacher new to the
244 profession or new to the territories, in which the experienced teacher is trained to guide
and support the beginning teacher during the initial phase of teaching. Upon the
identification and matching of experienced teachers with protégés by school principals,
the mentor, and protégé develop a mentorship plan that must be approved by the
principal and superintendent. The mentorship pair engages in regular formal or
informal meetings through the year, with allowances and release time (half day per
month) provided for protégé to learn and grow from interactions with peers. Finally,
mentorship team reflects on the process, reviews the mentorship plan, and makes any
needed changes. Recognizing the geographical and demographic contexts, the regions
and schools were encouraged to adapt the NWT mentorship model to their specific
needs and develop unique solutions to many of the challenges.
Several studies have been conducted on the NWT teacher induction and mentorship
program, noting overall positive value of the induction program in all its phases and
the four areas of support (Tolley, 2003; Abu Rass, 2012). As the former coordinator of
this program, Mallon (2004) noted, all in all the program has been successful in
meeting its goals of retaining new and beginning teachers in the profession, passing on
the local schools’ and communities’ culture, and improving the teaching skills of new
and experienced NWT teachers. She stated that mentors, protégés, and administrators
found the mentoring program invaluable to providing support for new and beginning
teachers. Furthermore, Mallon provided statistics indicating increased retention of
mentored teachers (90 percent in 2001/2002 and 93 percent in 2002/2003 school years).
Lombardi (2006a) stated that new teachers in NWT have indicated that this teacher
induction program has benefited them in the following ways: accelerated success and
effectiveness; greater self-confidence; increased job satisfaction; improved personal and
professional well-being; enhanced commitment to the students, school, and profession;
and increased opportunities for building connections with the community. In addition,
as Mallon observed, the mentoring program has benefitted mentors in terms of
professional growth and reflection on mentors’ teaching approaches and strategies.

Ontario
The Ontario Ministry of Education has recently established the new teacher induction
program (NTIP) in an attempt to systematically support the growth and professional
development of new teachers (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010). NTIP replaced
the Ontario Teacher Qualifying Test, a pencil and paper certification test designed
to ensure the quality of newly qualified teachers, widely criticized as an invalid way to
evaluate the preparedness of teacher candidates for certification due to its inability
to measure the complexities of teaching (Barrett et al., 2009). In response to such
concerns, the Ministry announced a unique professional support program for new
teachers during the 2005-2006 school year. NTIP is a mandatory program offered
to all new teachers certified by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) who have been
hired into permanent positions – full-time or part-time – by a school board, school
authority, or provincial school to begin teaching for the first time in Ontario. Funded by
the Ministry of Education (around $15 million annually to support the province’s
approximately 10,000 new teachers each year), this province-wide initiative is designed Teacher
as a step in a continuum of professional learning for teachers to support effective induction and
teaching, learning, and assessment practices. The NTIP requires that all Ontario
publicly funded school boards offer the NTIP to their beginning teachers. It provides a mentorship
full year of professional support so that new teachers can continue to develop the
requisite skills and knowledge that will support increased success as teachers in
Ontario and help achieve high levels of student performance in schools. Long-term 245
occasional teachers in their first long-term assignment of 97 or more consecutive
school days as a substitute for the same teacher must also be included in the induction
elements of NTIP. Furthermore, recognizing the feedback from educational partners,
the program was amended in 2010 allowing boards to use their NTIP funding to offer
supports to second-year teachers: “this expansion will assist those teachers who may
want more than one year of support to gain further proficiency in their role; not all
second-year teachers may wish or need to take part in another year of supports”
(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010, p. 9).
The program consists of the following three induction elements:
(1) orientation for all new teachers to the school and school board;
(2) mentoring for new teachers by experienced teachers; and
(3) professional development and training in major policies and strategies of the
ministry, classroom management, communication skills, and instructional
approaches.
In conjunction with the orientation, mentoring, and professional development and
training elements of the NTIP, the performance appraisal process for new teachers has
been designed to support and promote the continued growth and development of new
teachers. However, while the NTIP includes teacher performance appraisal by the
principal, the mentoring process is a non-evaluative process, and is distinct and
separate from the teacher performance appraisal.
The program is aimed at helping new teachers ease into the profession and
provide them with a mentor to help guide them in the right direction. The mentor
provides ongoing support to enable the new teacher to improve his or her skills and
confidence through participation in an effective professional, confidential relationship
(Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010). The relationship is envisioned as a supportive one,
based on trust and confidentiality, with the mentor acting as a role model, coach, and
advisor to the new teacher, sharing his or her experience and knowledge about
teaching on an ongoing basis. Components of mentoring are offered in ways appropriate
to the needs of the teachers, such as classroom observation, common planning time,
professional dialogue with colleagues/mentors, online conferencing, in-service sessions,
and shared professional development for new teachers and mentors. Together, the
mentor and the new teacher determine the new teacher’s individual needs and complete
the Individual NTIP Strategy Form, which is revised throughout the year as his or her
needs change. The onus is on school principals to ensure that there is an opportunity for
new teachers to improve their skills and confidence through participation in an effective
professional mentoring relationship by providing adequate release time.
