Research indicates that mentoring programs help increase the retention of beginning teachers. School administrators may be presented with competing mentoring models, with various sources and types of support, aimed at improving beginning teacher retention. This study collected both qualitative and quantitative data under the rubric of a comparative case study method to investigate mentoring models in the Asher and Dane School Districts (pseudonyms). Using this approach, the authors explored the two distinct models related to beginning teacher retention. Although both districts used collaborative teams, in-school mentors, and principals within the context of professional learning communities to participate in the mentoring of beginning teachers, only the Dane School District employed district "coaches." Findings from this research suggest that these "coaches" were not as effective as in-school mentors or collaborative teams in increasing retention, possibly because of lack of proximity and personal relationship. Additional findings describe and explain mentoring characteristics and different sources of support that benefited the mentoring experience and subsequent retention of beginning teachers.

No abstract

Professional learning communities (PLCs) are being recognized as effective in improving teacher collaboration and student achievement. Trust is critical in effectively implementing the PLC model, and the school principal is best positioned to influence school trust levels. Using five facets of trust, this research sought to clarify the impact of trust among PLC teachers on their team’s collaborative practices. Findings suggested ways that members of successful PLCs built trust. Findings also suggested ways that principals influenced team members’ trust. Successful and unsuccessful PLCs emphasized different facets in describing development of trust, the principal’s role in building trust, and the role of trust in collaboration.

No abstract

Surely the health and vitality of any academic field relies on the periodic review of its intellectual history, evolving theoretical frameworks, and thematic shifts. Attempts to define a field typically involve lively debates over boundary maintenance. 1 Indeed, the question of whether comparative education is a "discipline" has been debated at least since the earliest issues of the Comparative Education Review 2 and has continued to be debated in different forums. 3 Leon Tikly and Michael Crossley believe that a comparative and international canon is discernible, although it is one that is "continually being challenged by new theories and approaches from the arts, humanities, and social sciences, and its boundaries in this sense are fluid and permeable rather than hermetically sealed." 4 Many are the entreaties to alter the field. Michael Crossley and Peter Jarvis wish to reconceptualize comparative and international research, though doing so by building on the "positive" traditions gained from past experience. 5 The research reported in this article relied heavily on the financial support of Utah Valley State College and the Department of Educational Leadership and Foundations at Brigham Young University. We express our sincere gratitude to those institutions and to our assistants. In particular, we want to thank Raija Kemppainen and her dedicated research team for their indefatigable efforts in gathering the data contained in this article under severe time and resource constraints. Tables 1-12 and apps. A and B of this article may be found in the electronic edition of CER.