A Case Study: A Novice Teacher’s Mentoring Experiences the First Year and Beyond

Teacher Retention and Mentorship

A 2017 Learning Policy Institute report finds that 90% of open teaching positions are created by teachers who leave the profession (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). In addition, the report found that two-thirds of teachers leave for reasons other than retirement, primarily due to dissatisfaction with teaching, discipline, and lack of support (Goldrick, 2016). One of the policy recommendations is to stem teacher turnover; federal, state, and district policymakers should consider improving the critical factors associated with turnover, for example, compensation, teacher preparation and support, and teaching conditions (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017). The New York City Department of Education’s teacher mentor program helps connect new and veteran teachers to provide support and a stronger sense of community that allows combat teacher burnout (Gunn, 2018).

Purpose of the Study

The case study examined how a novice special education teacher described his reflective experiences and progress, or lack thereof. The central research question was, “What were the differences, challenges, and successes between a novice teacher’s first two years without a mentor and the third year with a mentor?” This study revealed the experiences of Rodney W., a special education first-year teacher in 2015 who was not assigned a mentor during the first two years of teaching. Rodney W.’s challenges, with and without a mentor, were explored from his eyes. This study did not provide any empirical evidence of mentoring. However, it may add to the qualitative research of the voice of first-year novice special education teachers’ views on what it is like not to have a mentor for two consecutive years. However, there is still a lack of research regarding a novice teacher’s reflective narratives regarding having a mentor versus not having a mentor and, more specifically, a description of the challenges a novice special education had during the first two years of teaching (Van Ginkel et al., 2018).

Research Questions

The central research question was, “What were the differences, challenges, and successes between a novice teacher’s first two years without a mentor and the third year with a mentor?” The following research questions guided this study:

Methods

The methodology of this case study was a semistructured interview using manual coding to extract themes of challenges and successes from a novice special education teacher who taught without a mentor during the first year and with a mentor during his third year. He is a 22-year-old male teacher with a pseudonym, Rodney W. This qualitative study case study consists of an informal interview research design (Yin, 2014). Using this approach presents a more casual environment leading to more authentic responses and reflective narratives between Rodney W. and the researcher (Genao, 2016).

Case Study Participant

In this case study, Rodney W. is a 31-year-old Middle-Eastern young man whom I met and included in 2015 during my qualitative analysis. He was one of the nine interviewees described in my dissertation. Of course, his identity remains anonymous and will not be revealed during this interview because his pseudonym is Rodney W., which is not his real name. Using similar interview questions from 3 years ago in 2015, in September 2018, I interviewed Rodney W., who stated that he had taught special education for three years. Currently, he is certified in teaching English grades 7 to 12 and special education grades 5 to 9 for all subjects. He has a master’s degree.

In this case study, the inclusion criteria were the selection of a male participant who had not been assigned a mentor for two consecutive years. I wanted to determine whether differences existed in Rodney W.’s teaching experiences without a mentor during his first two years of teaching. What were the changes during the third year he was assigned a mentor? Rodney W. was selected because he was one of the nine participants in a phenomenological study conducted in 2015 (Smith-Washington, 2017). I recruited five former study participants who were not available to participate, and Rodney W. stated that he was available to participate voluntarily in this case study. This study focused on Rodney W.’s teaching experiences after the first year of teaching without a mentor and his third year with a mentor. Rodney W.’s school was in a convenient location for me to travel easily. His principal gave me permission to set up a personal meeting after school or during Rodney W.’s preparation time.

With verbal permission from the principal in August 2018, I called Rodney W.’s school and left a message with the school secretary for him to return my telephone call. During that time, Rodney was on summer break, and school had begun. When Rodney W. returned to school in September, he called me, and we arranged his appointment. We met during the first week of school. Rodney appeared excited to hear from me and readily agreed to participate in this study. On September 28, 2018, Rodney W. and I met during his preparation period for the personal and private interview that was held in a closed-door conference room with a tape recorder. He permitted me to tape record the interview to ensure the accuracy of what was said. The interview lasted approximately 45 minutes. As a token of appreciation for his time, Rodney W. was given a $25 Walmart gift card. He thanked me.

Mentoring and Teacher Induction

The New York State Education Department (2017) offers a set of standards that guide the design and implementation of teacher mentoring programs in New York State through teacher induction. Induction refers to sophisticated and systematic efforts to initiate, shape, and sustain the first work experiences of prospective career teachers (Goldrick, 2016). A high-quality induction program with an effective mentoring component positively supports the recruitment and the retention of new teachers while strengthening teaching practice as informed by the New York State Teaching Standards, the P-12 New York State Common Core Learning Standards, the New York State Professional Development Standards, and the Professional Standards and Practices Board’s Code of Ethics (New York State Education Department, 2017).