Although the NTIP is a recent initiative, several studies and evaluations have
been conducted to examine the program (Barrett et al., 2009; OCT, 2011; Kane, 2010;
Glassford and Salinitri, 2007; Salinitri et al., 2007). As Kane (2010) found in her
three-year province-wide evaluation of the NTIP, new teachers, mentors, principals,
IJMCE and school board contacts perceived the program as a necessary and worthwhile
1,3 initiative that has made significant progress toward meeting a goal of helping new
teachers across Ontario to become confident in their own abilities as beginning
teachers responsible for supporting student learning. In Kane’s evaluation, mentoring
emerged as the most influential component of the NTIP in terms of both the new
teachers’ experience and perceived impact on professional practice. As she stated, “at
246 the most basic of levels, having an assigned mentor provides the new teacher with an
identified person whom they can contact regarding questions and challenges they
may encounter on day to day basis” ( p. 5). As Glassford and Salinitri (2007) argued,
high-quality mentoring within a properly funded and permanent new-teacher
induction program does offer the promise of more effective teaching and higher levels
of student achievement. However, they believed that Ontario’s NTIP policy is not all
the way there yet. Similarly, Barrett et al. (2009) noted that it is crucial to examine
whether or not the stated aims of such a program are actually reflected in the
procedures associated with the program because it is often the case that policies
developed at the government level have unexpected consequences within schools.

Discussion, conclusions, and implications

Overall, a number of different types of provision for the teacher induction programs exist
across the Canadian provinces and territories: policy-mandated, government-funded
programs; programs offered by provincial teacher associations or unions; hybrid
programs based on cooperation between the provincial and territorial governments,
teacher associations, First Nations, or local communities; and decentralized models
maintained by local school boards/divisions. Furthermore, mandatory participation
requirements also varied across the map, with funding for induction programs being
situated within the scope of provincial, local, or school mandates. Such variability is
attributed to the absence of federal bureau of education and provincial/territorial
responsibility for education in Canada.
The primary focus of this study, jurisdiction-wide, policy-mandated induction
programs have been offered in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Northwest Territories.
Statutory induction policies are aimed at decreasing the long-standing variability in
induction provision between and within schools ( Jones et al., 2002). Policy-mandated
programs have been found to provide such benefits as a degree of standardization in
the implementation of induction procedures for beginning teachers and to facilitate
effective transition from training to employment, underpinned by the concept of
continuing professional development ( Jones, 2002). Induction program is a step in a
continuum of professional learning for teachers to support effective teaching, learning,
and assessment practices (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010). Furthermore,
structured induction programs that successfully inculcate new teachers may result in
positive consequences for student achievement and attendance as well as overall staff
morale in schools (Fetler, 1997).
Based on the evaluations and academic reviews, the above mentioned programs have
provided valuable ideas for leaders, researchers, and practitioners in the other provinces
and territories and triggered considerations at the policy making level to implement
similar programs. However, policy makers in those jurisdictions should consider adapting
the integral parts of these programs to their own contexts in attempts to develop their
own models of induction. The program in the Northwest Territories provided an example
of successful adaptation of the common induction elements to the cultural and linguistic
requirements of teaching in the northern regions (Tolley, 2003; Abu Rass, 2012).
 Funding is one of the areas that make the implementation of induction programs Teacher
challenging (Doerger, 2003). Disparity in funding across the three programs may affect induction and
the quality in teacher induction from province to province. Furthermore, the most
recent developments with the New Brunswick program raise a number of questions mentorship
related to the interplay between the costs and effectiveness of induction programs.
First and foremost, it seems that despite a well-established reputation and positive
evaluations of the program, province’s financial constraints have been given priority 247
by the government and have prevailed over the benefits provided by the induction
program. It is also not clear whether the program in a changed format will be funded
by the provincial government in the future. The jurisdictions contemplating the
allocation of scarce funds to new-teacher induction, need to be aware not only of the
potential costs, but also the higher payoffs in program effectiveness, from a full-blown
teacher mentoring initiative (Glassford and Salinitri, 2007). Brooks and Barker (1997)
found that the time costs of supporting trainee teachers were more than compensated
for by the positive contribution to teachers’ professional development and the buzz and
enjoyment that teachers gain from mentoring trainees. Furthermore, the cost-benefit
analysis of induction and mentoring programs (New Teacher Center, 2007) made the
case that comprehensive, intensive support programs for new educators are both an
effective and an efficient public investment.
