Empowering Innovations: Adding Value to University-School Partnerships
This article discusses results from a study on beginning teachers who developed university interns as a focus of their induction program at their schools. For 13-weeks, four novice physical educators (who were considered highly skilled pedagogically) received support from prior university faculty as interns worked with them twice weekly. Results showed that they effectively developed interns while feeling renewed themselves. Interactions with interns and university mentors reignited their commitments to best practices and recently learned pedagogical values. Most took steps toward professional advancement and all received positive responses from colleagues. Researchers' concerns of burnout from overload did not occur. Instead, the novices deeply regretted losing interns when the program ended. Since this research identified similar positive impacts on participants in a prior study, perhaps future research could examine the efficacy of this approach in other content areas. Keywords: teacher induction, beginning teachers, school-university partnerships, school-based teacher education, preservice education, physical education Introduction For 30 years, educators have discussed how to provide systematic support for beginning teachers to increase retention (Algozzine, et al., 2007; Nielsen, Barry, & Addison, 2006; Stansbury & Zimmerman, 2002; Stroot, Faucette, & Schwager, 1993; Veenman, 1984). Several describe new teachers' experiences as so demanding that they require extreme coping or survival skills (e. g., Arends & Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Moir, 2003a) and Ingersoll and Smith (2004) use metaphors such as "sink or swim, trial by fire, or boot camp" (p. 28) to depict the professional lives of beginners. Some challenges teachers can face include unrealistic responsibilities, isolation, lack of administrative support, conflicts with parents, and inadequate training relative to students' needs. Assumptions about requirements for effective induction differ across nations--from one to three years in the United States and from two to five years in other nations (Algozzine, Gretes, Queen, & Cowan-Hathcock, 2007; Arends & Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Wong, Britton, & Ganser, 2005). Delivery systems for such programs also differ from those in independent teacher centers to others conducted by state departments, districts, or schools of higher education. More than a decade ago, Feiman-Nemser (2001) encouraged partnerships between K-12 schools and teacher preparation programs to provide new educators "greater coherence and continuity in learning to teach" (p. 1037). Yet, Whisnante, Elliott, and Pynchon (2005) found that, "as many as fifty percent ... do not participate in induction programs beyond a one-time orientation and only l% ... participates in the kind of comprehensive program recommended" (pp. 2-3). The Need to Support Beginning Teachers Attrition Rates Lead to Induction Programs As early as 1983, Schlecty and Vance found that approximately 30% left teaching within the first two years. More recently, the attrition rate was projected to range from about 33 percent in the first three years (Nielsen, et al., 2006) to almost "50% after five years" (Moir, 2003b, p.1). In response to such concerns, educators (including those in more than 30 of the nation's state departments (Arends & Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Milton et al., 2009; Wong, 2002; Wong, et al., 2005)) have implemented programs to support teachers as they begin their careers (Arends & Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Milton et al., 2009; Moir, 2003a). A primary goal has been to increase retention rates (Algozzine, et al., 2007; Arends & Rigazio-DiGilio, 2000; Draper, O'Brien, & Christie, 2004). According to Huling-Austin, Odell, Ishler, Kay, and Edelfelt (1989), induction can be defined as "a transitional period in teacher education between preservice preparation and continuing professional development, during which assistance may be provided" (p. …