Pohl and Kelly (2016) examined first-year teachers’ mentoring and induction experiences in special education to understand what novice teachers encountered using their narratives. Participants had the chance to openly discuss their support and the roadblocks they faced during their initial teaching experience in terms of mentoring. Pohl and Kelly (2016) explored the voices of novice teachers in special education, hoping to start a frank and honest conversation in the area of first-year mentoring and induction. Instead, they found that mentoring and induction lacked research and academic attention.

Adapting to the field of education, particularly during the first five years, is significantly challenging for novice teachers (Sasser, 2018). To ease the transition into the field with the hopes of supporting retention, novice teachers are usually assigned a mentor. Typically, mentors are veteran teachers who have demonstrated a high proficiency as an educator and are assigned to the novice teacher to provide technical support in areas such as classroom management and lesson planning, as well as social and emotional support novice teachers (Sasser, 2018). An abundance of research exists to support the effectiveness of mentoring and its impact on retaining novice teachers in the field. However, little research explicitly indicates the value novice teachers place on the mentoring component of teacher induction programs (Sasser, 2018).

Sasser’s (2018) findings indicated that novice teachers consider the program’s perceived benefits and outcomes as the program’s most effective component. Therefore, it is evident that novice teachers value participating in the mentoring program because they perceive it as beneficial to their professional practice as an educator. These findings support the existing teacher induction program in the district where the student was employed and the fidelity of its implementation. Based on the study’s findings, the researcher built on the current teacher induction program by working with district officials to construct a monitoring plan for the teacher induction program and make revisions or additions to the program to promote teacher retention (Sasser, 2018).

Teacher induction is critical to beginning teachers’ overall preparation and professional development. It builds on their continuum of experiences from pre-service programs to ongoing career development spanning time as described within the Teacher Career Development Continuum (New York State Education Department, 2017). Coupled with mentoring standards, induction accelerates the creation of highly effective teachers whose goal is to enhance student learning and achievement. Therefore, the research-based mentoring standards can enable educators to plan, implement and improve their local programs whereby novice teachers are guided by their mentors to higher performance levels, thus affecting students’ cognitive and emotional growth (Ingersoll & Strong, 2011).

Definition of a Mentor

A mentor is an experienced employee who serves as a role model and provides direction, support, and feedback regarding career and personal development (Qian et al., 2014). Mentor-mentee partnerships help beginning teachers acclimate themselves to a new environment by shattering the walls of isolation that they often experience at the outset of their careers and, as a direct result, raise student outcomes by expanding pedagogical and interactive social skills (New York State Education Department, 2017). The professional learning community that embraces the new teacher is significantly strengthened by mentors or veteran teachers who serve as mentors essential to the induction process. Through an affirmed commitment to education, mentors recognize the need to increase student achievement and professional growth through enhanced teaching practice (Gunn, 2018).

Teacher Retention

Over one-third of teachers leave the profession within the first five years (Kamenetz, 2022; Shaw & Newton, 2014). The National Education Association (2022), the nation’s largest union representing nearly 3 million educators, unveiled its latest survey of members’ opinions on critical issues facing public education during the pandemic. The National Education Association poll, conducted in January 2022, helps quantify the stress being placed on educators right now. The number who say they will leave the profession sooner has risen significantly since August 2021. Among the NEA poll’s other findings, 90% of its members say that feeling burned out is a severe problem. Another 86% say they have seen more educators leaving the profession or retiring early since the pandemic, and 80% reported that unfilled job openings led to more work obligations for those left (National Education Association, 2022).

First Year Teachers’ Mentors Assigned

The New York State Legislature has appropriated $2 million per year for the Mentor Teacher-Internship Program (MTIP) in support of defined efforts to mentor new teachers in public school districts and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) for the five years from 2018 to 2023 (New York State Education Department, 2019). Subject to annual funding by the Legislature, this program supports eligible public school districts and BOCES in developing and providing structured guidance and assistance by experienced, highly qualified teachers (mentors) to beginning teachers (interns) in their first or second year of teaching. The Mentor Teacher Internship Program (MTIP) allows beginning teachers to broaden and enhance their classroom teaching and related skills while participating in a productive, supportive, and collegial mentoring experience. Research shows that when new teachers are mentored, they are more likely to enhance their instructional skills and continue teaching in the classroom (New York State Education Department, 2019). Newly hired a New York City public school teachers are assigned mentors to receive support through their first year of teaching. Novice teachers should develop a special relationship with a school-based mentor who is there to support continuous professional growth and learning. Mentor support may include but is not limited to resources for planning units and lessons, classroom intervisitations and debriefs, reflections on the teaching practice, and professional goal-setting (New York State Education Department, 2019).