Timeframe for implementation of induction programs is another implementation
challenge (Wildman et al., 1992). While most induction programs last for one year,
scholars have noted that even though “the orientation phase of the process may conclude
after the first year, induction should continue in order to develop teachers’ repertoires of
skills and to inculcate teaching as a career” (Hope, 1999, p. 54). While NTIP, after the
recent amendment, provides an additional full year of professional support so that new
teachers can further develop the requisite skills and knowledge that will support
increased success as teachers in Ontario, programs in other jurisdictions that continue to
follow a one-year pattern should reconsider timeframes for their induction initiatives.
At the core of each of the aforementioned teacher induction programs were formal
mentoring frameworks that matched experienced teachers with teachers who were
new to the profession and/or to the province/territory. The importance of the
development of systematic and comprehensive mentoring programs for new teachers
cannot be overstated. In order to be effective, induction programs must move beyond
informal mentoring that provides periodic or haphazard logistical and psychological
support to new teachers (New Teacher Center, 2007). NTIPs in which formal mentoring
is the fundamental building block are deemed to be more effective than those that do
not because the primary focus of such programs is on supporting new teachers in
techniques that will help them help their students succeed, and as evidence shows, the
quality of teaching is the largest single variable in student learning (Elementary Teachers’
Federation of Ontario, 2002; OCT, 2002; National Foundation for Improvement of
Education, 1999). The involvement of a mentor is the most powerful and cost-effective
intervention in an induction program. Furthermore, it is in the public interest to invest the
resources into the program for novice teachers built on the strongest possible foundation
of their colleagues’ learning and experience (OCT, 2002). In the study by the OCT (2004),
the top professional development priority for participating new teachers was mentoring –
they identified the benefits of mentoring as collaboration, feedback, observation, and
sharing with experienced colleagues. In 2011, the similar study (OCT, 2011) indicated that
new teachers have been benefitting from the province-wide induction program for new
teachers.
IJMCE Based on the evaluations and reviews of all three programs, mentoring practices
1,3 contributed to the engagement of new teachers into schools’ learning communities
through positive relationships and regular interaction taking place among colleagues.
If mandated by policies at the macro-levels as part of formal induction programs,
mentoring has the potential to transform schools from places characterized by
isolation of teachers to more collaborative places (Daresh and Playko, 1995; Kardos,
248 2002). Formal mentoring programs establish norms of collegiality by bringing together
generations of teachers as collaborative and respectful team members, thus bridging
the generation gap in schools ( Johnson and Kardos, 2005). They engage new teachers
in collaborative learning and professional growth by providing them with a sustained
support system in a non-evaluative and voluntary relationship built on trust.
Imperative in this process should be the shift in perceptions of beginning teachers from
a deficit perspective (in terms of what new teachers lack in knowledge and skills) to a
learning capacity perspective (in terms of their needs for professional growth)
(Langdon, 2007). In the study conducted by OECD (2005), reliance on mentors and
mentoring to fix problems with novice teachers in a fill-the-gaps deficit approach was
found to be prevalent in beginning teacher induction programs around the world.
Ultimately, with the focus on teacher learning, induction, and mentoring programs can
foster new teachers’ confidence, enhance teaching practice, improve job satisfaction,
and provide the support that new teachers require to remain in the profession (Hirsch,
2001; Ingersoll and Strong, 2011; Johnson et al., 2005).
Although significant emphasis in mentoring as part of the policy-mandated induction
programs under study was placed on orientational aspects of the program, the primary
objectives of the statutory induction policies were learning and professional growth of
new teachers, which in turn would contribute to high levels of student performance. The
need for mentoring to be learning oriented is congruent with the emphasis organizations
are placing upon developing “learning organization attributes” (Senge et al., 1994), such as
creating and utilizing knowledge management repositories, supporting communities of
practice, and facilitating the transfer of learning (Davenport et al., 1998). Positioned within
communities of learners, effective mentoring programs provide a powerful means for
promoting, building, and sustaining a strong professional culture of collaboration in the
teaching profession. As Wong (2004) argued, the best mentoring programs are structured
within learning communities where new and veteran teachers interact and treat each
other with respect and are valued for their respective contributions. Furthermore,
teachers remain in the profession when they belong to professional learning communities
that have at their heart high-quality interpersonal relationships founded on collegiality,
trust, and respect.
