- Burbank Unified School District
- Common Standards Addendum
Induction Program - Common Standards
Common Standards Addendum
-
Standard 1: Institutional Infrastructure to Support Educator Preparation
Reviewer Feedback Area 1
Documentation around how stakeholders impact the program is needed.
Program Response
- Program coordinators meet weekly via zoom or in person to plan, develop, and execute the activities of induction based on our collective experience as expert classroom practitioners & teacher leaders.
- We solicit guidance and support from superintendent Dr. Matt Hill, assistant superintendent Sharon Cuseo, and elementary & secondary directors Dr. Knapik & Dr. Paramo as issues arise.
- The induction advisory committee helps steer our program by supporting (or challenging) coordinator decision making on an array of issues such as mentor training, matches, program requirements, extensions, clearing credentials, and the budget. Coordinators take notes during our twice annual meetings and work the IAC’s suggestions into our program.
- Program coordinators receive tremendous support and guidance from the cluster 4 regional induction cohort both formally and informally on an array of topics at in-person cluster meetings and by phone or email as questions come up.
- We also provide professional development sessions for cluster 4 participants and offer feedback to our regional partners as requested.
Links
Induction Advisory Committee Table
Induction Advisory Committee Meeting Slides for 10/2020
Meeting Slides from Directors’ Meeting on November 4, 2020
Cluster 4 Directors’ Meeting Chat (this was how attendance was taken)
PD Offerings from BUSD Induction Program (Item 4)
Reviewer Feedback Area 2
While evidence of the Induction Advisory Committee meeting twice a year was found, is twice a year accurate or does this group meet more often? What are other ways in which stakeholder groups collaborate in support of the Induction program?
Program Response
The IAC does meet twice per year for official program business, support, and guidance. As issues arise during the year, the IAC is consulted via email for responses or ad hoc meetings. For example, when we have program participants who are pausing induction due to maternity or medical leave, for personal reasons, or because their employment was terminated. Additionally, we consult the IAC when we have an early completer submit their application and completion paperwork. They are asked to review our recommendation to exit a participant early and typically do so via email.
Links
No new evidence
Reviewer Feedback Area 3
While in the CS submission “no additional documentation” is listed, there is a question in regards to financial support of the program. Induction Advisory Committee notes indicate that finances are a concern with different ways of finding money under discussion. Budgeting information would be appreciated, or at least an explanation of current and future expectations of financial support on the part of the LEA in regards to induction.
Program Response
BUSD’s Induction program is financially secure. In the 2019-2020, the district’s General Fund covered most all of our expenses with the LCAP base grant covering mentor stipends and additional costs. We received small revenue via program fees for out of district induction participants. In 2020-2021 the General Fund covered the costs to run the program, including mentor stipends, extra duty and materials. We have accumulated 3400 dollars in earnings from our participants who are out of district and pay for induction services. Typically, depending on program size, the general fund is not enough to cover our mentor stipends so we pull from the LCAP Base Grant to cover our costs. This year, due to Covid’s impact we have had our cost reduced significantly and have not had to pull form the Base Grant. Program coordinators are teachers on special assignment. Their salaries are paid out of LCAP Supplemental.
Links
Reviewer Feedback Area 4
In reviewing the documents linked, some seem to belong to an older version of the program (e.g. individual applications for elementary, SPED, and secondary induction program TOSA’s) while some seem current (e.g. mentor: roles and responsibilities, application, selection metrics). If documents are no longer used, please remove them. If they are still used, explanations as to how, in conjunction with the other documents, is appreciated.
Program Response
The program coordinators and the mentors comprise the pool of “qualified persons” who provide professional development and supervise the clinical development of the new teachers. BUSD’s Induction program was shuttered for a time prior to 2015. In 2015, the district created a teacher on special assignment (TOSA) position to oversee and coordinate the induction program. The secondary induction program coordinator is still in that role, thus the older job description. In 2018, we wrote and opened a SPED induction program and needed to hire a part time TOSA to oversee elementary induction. Specialized job descriptions were created and flown for those. We have updated the mentor application we used since our program was reinstated as coordinators are tasked with enlarging the mentor pool as needed when new hires into the district need induction in specific subjects.
Links
No new evidence needed
Reviewer Feedback Area 5
Clarity around the actual process a candidate experiences vs. completion requirements is needed.