Nationwide, the inability to keep teachers teaching costs school districts $7.3 billion annually, according to the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF). In Chicago, replacing just one teacher costs $17,872. But the actual penalty is paid by students, who often suffer academically from the loss of experienced teachers. Mentors may make a difference. According to a 2015 federal study, 92% of first-year teachers assigned a mentor returned to the classroom (Gray et al., 2015). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2015) report provides nationally representative data on attrition and mobility of beginning teachers in public elementary and secondary schools. Considerable research exists on teacher attrition, retention, and mobility, but the findings are sometimes inconsistent or cover only two years of teachers’ careers (Borman & Dowling 2008; Ingersoll & Strong 2011).

Due to the lack of teaching experience and uncertain job stability, among other factors, new teachers are a vulnerable population (Kutsyuruba et al., 2018). The nature of novice teachers’ experiences in their first years of teaching has been well documented (Beutel et al., 2017; Bowsher et al., 2018; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2017; Clark & Brynes, 2012; Dishena & Mokoena, 2016). However, Curry (2016) examined the variance in novices’ initial immersion in the school environment largely dependent on perceived personal and professional support and the environmental inducements that lend to novice teachers’ success in the classroom. For Curry et al.’s study, 72 participating novices, who were participants in an alternative certification program, drew picture representations of their current teaching environments. Of the initial participants’ pictures, 58 were used in this content analysis. The interrater analysis involving multiple documentation of codes between and among researchers revealed five themes from the novices’ pictures: (a) concerns about students, (b) overwhelmed and struggling, (c) relationships with others, (d) concerns about education quality and excessive accountability, and (e) issues with administration (Curry, 2016).

Curry (2016) found that novice teachers who participated in an induction performed better at keeping students on task, developing workable lesson plans, and using effective student questioning practices. Other findings were adjusting classroom activities to meet students’ interests, maintaining a positive classroom atmosphere, and demonstrating successful classroom management. This finding was supported in an earlier study by Ingersoll (2012), who found a “possible connection between comprehensive induction and student achievement” (p. 51), with students of novice teachers who participated in some kind of induction having higher scores or gains on academic achievement tests” (Ingersoll, 2012, p. 51).

There has been little research on what is necessary for a mentoring relationship to be successful from the novice teacher’s perspective (Whitehouse, 2016). Although researchers have asserted that mentoring promotes new teacher retention and improves new teacher skills, new teachers are still leaving the profession, causing a shortage of teachers in school districts across the United States (Whitehouse, 2016). Therefore, Whitehouse conducted a phenomenological study to understand the meaning of a successful mentoring relationship from the perspective of six selected elementary teachers who had been in the teaching field for less than five years and had participated in a mentoring relationship for more than two years with the same mentor. The findings indicated that the experiences which had the most significant impact on the six novice teachers were time spent with the mentor, communication, quality of the relationship, and support from the mentor.

In an earlier study, Roff (2012) investigated a qualitative case study using semistructured interviews and documents that addressed a gap in the literature by focusing on how teachers perceived the impact of mentoring programs on the support and collaboration of first-year teachers. The main findings indicated that mentoring benefitted all those involved in the program. Mentees and mentors in both school districts helped with lesson planning, collaboration, and support (Roff, 2012). In earlier legislation in 2004, New York passed a mentoring requirement per the Commissioner’s Regulations Section 100.2 (New York State Education Department, 2005). The regulations stated that all New York State “teachers must complete a mentored experience in their first year of teaching” (New York State Education Department, 2005, p. 4).

First-year teachers were expected to perform as effectively as their more experienced colleagues (Roff, 2012). However, some novice teachers did not have the experience or the valuable skills needed to manage a classroom of students. This void of support left the new teacher with a sense of isolation and frustration. In addition, because first-year teachers generally want to make a good impression, they may be cautious about asking for help or sharing any problems they experience, thus compounding the problem and potentially contributing to first-year teacher turnover (Roff, 2012). Munshi (2018) examined what mentors think of mentees and found that mentors play an essential role in helping novice teachers to engage in inquiry and to reflect on the outcomes of their efforts in ways that support a growing sense of self-efficacy as professionals. Districts offer induction programs to support novice teachers, including mentoring, professional development, and administrative support.