Evident in all three policy-mandated induction programs was the importance of the
school principal’s role in effective functioning of mentoring programs. Jones (2002)
implied that the effective implementation of an induction program is likely to be
dependent on the principal (head teacher). Statutory induction policies mandated
that administrators were to be responsible for mentor selection and mentor-protégé
matching, for providing adequate professional development opportunities and release
time for beginning teachers, for overseeing the mentorship process, for monitoring the
progress of beginning teachers, and finally and most importantly, for being role models
of mentoring in their everyday activities in schools. Indeed, school principals were
entrusted with the most significant role in the structure of beginning teacher induction
programs, that of leadership modeling (Reeves, 2002); that is, modeling values through
demeanor and actions in a way that initiates and promotes cultures of mentoring
(Zachary, 2005). A mentoring culture helps people meet adaptive challenges by Teacher
facilitating new learning and organizational resiliency in the face of rapid change (Heifetz induction and
and Linsky, 2002). The principal’s role is vital in creating a structure supportive of the
induction process (Cherian and Daniel, 2008; Wood, 2005). Organizational leaders “must mentorship
learn to think seriously and systematically about mentoring and create a mentoring
culture to support and strengthen all the mentoring that goes on within their
organization” (Zachary, 2005, p. xxi). Similarly, Wynn et al. (2007) argued that principal 249
leadership is instrumental for mentoring and teacher retention, because it provides for the
supportive and shared leadership and creates the opportunity for shared values and
vision. This aspect of the principal’s role should be further examined and researched to
understand the administrator role in the implementation and functioning of effective
induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers not only in Canada but
worldwide. Of particular interest for further research are the potential competing
imperatives confronting principals in performing their multi-faceted roles of role-model,
mentor, and critical friend.

References
Abell, S.K., Dillon, D.R., Hopkins, C.J., McInerney, W.D. and O’Brien, D.G. (1995), “‘Somebody to
count on’: mentor/intern relationships in a beginning teacher internship program”,
Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 173-88.
Abu Rass, R. (2012), “Supporting newly recruited teachers in a unique area, the Northwest
Territories in Canada”, Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and
Pedagogy, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 141-61.
Allen, T.D. and Eby, L.T. (2007), The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives
Approach, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
Altheide, D.L. (1987), “Ethnographic content analysis”, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 65-77.
Altheide, D.L. (1996), Qualitative Media Analysis, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (2001), Beginning Teacher Induction: The Essential
Bridge (Report No. AFT-13), American Federation of Teachers, Washington, DC.
Andrews, B.D. and Quinn, R.J. (2004), “First-year teaching assignments: a descriptive analysis”,
The Clearing House, Vol. 78 No. 2, pp. 78-83.
Anhorn, R. (2008), “The profession that eats its young”, The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin,
Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 15-26.
ATA (2003), Mentoring Beginning Teachers: Program Handbook, Alberta Teachers’ Association,
Edmonton.
Atkinson, P. and Coffey, A. (1997), “Analyzing documentary realities”, in Silverman, D. (Ed.),
Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 45-62.
Barrett, S.J., Solomon, R.P., Singer, J., Portelli, J.P. and Mujuwamariya, D. (2009), “The hidden
curriculum of a teacher induction program: Ontario teacher educators’ perspectives”,
Canadian Journal of Education, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 677-702.
Baugh, S.G. and Scandura, T.A. (1999), “The effect of multiple mentors on protégé
attitudes toward the work setting”, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 14
No. 4, pp. 503-21.
Bennetts, C. (1995), “The secrets of a good relationship”, People Management, Vol. 29 No. 13,
pp. 38-40.
Benson, M.A. (2008), “Effective mentoring for new music teachers: an analysis of the mentoring
programs for new music teachers as described in the literature”, Update: Applications of
Research in Music Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 42-9.
IJMCE Berg, B.L. (2001), Qualitative Research Methods for Social Sciences, Allyn and Bacon, London.
1,3 Black, S. (2001), “A lifeboat for new teachers”, American School Board Journal, Vol. 188 No. 9,
pp. 46-8.
Bleach, K. (1998), “Off to a flying start? Induction procedures for newly qualified teachers in
secondary schools in the Republic of Ireland”, Mentoring and Tutoring, Vol. 6 No. 112,
pp. 55-65.
250 Boreen, J., Johnson, M.K., Niday, D. and Potts, J. (2009), Mentoring Beginning Teachers: Guiding,
Reflecting, Coaching, Stenhouse Publishers, Portland.
Borman, G. and Dowling, N. (2008), “Teacher attrition and retention: a meta-analytic
and narrative review of the research”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 78 No. 3,
pp. 367-409.
Bowen, G.A. (2009), “Document analysis as a qualitative research method”, Qualitative research
journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 27-40.
Breaux, A.L. and Wong, H.K. (2003), New Teacher Induction: How lo Train, Support and Retain
Good Teachers, Harry K. Wong Publications Inc, Mountain View, CA.
Brooks, V. and Barker, S. (1997), “Quid pro quo? Initial teacher education in secondary schools”,
British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 163-79.
Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF) (2003), “Teacher supply and demand series: volume III”,
CTF Economic and Member Services Bulletin No. 2003-3, CTF.
Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF) (2004), “Recruitment and retention of teachers: why
teachers entering the profession remain or leave”, CTF Economic and Member Services
Bulletin, Vol. 5, pp. 1-20.
Caulley, D.N. (1983), “Document analysis in program evaluation”, Evaluation and Program
Planning, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-29.
Cherian, F. and Daniel, Y. (2008), “Principal leadership in new teacher induction: becoming agents
of change”, International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 1-11.
Clandinin, D.J., Davies, A., Hogan, P. and Kennard, B. (Eds) (1993), Learning to Teach,
Teaching to Learn: Stories of Collaboration in Teacher Education, Teachers College Press,
New York, NY.
COFPE (2002), Offrir la profession en héritage: Avis du COFPE sur l’insertion dans
l’enseignement, Comité d’orientation de la formation du personnel enseignant,
Gouvernement du Québec, Montreal.
Colb, N.M. (2001), “A survival guide for the teacher shortage”, Independent School, Vol. 61 No. 1,
pp. 72-7.
Conway, C., Krueger, P., Robinson, M., Haack, P. and Smith, M.V. (2002), “Beginning music teacher
induction and mentor policies: a cross-state perspective”, Arts Education Policy Review,
Vol. 104 No. 2, pp. 9-17.
Costa, A.L. and Kallick, B. (1993), “Through the lens of a critical friend”, Educational Leadership,
Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 49-51.
Cumming-Potvin, W.M. and MacCallum, J.A. (2010), “Intergenerational practice: mentoring and
social capital for twenty-first century communities of practice”, McGill Journal of
Education, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 305-23.
Daresh, J.C. and Playko, M.A. (1995), Supervision as a Proactive Process: Concepts and Cases,
Waveland Press Inc., Prospect Heights, IL.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2001), “The challenge of staffing our schools”, Educational Leadership,
Vol. 58 No. 8, pp. 12-7.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2003), “Keeping good teachers: why it matters, what leaders can do”,
Educational Leadership, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 6-13.
Davenport, T.H., De Long, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998), “Successful knowledge management Teacher
projects”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 43-57.
induction and
Davis, B. and Higdon, K. (2008), “The effects of mentoring/induction support on beginning
teachers’ practices in early elementary classrooms (K-3)”, Journal of Research in Childhood mentorship
Education, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 261-74.
Doerger, D.W. (2003), “The importance of beginning teacher induction in your school”,
International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, Vol. 7 No. 21. 251
Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (2002), Professional Beginnings: An Induction
Resource Guide, ETFO, Toronto.
Fagan, M.M. and Walter, G. (1982), “Mentoring among teachers”, Journal of Educational
Research, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 113-8.
Fereday, J. and Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006), “Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid
approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development”, International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
Fetler, M. (1997), “Where have all the teachers gone?”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 5
No. 2, pp. 1-13.
Gill, B.A. (2004), Colleagues to Count on: A Report on the 2003-2004 Beginning
Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick, University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton.
Gill, B.A. (2005), Collegial Partnerships: A Report on the 2004-2005 Beginning Teacher Induction
Program in New Brunswick, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton.
Gill, B.A. and Betts, R.T. (2003), Toward a Smooth Entry: A Report on the 2002-2003
Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick, University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton.
Glassford, L.A. and Salinitri, G. (2007), “Designing a successful new teacher induction program:
an assessment of the ontario experience, 2003-2006”, Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy, Vol. 60 No. 11, pp. 1-34.
Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M. and Jacobus, M. (2010),
Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Final Results from a Randomized
Controlled Study (NCEE 2010-4027), National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education,
Washington, DC.
Glickman, C.D., Gordon, S.P. and Ross-Gordon, J.M. (2004), Super Vision and Instructional
Leadership: A Developmental Approach, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
Government of the Northwest Territories (2008), NWT Teacher INDUCTION MANUAL,
Department of Education, Culture, and Employment, Yellowknife.
Government of the Northwest Territories (2011), NWT Teacher Induction: A Program
for Beginning Teachers, Department of Education, Culture, and Employment,
Yellowknife.
Graham, P., Hudson-Ross, S., Adkins, C., McWhorter, P. and Stewart, J. (1999), Teacher/Mentor:
A Dialogue for Collaborative Learning, Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
Gratch, A. (1998), “Beginning teacher and mentor relationships”, Journal of Teacher Education,
Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 220-7.
Guarino, C.M., Santibañez, L. and Daley, G.A. (2006), “Teacher recruitment and retention:
a review of the recent empirical literature”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 76 No. 2,
pp. 173-208.
Halford, J.M. (1998), “Easing the way for new teachers”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 55 No. 5,
pp. 33-4.
