There is nothing new about apprenticeships, internships or any of the other forms of on-the-job training that have always been considered an important part of the development of newly trained doctors, lawyers, electricians, business graduates or performing artists.
Those are practices that date back to ancient times whereby newbies in any field of career development are guided by more experienced practitioners.
Young people, having learned about basic technical skills through course work of one kind or another, benefit from the assistance, supervision and example of established professionals.
It is how the inexperienced learn about the actual day-to-day demands and realities of a chosen career, yet it is a practice strangely absent from the development of young teachers, at least here in B.C.
New teachers move from preparation directly to practice without the benefit of any formal day-to-day intervention, guidance or on-the-job evaluation by those actually practising the needed skills.
Yet the research could not be clearer about the fact that quality teaching only begins with a teacher’s formal education, then develops through a process of continuous improvement gained through experience, targeted professional development and the insights and direction provided through thoughtful, objective feedback from those more experienced in effective teaching.
There is a mountain of data that demonstrates it is the effective teacher who is the most important school-based factor affecting student achievement.
Not the expensive curriculum revisions, not dollar-consuming standardized testing, not system reorganization or top-down evaluation — none of these carry any guarantees about improving student achievement. Only effective teachers provide that.
Thoughtfully devised and relatively inexpensive mentorship programs for first-year teachers would not only be justified, but could make all the difference for everybody involved, especially the kids.
There are some examples of first-year teacher-mentoring programs that, despite the controversy surrounding any innovative programs, have worked well in public education elsewhere.
In some U.S. school districts, variations on the “Toledo Plan,” as practised by the board of education and the teachers’ union in Toledo, Ohio, are being tried.
Newly employed intern teachers are given an experienced teacher as a mentor or consultant who both supports the intern through goal-setting and classroom visits, and evaluates the new teacher.
The mentor then forwards a final evaluation and recommendation for either renewal or non-renewal of the intern to an intern board of review, which includes teachers and administrators.
Six intern board members are needed to reverse the mentor’s recommendation.
Last year, B.C. teacher training institutions graduated more than 2,500 new teachers into a public education system that was able to provide only about 500 jobs.
That seems to be a waste of talent and enthusiasm on the part of those young teachers-to-be and a squandered opportunity for the kids in classrooms, who might have benefited from all that let’s-get-started-teaching energy.
Perhaps there are productive ways of accommodating, through internships, a surplus of newly trained young teachers, eager to get started in their profession but who are unable to find a job.
That idea. however, is fraught with potentially prohibitive difficulties.
Would this be seen as a way for school districts to avoid hiring fully compensated teachers? Would trainees receive any kind of compensation?
A better place to start would be to develop a program that guaranteed support and guidance for young teachers who do find jobs and are in the first early stages of learning to be effective teachers.
Geoff Johnson is a retired superintendent of schools.