Teacher Preparation

Most early-career teachers in public schools reported being well prepared in various instructional duties during their first year of teaching (Bowsher et al., 2018). For example, about 80% said being well prepared to teach their subject matter, 75% reported being well ready to meet state content standards, 68% reported being well prepared to use a variety of instructional methods, and 67% reported being well prepared to assess students and use computers in the classroom (Bowsher et al., 2018). In addition, more than 50% of early-career teachers indicated they were well prepared to differentiate instruction in the classroom (57%), handle a range of classroom management or discipline situations (55%), and use data from student assessments to inform instruction (53%; Bowsher et al., 2018).

The Beginning

When interviewed in 2015, the participant was a first-year teacher (Smith-Washington, 2017). When asked to recall his memories as a first-year teacher, he paused with a frown on his brow and said, “I do not remember much of that year. It is a blur because I was full of anxiety, frustration, and exhaustion while attempting to learn what I needed to know already. However, I do recall not having an experienced teacher or mentor nearby who could readily help me understand the ropes, locate resources, support me, and figure out how to discipline special education students.

After the first interview in 2015, I approached Rodney W. again in 2018 for permission to interview him to check on his progress or lack thereof. I sought to better tie his changing needs as a third-year special education teacher to his mentoring experiences. Currently, he is a novice teacher with three years of teaching experience. His views about mentoring changed. He described his mentoring experiences and the needs of a beginning special education teacher during pre-service or teaching preparation undergraduate experience as “high demand.” He stated, “For that reason, I wondered, it must be challenging if teachers, like me, do not want to do it.” He said, “I was surprised how low knowledge level students were and found myself scratching my head just trying to teach simple terms in general education.” Rodney W. said, “It was not until the end of the school year that I realized how disorganized the class had become because I was not drilling the rules consistently at that time when I should have.” Rodney W. did not have an official mentor during the last two years. He said, “When I did my first year of overall teaching, I was not in the current school. I was assigned to another school. To be honest, I never really spoke to anyone assigned to me as a mentor. Because it is usually full-time teachers who are mentors, and they get busy as well. It was my sink or swim time.”

Although he was not assigned an official mentor, Rodney W. said, “I had an opportunity to work with a seasoned and experienced co-teacher who always made herself available whenever I needed assistance.” For example, the co-teacher gave him feedback, directions on what to do, and suggestions on how to improve something by doing it another way. The role was most professional, and they occasionally met with him to discuss the unit and lesson plans, expectations, and requests. His co-teacher was very organized and always had things ready with assignments written on chart paper and due dates for students. There were instances when the co-teacher was unavailable, then Rodney W. would approach the supervisor of the education department, who was very approachable and helpful.

The role of the in-school mentor, according to Rodney W., is to have common planning time for all teachers with the in-school mentor. He continued, “I want to be honest. We had a common planning time last year. I never felt it was practical but only practical since it was not as much as it could have been. We reviewed student work, and recommendations were made for our lessons later on, but again, what I feel would have been useful was, ‘Okay, how do I apply this in my classroom?’ We followed through with the recommendations in our classrooms, came back, and reported how that worked. I feel common planning time is not as useful as it should be. I am not saying it is not useful—it is.”

Common planning time was held with the English language arts team and the in-school mentor. Rodney W. said, “I feel that if I needed the in-school mentor, she would be available to me. Maybe it is because she knew that I was a third-year teacher, and they have a level of trust not to come and check up on ‘so-called seasoned teachers’ who do not need further assistance. Unfortunately, that was not the case, but the system I knew was all I knew.”

States should set explicit criteria for selecting mentors, including evidence of teaching excellence and an ability to serve effectively as a mentor (Goldrick, 2016). States must also ensure mentors receive initial and continuing training for their specific roles. Merely assigning new teachers a mentor—the antiquated buddy system—does not meet the needs of new educators. Schools have done this for a long time with little apparent impact. More research and best practices now exist for teacher-mentors, enabling states and districts to provide them with more practical guidance and training (Goldrick, 2016). Existing induction and mentoring programs vary in quality from traditional buddy systems that offer minimal emotional and logistical support to comprehensive plans that use carefully selected and trained mentors. Such programs provide structured time for interaction focused on improving new teachers’ classroom management and instructional skills (New Teacher Center, 2016).

Mentors should be assigned to new teachers at the start of the school year (Goldrick, 2016). In selecting mentors, schools should attend to recent teachers’ subject and grade levels—but not be overly restrictive with such requirements (Goldrick, 2016). The best mentor for a particular teacher may be down the hall—or working in another school. Whether full-time instructional coaches or classroom teachers who perform this role atop a full teaching load, mentors need appropriate time to meet with and observe teachers during the school day (Goldrick, 2016). State policy should support regular interaction between mentors and beginning teachers. Mentors’ caseloads should also be flexible depending on their role and the needs of new teachers (Goldrick, 2016). Making the entire system of support for new teachers work requires more from states than simply monitoring local school systems’ compliance with program rules. Program success should be measured at both the state and local levels. Teacher evaluations should include a critical factor in assisting new teachers to become experienced master teachers (Goldrick, 2016).