IJMCE Heifetz, R. and Linsky, M. (2002), Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive through the Dangers of
Leading, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
1,3
Hellsten, L.M., Prytula, M.P., Ebanks, A. and Lai, H. (2009), “Teacher induction: exploring
beginning teacher mentorship”, Canadian Journal of Education, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 703-33.
Henry, G.T., Bastian, K.C. and Fortner, C.K. (2011), “Stayers and leavers: early-career teacher
effectiveness and attrition”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 271-80.
252 Higgins, M.C. and Kram, K.E. (2001), “Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental
network perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 264-88.
Hirsch, E. (2001), Staffing with Quality, State Higher Education Executive Officers, Denver, CO.
Hirschkorn, M. (2010), “Beginning teacher induction”, Antistasis, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 12-4.
Hodder, I. (2000), “The interpretation of documents and material culture”, in Denzin, N.K. and
Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 703-15.
Hope, W.C. (1999), “Principals’ orientation and induction activities as factors in teacher
retention”, The Clearing House, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 54-6.
Howe, E.R. (2006), “Exemplary teacher induction: an international review”, Educational
Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 287-97.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2001a), “Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an organizational analysis”,
American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 499-534.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2001b), Teacher Turnover, Teacher Shortages and the Organization of Schools,
Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Ingersoll, R.M. and Kralik, J.M. (2004), The Impact of Mentoring on Teacher Retention: What the
Research Says, Education Commission of the States, Denver, CO.
Ingersoll, R.M. and Smith, T.M. (2003), “The wrong solution to the teacher shortage”, Educational
Leadership, Vol. 60 No. 8, pp. 30-3.
Ingersoll, R.M. and Smith, T.M. (2004), “Do teacher induction and mentoring matter?”, NASSP
Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 638, pp. 28-40.
Ingersoll, R.M. and Strong, M. (2011), “The impact of induction and mentoring programs for
beginning teachers: a critical review of the research”, Review of Education Research, Vol. 81
No. 2, pp. 201-33.
Johnson, S.M. and Kardos, S.M. (2002), “Keeping new teachers in mind”, Educational Leadership,
Vol. 59 No. 6, pp. 12-6.
Johnson, S.M. and Kardos, S.M. (2005), “Bridging the generation gap”, Educational Leadership,
Vol. 62 No. 8, pp. 8-14.
Johnson, S.M., Berg, J. and Donaldson, M.L. (2005), Who stays in Teaching and Why: A Review of
the Literature on Teacher Retention (NRTA’s Educator Support Network Report), Harvard
Graduate School of Education, Boston, MA.
Johnson, S.M. and The Project on the Next Generation of Teachers (2004), Finders and Keepers:
Helping New Teachers Survive and Thrive in Our Schools, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Jones, C., Bubb, S., Totterdell, M. and Heilbronn, R. (2002), “Reassessing variability of induction
for newly qualified teachers: statutory policy and schools’ provision”, Journal of In-Service
Education, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 495-508.
Jones, M. (2002), “Qualified to become good teachers: a case study of ten newly qualified teachers
during their year of induction”, Journal of In-Service Education, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 509-26.
Jones, M. (2003), “Reconciling personal and professional values and beliefs with the reality of
teaching: findings from an evaluative study of ten newly qualified teachers during their
year of induction”, Teacher Development, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 385-402.
Kane, R.G. (2010), NTIP Evaluation Final Report – Executive Summary (Cycle III), Ministry of Teacher
Education of Ontario, Toronto.
induction and
Kardos, S.M. (2002), New Teachers Experiences’ of Mentoring, Classroom Observations, and
Teacher Meetings: Toward an Understanding of a Professional Culture, American mentorship
Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Kardos, S.M. (2004), Supporting and Sustaining New Teachers in Schools: The Importance of
Professional Culture and Mentoring, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. 253
Karsenti, T., Collin, S., Villeneuve, S., Dumouchel, G. and Roy, N. (2008), Why are new French
Immersion and French as a Second Language Teachers Leaving the Profession? Results
of a Canada-Wide Survey, Canadian Association of Immersion Teachers, Ottawa.
Kauffman, D., Johnson, S.M., Kardos, S.M., Liu, E. and Peske, H.G. (2002), “‘Lost at sea’:
new teachers’ experiences with curriculum and assessment”, Teachers College Record,
Vol. 104 No. 2, pp. 273-300.
Kochan, F.K. and Trimble, S.B. (2000), “From mentoring to co-mentoring: establishing
collaborative relationships”, Theory Into Practice, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 20-8.
Krippendorff, K. (1980), Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology, Sage, Beverly
Hills, CA.
Lacey, K. (2000), Making Mentoring Happen: A Simple and Effective Guide to Implementing a
Successful Mentoring Program, Allen & Unwin, London.