Program Response
Induction participants in their final semester receive email feedback roughly 1-2 weeks after submitting their Individual Learning Plans letting them know 1) if there are areas to improve and next steps with a timeline, or 2) if their work meets expectations and that they are being recommended for their clear credential. The program coordinator (the authorized submitter) completes the recommendation process and forwards the confirmation email from the CTC to the teacher. We explain the next steps to the completer to follow the directions in the email from the CTC, pay their fees, complete the state induction program survey, and wait for their credential to arrive in the mail. If a candidate needs to revise their ILP, they are given two weeks to do so and they may resubmit. If the work meets expectations, we recommend them for a clear credential. All mentors are cc’d on all emails regarding the final steps so that the mentor can support the new teacher in completing the final stages.
Links
-
Standard 2: Candidate Recruitment & Support
Reviewer Feedback Area 1
What is the “clear criteria” that is used?
Program Response
All teachers with preliminary multiple subject, single subject, or level 1 education specialist credentials are offered induction at the point of hire into Burbank Unified School District. We do not offer induction to interns, temporary teachers, or long-term substitutes.
When a new teacher is hired by the district, our elementary and secondary human resources clerks analyze the credential, and if appropriate, give them our New Hire Notification form which asks them to list what kind of credential they have and whether or not they have completed any induction work. When the prospective employee returns it, they forward it to us should the candidate have a preliminary credential and need induction. Candidates who have completed some induction elsewhere are also referred to our office for admission to our program. We reach out to new hires to invite them to our program, share a link to our page on our district website so they can learn more, and invite them to the induction orientation meeting. At this meeting, candidates to our program are officially enrolled and given documents to sign entering them into our program.
Links
Induction Roles and Responsibilities
Reviewer Feedback Area 2
How is recruitment of a diverse teaching staff conducted?
Program Response
In addition to the Diversity Documentation provided in Item 6 of the Common Standards Submission, Burbank Unified School District is working in partnership with Alder Graduate School of Education to intensify efforts to recruit & retain a diverse workforce. While the effort is in its initial stages, we are excited to begin the work in earnest of starting a residency program which focuses specifically on local, diverse individuals seeking a credential.
Links
Common Standards Submission: Standard 1, Item 6
Email from Human Resources Director stating collaboration with Alder GSE
Alder GSE Link to Collaborative Partnerships (BUSD will join in 2020-2021)
Reviewer Feedback Area 3
Please clarify the process to identify and support candidates who need additional assistance.
Program Response
When a mentee needs added support, we typically learn of that via the mentor’s activity logs or a direct message from the mentor. Occasionally, via an observation of the mentee, coordinators will discover areas of added support necessary and they will suggest actions to both the mentor and the mentee to follow through on. These suggestions typically go through email or phone calls. The attached graphic shows the pathways for support for mentees in need.
Links
-
Standard 3: Course of Study, Feedback and Clinical Practice
Reviewer Feedback Area 1
Evidence is needed of how site-based supervisors (mentors) are evaluated in a systematic manner.
Program Response
Mentors are evaluated on the following measures:
- Must always meet criteria to be a mentor from application and the candidate roles and responsibilities form. We check this annually in our first coordinator meeting of the year where we review our mentor lists and make recommendations.
- Must attend weekly meetings with mentors & be engaged in learning focused conversations with mentees. We check this with the monthly activity logs.
- Mentors must attend monthly PLC meetings. We check this using our sign in sheets. Mentors who get approval to miss a meeting are given a make up assignment.
- Mentors are asked to help mentees build, execute, and deliver strong ILPs. Mentors help “grade” ILPs before they are submitted. We assess the quality of the mentor’s effort in the quality of the ILPs turned in.
- Mentors are asked to self-assess their mentoring skill each year. We review those self assessments and create yearly mentor growth plans. Note for 2020: We did not enact this step the same way this year due to the pandemic. Instead, we will give our mentors an impact reflection activity to do where a self-assessment is embedded.
- Mentors must attend training to develop their skillsets as they are offered by the district. We track this using attendance sheets and exit surveys. Additionally in 2020, PDs were offered to mentors through the Cluster 4 Regional Cohort.
- Mentors who are not meeting the letter or the spirit of the program are not matched with mentees.
Links
Mentor Roles and Responsibilities Form
Mentor Activity Log (completed)
Mentor ILP & Growth Plan (not used in 2020 due to Covid)
Mentor Impact Reflection (New for 2020)
Regional Cluster PD Offerings-Part 4 of 4
Reviewer Feedback Area 2
Evidence needed of how the program evaluates fieldwork and clinical practice.
Program Response
There are several ways we evaluate new teacher practice. First, all year ones are observed by program coordinators and early practice is informally assessed. The new teacher’s self-assessment on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession results in the Goal Shaping Sheet indicating strengths and stretch areas. We use the mentor observation of the new teacher & post-observation conference reflection from that observation to indicate strength of early practice. We use the Individual Learning Plan quality and outcomes to gauge ability. We use the exit tickets from PLC meetings and Positive Impact Reflections to discover the new teacher’s perceived/real strengths and/or struggles. We use mentor activity logs to receive narrative feedback on how our teachers are doing. When there are apparent struggles, coordinators communicate with principals by phone to learn more and plan supports. We use retention data from our program, as well, to alert us that our teachers are finding success and being seen as effective.
