A rationale for providing high-quality support during teachers’ early years is to develop further the skills teachers acquire during preparation and to help overcome weaknesses that might lead them to abandon the profession. Yet, almost no consideration has been given to potential interactions between preservice preparation and induction support received. This study utilizes survey and administrative data to examine the effects, including interactions, of preservice preparation and early career support on new teachers’ career intentions and decisions. Consistent with previous research, we find a direct association between perceived preparation quality and leaving teaching. Moreover, we find the quality and comprehensiveness of mentoring and induction to be related to teachers’ intentions and decisions. Our results also suggest that comprehensive support moderates the relationship between preservice preparation and intentions to leave. The findings point to the importance of considering preservice preparation in combination with induction support in efforts to address teacher attrition.

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to examine the way in which low-performing schools and their district define, acquire, use, and diffuse research-based evidence. Design/methodology/approach -The mixed methods case study builds upon the prior research on research evidence and social networks, drawing on social network analyses, survey data and interview data to examine how educators in low-performing schools and across the district use evidence (including which types and for what purposes), as well as the relationship between network structure and evidence use for school improvement. Findings -Educators had narrow definitions of, and skepticism about, evidence, which limited its acquisition and use for school improvement. The authors found a lack of diffusion of evidence within schools and districtwide as a result of sparse connections among and between educators. Evidence was used in an instrumental, yet superficial, manner leading to weak interpretation of evidence and resulting in limited understanding of underlying problems and available solutions.Research limitations/implications -The paper suggests the importance of using social network analyses to examine the diffusion of evidence, as well as the need to better understand how evidence is defined and used. Practical implications -It is necessary to pay greater attention to how educators acquire evidence, as well as the ways in which it is used to impact school-based decisions in low-performing schools and districts. Moreover, the work suggests the influence of the district office on school-level reform. Originality/value -The paper contributes to the research on low-performing schools and accountability policy by examining the larger districtwide context and integrates social network, survey, and interview data.

In the current accountability policy context, access to and use of research evidence are central to district and school improvement. Our study examines the network of relations between central office administrators and principals using a political lens to consider the ways in which the underlying politics in a district may call into question some of the assumptions around evidence use and change under accountability policy sanctions. Results indicate that relational ties regarding evidence use (data use in this case) are sparse in comparison with other work-related networks. Second, we find a misalignment between what one would expect based on district data use initiatives, formal lines of authority, and communication patterns and the underlying informal social interactions of the leaders around the use of data. We discuss the implications of this research for district improvement and the use of evidence in the current policy context.

Field biology is an area of research that involves working directly with living organisms in situ through a practice known as “fieldwork.” Conducting fieldwork often requires complex logistical planning within multiregional or multinational teams, followed by collaborative research led by one or a few of the core team members. However, existing power imbalances stemming from geopolitical history, discrimination, and professional position perpetuate inequities in the context of these research endeavors. After reflecting on our own research programs, we propose four general principles to guide equitable, inclusive, ethical, and safe practices in field biology: Be Collaborative, Be Legal, Be Safe, and Be Respectful. Although many field biologists already structure their field programs around these principles or similar values, executing equitable research practices can prove challenging and requires careful consideration, especially by those in positions with relatively greater privilege. Based on experiences and input from a diverse group of global collaborators, we provide suggestions for action-oriented approaches to making field biology more equitable under these guidelines, with particular attention to how those with greater privilege can contribute. While we acknowledge that not all suggestions will be applicable to every institution or program, we hope that they will generate discussions and provide a baseline for training in proactive, equitable fieldwork practices.