Page 23 - 2024_Jour_90-5

Cohen (2000) acknowledged measuring success within a complex adaptive system
was difficult because the individuals define performance measures in the system.
Individuals could modify, maintain, implement, or disregard performance measures
based on their system. In harnessing complexity within a complex adaptive system,
“one needs to be careful about which indirect measures of success are used to guide
action and learning” (Axelrod & Cohen, 2000, p. 124). The variation across south
Georgia school districts implementing the program complicates the success because
districts are considering their individual needs related to the teacher shortage and
their ultimate goals for implementing the model. Important to understand are the
decisions district and university stakeholders take to implement the model and support
undergraduate teacher candidates through the semester or year of the program.
This article addresses one research question within the context of the larger
study: “What decisions must be considered when implementing the intern as teacher
model in a school district?” Participants defined success based on the retention
of interns, connection to the school, positive experiences, and intern preparation.
What was interesting about the attribution of credit for success was the existence of
varied definitions among university personnel and school district administrators. I
attributed this to the needs of the individuals. School district administrators defined
success based on the interns’ performance and whether interns accepted a position
in the district beyond their internship. University faculty defined success based on
the interns’ preparation for handling a solo classroom, the fit of the candidate within
the school, and a job offer at the conclusion of the program. Examples of success
were found throughout the study through the themes of induction support, mentoring
models, and school climate and culture.
District and university decision-makers working together to define the program
benefited all stakeholders. Defining what model to implement in the district was
important because this determined the type of mentorship interns received. It also
changed the types of support the university supervisors provided interns. Although
there was variation in how interns were assigned mentors, the importance lay in
ensuring interns had consistent access to a mentor teacher.
Intern participants also stressed the consideration of their academic course loads
and supportive university faculty. Interns felt supported when their mentor and
university faculty understood their needs and adapted to help them be successful.
They juggled academic coursework and teaching full-time, so they needed
decision-makers to understand that their needs differed from those of a traditional
undergraduate student teacher.
The factors identified through this study relate to the induction needs of new
teachers. When districts support new teachers, they are more likely to retain them.
With the teacher shortage nationwide, identifying creative ways to support and retain
educators is important. When school districts utilize the intern as teacher model and
implement the factors described in this study, interns may be more likely to stay in a
school district beyond their internship and graduation.

References
Ambrosetti, A. (2014). Are you ready to mentor? Preparing teachers for mentoring preservice
teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 30–42.
Arizona Department of Education. (2017). Student teaching intern certificate overview [PDF].
https://cms.azed.gov/home/GetDocumentFile?id=5a15bd693217e10948f62898

Promoting Professional and Personal Growth of Educators and Excellence in Education 21