Clark and Brynes (2012) found that one feature of many mentoring programs is for beginning teachers to spend time planning instruction with their mentor. The benefits of this mentoring support are easy to identify. Common planning time with a mentor has been recognized in the research as beneficial to beginning teachers, especially regarding their plans to remain in the profession (Goldrick, 2016). When mentors do not have the time or training to help new teachers, those new teachers do not have the needed support. With quality standards, dedicated funding, protected time, and mentor training, state department of education officials can help school districts to provide the induction and mentoring support that new educators and students need (Goldrick, 2016).

Needs and Challenges of a Novice Special Education Teacher

While in his pre-service or teacher preparation undergraduate experience, Rodney W. had needs and challenges as a novice special education teacher. He stated, “I feel like my beginning years I was mostly concerned with having a competent classroom. Whereas now I have a more in-depth understanding where I understand that it is not just about busy work, it is not just about learning anything. I am trying to learn to structure the skill to teach the students and build it more cohesively. When I started, it was more than just teaching; the students should be doing what I told them to do. So, it was more classroom management, and they should be learning. Now, I understand it is not just about learning. It is more about how I will build the needs they need specifically and how I will structure the learning.”

Although Rodney W.’s pre-service years were questions about structuring how students learn and meeting their needs to help them learn, his first three years of teaching contained initial needs and challenges. Rodney W. addressed those needs and challenges, “I would say there was a need I was aware of and a need I was not aware of. The need I was aware of was my energy in the classroom during my first few years. The need I was unaware of was designing a more meaningful lesson with a better purpose. And the two are connected, and I do not think I realized that.”

Abas (2016) examined the perceptions of 136 pre-service teachers from five significant fields of teacher education programs on their experiences during off-campus observation in selected secondary schools. The qualitative content analysis method was used to interpret the content of text data through coding and identifying themes or patterns. Data were taken from pre-service teachers through open-ended questions and two high school principals, ten cooperating teachers, six student supervisors, and 12 pre-service teachers through focus groups and key informant interviews. Suggestions to improve off-campus observation from multi-level

participants of the study concentrated on preparedness, orientation programs, supervision and monitoring, personal characteristics and roles, attitudes and behaviors, post conferences, supervisory plans, observation policies and guidelines, seminars, time management, and cultural diversity. To sustain the desirable experiences, cooperating teachers and student supervisors believed that their roles were to serve as models, guides, leaders, monitors, planners, and motivators. The varied experiences of pre-service teachers imply that Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) and cooperating schools should provide opportunities, develop competencies, take responsibilities, and strengthen partnerships to enhance off-campus observations.

Three-year Challenges Inside the Special Education Classroom

More specifically, Rodney W. experienced other challenges over the past three years. He reflected on the difficulties he had experienced since teaching special education. He said, “I guess I would say the challenge I always find is maximizing the use of a co-teacher, which is my goal for this year. I did not know I just co-teach with the teacher. Rather, I wanted more things like parallel teaching, splitting up the students, and mixing up the groups in a way where it becomes less likely that all I focused on was special needs students or it became less help and assistance. So I am trying to maximize my use in the room with students when I know a second teacher is in the room.”

Three-year Challenges Outside of the Special Education Classroom

Those challenges were inside the special education classroom; however, Rodney W. experienced difficulties outside the classroom. He was asked what challenges he faced outside the classroom regarding lesson preparation, time management, responsibilities, and school life with his home life. He compared those challenges now that he has taught for three years in special education. Rodney stated, “It is deciding what the scholars need. I would say curriculum building is a lot more difficult. Just being able to foresee an entire year and when you go throughout the year, you realize this needs more time. It is tough to predict what you will teach and map out the year.”

When he was a first- year teacher, time management was formerly a problem for Rodney W. However, he feels that he has more time now since he is a third-year teacher. He added, “My toolbox has grown throughout the years, so with a larger toolbox, I know how to teach. Give me the text, tell me the skill, and I can come up with the lesson very easily because now I know all the strategies and techniques. But during the beginning years, I scratched my head, asking, ‘How am I going to teach this? What activities can I do with this lesson?’ I struggled with that.”

