According to the literature, overall teacher attrition in Minnesota is higher than the national average (Office of the Legislative Auditor, 02-07).   It is feasible that quality induction programs could serve as a catalyst for changing school cultures and improving the teaching profession in our state.

Teacher Induction is not a new concept.  In fact, variations of teacher induction processes can be documented for more than two decades.  As with many initiatives in education, to discover the effectiveness of a particular initiative, it is imperative to operationally define the concept, examine the purpose and understand the underlying processes.

Induction in the broadest sense is defined as an exposure to something unknown or the process of inducting (Robinson, 1998).  Induction programs range from the random assignment of a mentor to comprehensive models beginning with a pre-service component. There is general agreement that these induction programs must focus on increasing teacher retention.  However, a review of the literature reveals a much broader purpose (AASCU, 2006; Moir & Gless, 2001; Wayne, Youngs & Fleishman, 2005; Wong, 2002).  Current research indicates that quality induction programs must also promote a high quality of instruction that will insure student learning and success (Moir & Gless, 2001).

The Alliance for Excellent Education (2004) identifies the components of comprehensive induction as high-quality mentoring, common planning time and collaboration, ongoing professional development, participation in an external network of teachers, and standards-based evaluation. The challenge of executing such a comprehensive model is that of limited financial resources. Though involvement from states have increased over the last ten years, there is little consistency among districts and states with funding for such programs remaining inadequate and unstable (AASCU, 2006).

To promote the need for quality teacher induction in our state, the case must be made that such programs are making a difference.  There is growing evidence of the positive impact of induction programs on teacher retention, costs, teacher quality, and student learning (Education Week, 2006).  For example, results from the National Center for Education Statistics' Schools and Staffing Survey suggest that participation in comprehensive induction programs can cut attrition in half.  Other studies have produced evidence that quality induction programs save money for school districts. It is estimated that for every $1.00 invested in induction, there is an estimated payoff of nearly $1.50 (AASCU, 2006). Research by the Educational Testing Service has found some impact of these induction programs on student achievement (ETS, 2005).

All of us in Education are being held accountable for student learning. To that end, an on-going study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education is designed to examine the impact of induction programs on student learning. In the study, schools are randomly assigned to treatment and control groups.  Teachers at treatment schools will receive a "comprehensive" induction package, while teachers at control schools will receive only what is normally provided. Data gathered at the completion of this study in 2008 will provide greater insight as to the effectiveness of comprehensive teacher induction programs (Wayne, Youngs, & Fleischman, 2005).

The time has come for universities, administrators, teachers, unions, and teacher educators to come together to build a comprehensive model of teacher development that begins in pre-service and continues throughout a teacher's career (Moir & Gless, 2001).  It is for the reasons stated throughout this paper that MACTE supports partnerships between higher education institutions and local school districts to ensure that induction is high-quality and well-designed.