No abstract

The previous authors are unanimous in concluding that there is something wrong with a profession, or even semiprofession, that provides no transition from theory to practice and that sanctions trial and error experimentation in the development of instructional skills. Each believes induction programs offer some remediation of this problem. Hardly surprising, though, is that the questions raised about what form these programs should take outnumber specific recommendations. This disproportion is partially due to the fact that planned induction periods are new to teaching, but the real problem is the lack of accepted norms and standards in the profession.In an excellent review of general guidelines and expectations for induction programs, Huling-Austin notes that the goal of improving teaching effectiveness will be met only if the program operates from a clearly articulated vision of what constitutes effective teaching. I would argue that success depends on more than clear articulation. Consider Huling-Austin's example of how successful teaching may differ in different settings. District A may require research-based teaching practices while District B expects organization, positive relationships with students, adherence to the district curriculum, and allows great flexibility in approaches to teaching. One system may require strict discipline ; another values a teacher who is more nurturing than strict.The problem is that we are still saying anything goes, as long as we agree to articulate clearly what standards we have settled upon. This attitude reflects neither the existence of a profession nor the substantial, developing knowledge base of effective teaching practice. In the previous example, why should there be a difference in the expectations of Districts A and B? Incorporating the research base for teaching, if done appropriately, does not preclude organization, good relationships with students, or adherence to the curriculum any more than it prevents flexibility in teaching approaches. Research is quite clear on the point that there is not one &dquo;right&dquo; way to teach. It does say that under certain circumstances with certain types of students, some strategies are more effective than others. Teachers must know what these are and how to determine when certain approaches will be more productive than others, and why. This, I would suggest, is an important function of any induction program.The second example of different district expectations contrasts discipline with nurturing. Effective teaching cannot take place without discipline and classroom management skills. Nurturing the mind and the self-confidence of students so that students can experience success is an equally important characteristic of an effective teacher. If teaching is to become a true profession, its training and rites of passage for entry and certification must produce the solid foundations for using professional judgment in applying educational research and experience to promote students' academic and affective development.Because educa...

No abstract