When asked about the keyword “toolbox,” Rodney W. mentioned the kind of things he had in this toolbox currently that he did not have during his first year. He replied, “For example, I know one strategy is Gallery Walk. During this strategy, rather than give students text, read it all together, and have a ‘monolithic lesson,’ it is broken down into specific chunks or quotes. Then we put it around and let the students get up, go around, and put post-it notes on it. That is just one strategy of many different kinds that we use throughout the lesson.” Rodney W.’s favorite strategy that he relies on the most is the Socratic Seminar. However, getting a discussion out of students is more complex than you think. Usually, I would like to engage students in a debate. But I like phrase-sentence-word because I would say that is one of my favorite strategies.”

Lesson Preparation and Planning

As an experienced administrator, teacher, and mentor, I was interested in how Rodney W. spent his time preparing and planning lessons compared to when he was a first-year teacher. He answered, “It is more efficient now and more meaningful. My lesson planning comes out better, and it is much less time-consuming. In the past, I would just sit and think of some activities. Then I would think, ‘Maybe this would work, and soon realize and say, ‘No, this strategy is not going to help them.’ So I would constantly scrap lessons and re-do them.”

Professional Development

When asked to describe the challenges outside of the classroom regarding administration and professional development and how he handled those challenges with three years of teaching experience, Rodney W. explained, “Sometimes my challenge is professional development. Sometimes I wonder how efficient and practical it is. There was one year where I liked it because it was repetitive, which I think is good. There was a lot of practice because they made us go back, apply what we learned in the professional development, and have us come back and discuss it. I thought that was a lot more practical. Then I thought that going back to, ‘Oh, here is some information you do with it as you like and ‘I do not think that is as useful as—practice it, show me, use it in your less, show me how to use it in a lesson. Come back and let us discuss how you used it in your lesson.’ For me, that is a challenge. Am I wasting my time going to these professional development in-services spending hours and hours, and what can I bring back to the classroom?”

Challenges for New Teachers

Rodney W. was asked to reflect on his first year that I interviewed him regarding how often new teachers were challenged by lack of resources, administrative support, and being tired and overwhelmed. I asked him to describe those challenges and provide more details about how they affected him.

Recommendations From Rodney W.

In Shanghai and Japan, new teachers are periodically asked to teach the best possible lesson while being observed by many experienced teachers (Crehan, 2016; Padilla et al., 1999). In Japan, Singapore, and Shanghai, through lesson study, teachers of different expertise and experience plan lessons together, observe each other, and discuss the effectiveness of the pedagogy. Teachers in Finland also have a weekly timetabled session to plan lessons with their colleagues, which allows them to learn from one another. The focus in all of these places is on supporting teachers (Crehan, 2016). National Teaching Service teachers must be given the time to plan professional development and engage other staff in conversations about pedagogy. Their impact could be much more significant if head teachers could make space for these conversations and observations throughout their school.

Korea’s system rotates teachers like Japan’s, but they also make the experience of working in disadvantaged schools count more regarding promotion than working in affluent areas (Crehan, 2016). By making access to the highest rungs of their career ladder depend partly on whether they have had experience in a more challenging area, they make the experience more sought after. With various career incentives, including guaranteed professional development and time for supporting others, the benefits of the National Teaching Service could convince more brilliant teachers to move to rural areas and challenging schools and to stay there.

New teachers are expected to spend considerable time becoming familiar with what mathematics is appropriate for children at different stages of development (Crehan, 2016; Padilla et al., 1999). In addition, teachers are expected to know what instructional techniques are most effective for helping children in a particular grade to understand and use the relevant mathematics (Crehan, 2016; Padilla et al., 1999). The practical lesson is an opportunity for the new teachers to show the extent of their learning about teaching their subject. Therefore, they put serious thought and effort into preparing this lesson and get considerable help from mentors, departmental colleagues, or specialists from the district (Crehan, 2016; Padilla et al., 1999).

These activities in Japan, Singapore, Shanghai, and Korea for novice teachers are quite different from what Rodney W. experienced during his first year of teaching compared to his current status in education. Therefore, I asked Rodney W. to compare his first year with his third year of teaching and make recommendations and improvements for a mentoring program. He said, “The first thing is to recommend that all new teachers report their lesson plans and even sit down with somebody to discuss them before they teach. I think the first two weeks of school should happen—at least. The first two weeks—not a week in when it is too late—not a month in. By that time, it is too late. So I think if they only do it the first two weeks, that might be enough at least for that point where they review the lesson and get themselves on the right track.”

The second recommendation that Rodney W. recommended is “Frequent visits during the first two weeks of school. Again, those first two weeks are important, I say, are the most crucial time. If that is done correctly, we can take a step back and go to the traditional mentoring, which is once a month. Mentors can visit the room if that amount to all. And I think that is fine if at least the first two weeks when it is most critical that you are given all the possible support, you can be given without asking because we are not going to ask until it is too late.”