Links
CSTP Self Assessment Assignment (Semester 1 and Semester 4)
CSTPs in Focus Micro-Assessment (Semesters 2 and Semester 3)
CSTP Self Assessment Teacher Sample
Goal Shaping Sheet Teacher Sample
Post Observation Conference Reflection Sample
Individual Learning Plan Sample
-
Standard 4: Continuous Improvement
Reviewer Feedback Area 1
How do stakeholders such as employers and community partners provide feedback about the quality of the preparation? Please provide evidence of such feedback and how it is used in the continuous improvement process.
Program Response
We solicit and use feedback from all stakeholders in a variety of ways, including, but not limited to, the following examples:
- In the Triad Meetings, we ask new teachers to engage with the site administrator on goals he/she has for the new teacher as well as any site initiatives or expectations they have. Mentors are tasked with ensuring the new teacher implements the administrator’s suggestions in successive ILPs.
- In preparing for preconditions and program review, we received feedback that we needed to assess the impact of our program more directly. To that end, we created two ways to solicit impact feedback. First, we created an outreach cycle to our graduates in year 3 of their employment. Those teachers receive either a phone call or classroom visit and they complete the Year Three Impact Survey. Second, we created a Positive Impact reflection for both mentors and mentees to complete. This will be given for the first time in May of 2021 and we will use the information there to assess & improve our program.
- In 2020, we revised our ILP document to reflect feedback from mentors, mentees, and coordinators. We streamlined the research required section in the ILP and connected the mentor growth plan to it. Mentors would demonstrate part of their growth & their competency in how well they supported their mentee in finding relevant research and resources to complete the ILP. We also inserted interim, informal deadlines for work during the ILP to help mentees monitor their progress.
- In our principal surveys, we learned that some candidates needed more support on certain aspects related to campus onboarding/professionalism issues. To that end, we redesigned our mentor activity logs to provide a Big Idea and Small Idea suggested topics to cover each month. At the mentor’s discretion, they would bring up these ideas during weekly meetings so that mentees were all receiving the same helpful content outside our formal PLC meetings.
- In 2020, the Induction Advisory Committee has provided feedback on the quality of preparation of a struggling candidate. They reviewed coordinator activity logs, feedback, and recommendations, provided input and helped with decision making around the process of supporting the candidate.
Links
Goal Shaping / Triad Meeting Sheet Participant Sample
Positive Impact Survey: Mentees
Positive Impact Survey: Mentors
Reviewer Feedback Area 2
In the graphic, please clarify when multiple sources of data are used in the continuous improvement process.
Program Response
In the graphic provided, there are 4 columns, or streams, of data we collect from each stakeholder group from the start of a year of induction to the end of the year. Reading top to bottom you will see what each subset completes in terms of assessment from beginning to end of year. If you read left to right, you can see that we receive multiple sets of data to examine each semester from all four sources. For example, in semester one we receive Mentee Self-Assessment on the CSTP data, the mentor self-assessment, the program coordinators’ annual goals and our dashboard data from the state. Each step of the way, we are collecting and utilizing data to make our program stronger.
Links
BUSD Induction Program Assessment Cycle
Reviewer Feedback Area 3
The links to the 2019 Mentor and Mentee Mid-Year Surveys go to surveys that include Fall 2017 in the title. Please clarify which date is correct.
Program Response
We have corrected the links, which were misnamed.
Links
Correct Fall 2019 Mentee Link
https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-R3QZ7SQ67/
Correct Fall 2019 Mentor Link
https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-MH6BYSQ67/
Reviewer Feedback Area 4
Clarify who serves on the advisory committee, both names and positions.
Program Response
See link below
Links
-
Standard 5: Program Impact
Reviewer Feedback
What other data besides surveys does the unit and program use to evaluate and demonstrate that they are having a positive impact on teaching and learning in schools that serve CA students?
Program Response
The narrative description originally provided to reviewers shared eight separate elements of our program where the impact on teaching and learning in Burbank classrooms can be found. This narrative includes surveys, but expands widely into mentor and mentee reflections and growth plans, advisory committee input, regional partnership support, individual learning plan data on student outcomes, and more. New this year is an added Positive Impact Reflection statement which will be administered at the close of each year to our participants, both mentor and mentee alike, to bolster the findings originally detailed.
Links
Program Impact Statement & Evidence