Langdon, F.J. (2007), Beginning Teacher Learning and Professional Development: An Analysis of
Induction Programs, University of Waikato, Hamilton.
Lankau, M. and Scandura, T.A. (2002), “An investigation of personal learning in mentoring
relationships: content, antecedents, and consequences”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 779-90.
Lawson, H.A. (1992), “Beyond the new conception of teacher induction”, Journal of Teacher
Education, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 163-72.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J. and Bracken, C.C. (2010), “Practical resources for assessing and
reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects”, available at: http://
matthewlombard.com/reliability/index_print.html (accessed Feburary 12, 2011).
Lombardi, M. (2006a), “Induction and mentoring: a lifeline for the next generations of teachers”,
thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Lombardi, M. (2006b), Mentoring for New Teachers: Be Part of the Solution, British Columbia
Teachers’ Federation, Vancouver.
McMillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S. (2010), Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry,
Pearson, New York, NY.
Macdonald, D. (1999), “Teacher attrition: a review of literature”, Teaching and Teacher Education,
Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 835-48.
Mallon, A. (2004), “Mentoring in the Northwest Territories: despite challenges, northern teachers
launch successful program”, Alberta Teachers’ Association (ATA) Magazine, Alberta
Teachers’ Association, Edmonton.
Mayring, P. (2000), “Qualitative content analysis”, Forum: Qualitative Social Research.
Merriam, S.B. (1998), Case Study Research in Education, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Miller, F.A. and Alvarado, K. (2005), “Incorporating documents into qualitative nursing
research”, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 348-53.
Miller, G. (1997), “Contextualizing texts: studying organizational texts”, in Miller, G. and
Dingwall, R. (Eds), Context and Method in Qualitative Research, Sage, London, pp. 77-91.
MTS (2002), The Teaching Force in Manitoba: Recruitment and Retention, Manitoba Teachers’
Society, Winnipeg.
IJMCE Mugglestone, P. (2004), New Brunswick’s Beginning Teacher Induction Program: Where Do We
Go From Here ? University of New Brunswick, Fredericton.
1,3
National Foundation for Improvement of Education (1999), “Creating a teacher mentoring
program”, NEA Foundation Reports, pp. 1-16.
Neuendorf, K.A. (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
New Brunswick Department of Education (1999), A Guide to the New Brunswick Beginning
254 Teacher Induction Program: A Partnership that Builds Success, Department of Education,
Fredericton.
New Brunswick Department of Finance (2009), Budget 2009-2010 Leadership for a Stronger
Economy: Toward Self-Sufficiency, Government of New Brunswick, Fredericton.
New Brunswick Teachers’ Association (NBTA) (2010), Members Handbook, New Brunswick
Teachers’ Association, Fredericton.
New Teacher Center (2007), “New teacher support pays off: a return on investment for educators
and kids”, NTC Policy Brief, New Teacher Center, Santa Cruz, CA, pp. 1-4.
NLTA (2006), Mentoring Beginning Teachers, Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers’
Association, St John.
NPIC (2010), Professional Improvement Resource Handbook, Nunavut Professional Improvement
Committee, Iqaluit, NU.
NSTU (2001), Handbook for Beginning Teachers: Helping you to Survive and Thrive in the
Classroom, Nova Scotia Teachers Union, Halifax.
Odell, S.J. and Ferraro, D.P. (1992), “Teacher mentoring and teacher retention”, Journal of Teacher
Education, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 200-4.
Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) (2002), New Teacher Induction: Growing into the Profession,
OCT, Toronto.
Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) (2004), Transition to Teaching Report, OCT, Toronto.
Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) (2011), Transition to Teaching 2010: Early-Career Teachers in
Ontario Schools, OCT, Toronto.
Ontario Ministry of Education (2010), New Teacher Induction Program: Induction Elements
Manual, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, Toronto.
Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) (2005), Teachers Matter:
Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, Organization for Economic
Co-Operation and Development Publishing, Paris.
Pal, L. (1987), Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, Methuen Publications, Agincourt.
Patterson, M. (2005), “Hazed!”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 62 No. 8, pp. 20-3.
PEITF (1999), Beginning Teachers Induction Program Handbook, Prince Edward Island
Teachers’ Federation, Charlottetown.
Plunkett, M. and Dyson, M. (2011), “Becoming a teacher and staying one: examining the complex
ecologies associated with educating and retaining new teachers in rural Australia”,
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 32-47.
Portner, H. (2008), Mentoring New Teachers, Corwin Press Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Prior, L. (2003), Using Documents in Social Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Reeves, D.B. (2002), The Daily Disciplines of Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Richardson, R.C., Glessner, L.L. and Tolson, H. (2010), “Stopping the leak: retaining beginning
teachers”, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 1-8.