Reflective Narrative: Beyond Mentoring

For two years after his first year as a new teacher from 2015 to 2016, Rodney W. did not have a mentor teacher for two years. He was asked to describe his experiences when he was assigned a mentor teacher as part of the school district’s beginning teacher induction program during the 2017 to 2018 school year. Furthermore, he was asked to talk about his experiences being mentored by an experienced teacher who taught in the same subject area, grade level, and certification area. I wanted to know how it was this year after returning to teach after two years without having a mentor assigned him. He responded, “I feel like it does not matter how seasoned you are. It always helps to have somebody more experienced guiding you. So that is something I feel like I could always benefit from—having somebody help me. Fortunately, since I am in a co-teaching setting, I always take the other teacher as a mentor because I am also a three-season teacher. And I try to take them as mentors regardless of what they assign me.”

Findings

After interviewing Rodney W. on September 28, 2018, his interview was transcribed and analyzed for themes throughout the interview. Rodney W. emphasized particular words (i.e., “make it work,” “more independent,” “it is too late,” “toolbox of strategies,” and “learned to survive”) throughout his description of his mentoring experiences. The following themes were found in his interview: resources, administrative support, available materials, mentor-teacher role, common planning time, qualities of mentors, and satisfaction. In addition, Rodney W. provided recommendations and suggestions for the school district and schools to improve the mentoring program.

Theme 1: Available Resources

After teaching for at least four years, Rodney W. has become more independent in locating resources and surviving on his own without asking for assistance from the principal, in-school mentor, and co-teachers. Initially, he felt that the school and administration had “thrown him to the sharks,” and he was left alone to survive on his own. As a result, he has a sense of ownership with the school to make things work for him. He struggled as a new teacher with the assistance of an official mentor. Therefore, he had to make it work by seeking resources independently. Teachers were allotted $100 for materials and supplies that he felt were enough, although other teachers complained—he did not complain about fear of seeming incompetent.

Theme 2: Administrative Support

As a new teacher in a school new to him, Rodney W. felt that he was “thrown into the classroom and expected to survive in a ‘swim or sink.’” However, he sought the assistance of the principal, who observed him teach and provided valuable and helpful feedback that was important to his teaching. He respected the advice because it focused on essential elements of student learning rather than trivial matters. Rodney W.’s learned how the system worked because he realized that when administrative staff supported “months down the line wanting to help, by that point, it was too late.” He commented that he “never understood that.” But after learning how the system worked, he realized he did not need administrative support in the same way, although some new teachers did not understand the system as he did.

Theme 3: Available Materials

After surviving the first year alone without an official mentor except for the co-teacher in the classroom, there were few textbooks, and the Media Center had insufficient trade books available for students. To Rodney W., this happened at his assigned schools, and he was “used to it over the years of teaching.” Those schools did not have materials readily available to teachers; therefore, he was “not concerned about it” because he made it work for his students by “making do with whatever I have.”

Theme 4: Mentor-Teacher Roles

Not having a mentor was a problem for Rodney W. during his first year. He “never spoke to an official mentor” but felt he needed one. As a result, he struggled with lesson planning, classroom management, and organizing the entire day with activities and strategies that helped students learn. During the current year, teachers suggested mentoring support to the principal. The principal followed up on those suggestions by recommending an in-school mentor assigned to help new teachers full-time. The in-school mentor’s role was to help teachers. Rodney W. believed in the in-school mentor’s ability to help teachers because of her “solid work ethic.” The in-school mentor was readily available and scheduled her time to assist teachers with the support needed daily. Rodney W. believes that “there should be a system in place where I should not have to see the mentor to review my lesson plans and make sure I am doing things the right way.” He felt that “well-planned lesson plans had a lot to do with having control of the classroom because the more control you lose in a classroom, the harder it gets to regain that control.”

Theme 5: Common Planning Time

The purpose of common planning time is to meet with the in-school mentor during a grade level or department level meeting to review student work and make recommendations. Rodney W.’s common planning time was held with the English language arts team and the in-school mentor. He commented that he “never felt it was practical, but not as useful as it should be.” He expected the in-school mentor to review his lesson plans and determine how he could apply the recommendations in the classroom. The in-school mentor recognized seasoned teachers. Therefore, she did not visit their classrooms as often as he thought she should have. Rodney W. concluded that the in-school mentor had gained a certain “level of trust not to come and check up on seasoned teachers” because they were doing well. He further concluded, “This is the system that I knew. It was all I knew.”

Theme 6: Qualities of Mentors

In the past year, Rodney W. admired specific qualities of his mentors, the principal, the in-school mentor, and the co-teacher in his special education classroom. The principal is “significant in his observations and in what he says” and does not give advice just for the sake of providing advice. The principal never “never focuses on things that are irrelevant.” What the principal focused on was “Why this lesson was not modified to support the struggling students” and concentrate on more meaningful things and less on superficial, petty issues” For Rodney W., this was “something I thought has always been helpful.”

The in-school mentor, as Rodney W. said, “She had good work ethics.” For example, he said, “If she had free time, she was someone I could approach and who took time to help me.” By good work ethics, he mentioned that even when the in-school mentor is busy with a full schedule and may be overwhelmed, she still finds the time to help teachers.”

Theme 7: Job Satisfaction

The nature of novice teachers’ experiences in their first years of teaching has been well documented (Curry, 2016; Dishena & Mokoena, 2016; Flannery, 2017). However, the variance in novice teachers’ initial immersion in the school environment largely depends on perceived personal and professional support and the environmental inducements that lend to their success in the classroom (Curry, 2016).

I asked Rodney W. to compare his mentoring experience from his first year of teaching up until now 2019, to reflect on the in-school mentor, his principal, and co-teacher, and to describe his overall satisfaction regarding moving forward with these individuals as his resources. He responded, “I have gotten used to being as independent as possible. I try to use other resources as little as possible. Maybe it took me so many years to get the hang of things because I had to do it more independently. But I think that although my principal does not come in the room often when he does the feedback, he gives useful feedback.”

When comparing his first year of teaching, Rodney W. was not satisfied because that was when he needed it and did not get mentoring. He replied, “I was not satisfied, no.” At the current time, and considering that he is more competent now, he needs mentoring less. He said, “I can work more independently. I am more satisfied. I have a larger toolbox. I have more strategies, and I am not struggling as much. I do not need the resources and the people as much.”

Summary

Based on the findings, Rodney W. suggested several recommendations for mentoring novice special education teachers, “A recommendation I would make is to have mentors observe novice teachers during the first week of school. That is the advice I would give. The first week—let them come and observe. Do not wait. It is already too late when you get into the third and fourth week. The students already have an impression that can be hard to remove. It can always be corrected, but it is easier for them to see that they can trust this teacher to have a good lesson from the very beginning.”

Rodney recommended that someone visit and observe new teachers during the first week of school. He reiterated, “First week—let them come and observe. Do not wait. It is already too late when you get into the third and fourth week. The students already have an impression that can be hard to remove. It can always be corrected, but it is easier for them to see that they can trust this teacher to have a good lesson from the very beginning.”

Another co-teacher was assigned to the special education classroom, but she was new to the school. Rodney W. felt that the in-school mentor should work closely with the new co-teacher. He said, “I am sure if this new co-teacher went to the in-school mentor, she would help her, but I do not think I have seen the in-school mentor working closely with her yet.” The new co-teacher had previously taught at the high school level the middle school environment was new to her. He believed that the new teacher felt confident enough to think she did not need any help, but he witnessed “amateur mistakes” she made compared to the high school environment. He saw himself in her mistakes because he was transferred from a high school environment to middle school special education. Rodney W. said, “I am glad to be there to help her. I think it works because I am in the room with her. She is a great teacher, and she is confident. I think she would do fine, but I do not think she would have gotten that support if I was not there. As a result, I am becoming a mentor.”

Rodney W. made several recommendations that he believed might improve the mentoring program for new teachers, especially special education teachers:

Rodney W.’s first year of teaching was a struggle. He stated, “It took up to two hours to do one lesson plan, and sometimes it would not even be an excellent lesson.” But, Rodney W. said with a smile, “I am more experienced, and I have a toolbox. Going back to using professional development, there were two things we focused on: (1) unpacking the learning target and (2) successful criteria—two vital components that I have under my belt. Rodney W. felt confident that he knew the standard for students to learn, knew the text and content, and was able to put the lesson together using those two things very quickly because he did not have to sit there scratching his head and thinking of ideas. He has graphic organizers that he does not have to create. He said, “I have ideas. I have different activities that I can think of immediately in developing a lesson.”

Master teaching is not where Rodney W. is at this point in his career. He stated, “I do not think that I have mastered teaching, and I have enough humility to say that I have a lot to learn.” However, he has a much stronger idea of what he needs to plan and what he should be done with room for improvement. Although the principal always provided meaningful feedback, it was often late in the year, and again, it was too late. Rodney W. felt this should change, and the principal should visit new teachers’ classrooms to observe and provide feedback much earlier in the year.