Rippon, J.H. and Martin, M. (2006), “What makes a good induction supporter?”, Teaching and
Teacher Education, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 84-99.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A. and Kain, J.F. (2005), Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement, Teacher
Econometrica, Princeton, NJ.
induction and
Ryan, K. and Kokol, M. (1988), “The aging teacher: a developmental perspective”, Peabody
Journal of Education, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 59-73. mentorship
Sacilotto-Vasylenko, M. (2009), “Improving policy and practice of teacher induction into
the profession”, Conference of the Teacher Education Policy in Europe (TEPE) Network,
May 18-20, Umeå. 255
Salinitri, G., Howitt, C. and Donohoo, J. (2007), “The new teacher induction program: a case study
on the its effect on new teachers and their mentors”, paper presented at the International
Study Association on Teachers and Teaching, St Catherines.
Salminen, A., Kauppinen, K. and Lehtovaara, M. (1997), “Towards a methodology for document
analysis”, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 644-55.
Scott, N. (1997), “PFD’s for beginning teachers: a report on the teacher induction program in New
Brunswick”, Canadian Society for the Study of Education, St John’s.
Scott, N. (1998), Off to a Good Start: Report on the 1997-1998 Beginning Teacher Induction
Program in New Brunswick, Department of Education, Fredericton.
Scott, N. and Compton, E. (1996), A report on the 1995-1996 Beginning Teacher Induction
Program in New Brunswick, Department of Education, Fredericton.
Scott, N. and Doherty, S. (2002), Building a Strong Foundation for Teaching: The Fifth Annual
Report of the Beginning Teacher Induction program in New Brunswick, Department of
Education, Fredericton.
Scott, N. and Mirchandani, H. (2001), Mentoring New Teachers: A Report on the 2001 Beginning
Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick, Department of Education, Fredericton.
Scott, N. and Mirchandani, H. (2002), A Listening Ear; a Helping Hand: A Report on the 2001-
2002 Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick, Department of Education,
Fredericton.
Scott, N. and Surette, T. (1999), Supporting New Teachers: A Report on the 1998-99 Beginning
Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick, Department of Education, Fredericton.
Scott, N., Smith, L. and Grobe, C. (1995), Final Report on the 1993-94 Beginning Teacher
Induction Pilot Program, Department of Education, Fredericton.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R.B. and Smith, B.J. (1994), The Fifth Discipline: The Art
and Practice of the Learning Organization, Doubleday, New York, NY.
Smith, T.M. and Ingersoll, R.M. (2004), “What are the effects of induction and mentoring
on beginning teacher turnover?”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 41 No. 3,
pp. 681-714.
Smithers, A. and Robinson, P. (2003), Factors Affecting Teachers’ Decisions to Leave the
Profession, DfES, Nottingham.
Stoel, C.F. and Thant, T.-S. (2002), Teachers’ Professional Lives – AView from Nine Industrialized
Countries, Milken Family Foundation, Washington, DC.
Tolley, M. (2003), The Induction Experiences of Beginning Elementary Teachers in the Northwest
Territories, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.
Turner, M. (1994), “The management of the induction of newly qualified teachers in primary
schools”, Journal of Education for Teaching, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 325-41.
Wechsler, M.E., Caspary, K. and Humphrey, D.C. (2008), State-Funded Induction and Mentoring
Programs in Illinois: Findings from the Original Ten Programs, SRI International, Menlo
Park, CA.
Wildman, T.M., Magliaro, S.G., Niles, R.A. and Niles, J.A. (1992), “Teacher mentoring: an analysis
of roles, activities, and conditions”, Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 205-13.
IJMCE Wong, H.K. (2004), “Induction programs that keep new teachers teaching and improving”,
NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 638, pp. 41-58.
1,3
Wood, A. (2005), “The importance of principals: site administrators’ roles in novice teacher
induction”, American Secondary Education, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 39-62.
Wynn, S.R., Carboni, L.W. and Patall, E.A. (2007), “Beginning teachers’ perceptions of mentoring,
climate, and leadership: promoting retention through a learning communities
256 perspective”, Leadership & Policy in Schools, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 209-29.
Yukon Department of Education (2010), Yukon First Nations Educational Resources for Public
Schools, First Nations Programs and Partnerships Unit, Department of Education,
Government of Yukon, Whitehorse.
Zachary, L. (2005), Creating a Mentoring Culture: The Organization’s Guide, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.

About the author

Benjamin Kutsyuruba, PhD, is Assistant Professor in Educational Policy and Leadership, and
Associate Director of Social Program Evaluation Group in the Faculty of Education, Queen’s
University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. His research areas include educational policymaking;
leadership; mentorship; trust and moral agency; transnationalization of higher education; safe
schools; and, educational change. Benjamin Kutsyuruba can be contacted at:
ben.kutsyuruba@queensu.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats