Norway has presently no national standard for mentoring NQTs. From 2003, The Ministry of Education has financed local projects and a National network on mentoring NQTs to motivate Higher education institutions to offer their support to local authorities in establishing induction programs. These projects are based on voluntary collaboration between national and local political authorities, employers' organizations, teachers’ trade unions and universities/ colleges offering teacher education. In 2016, a national evaluation project financed by the Ministry of Education revealed that in spite of a common effort between stakeholders, 40 % of NQTs did not get special support or mentoring during their initial year as teachers. The evaluation showed that many of the existing mentoring programs had a low frequency of formal mentoring (less than once a month). Based on this, The Norwegian Parliament requested The Ministry of Education to appoint a working-group of stakeholders to prepare a framework for a sustainable system that includes national standards on induction and mentoring for NQTs. After nearly 15 years of collaboration, the parts are now in the process of drawing up guidelines for future mentoring programs. Most of the existing research focuses on the mentoring process, different approaches towards mentoring, models, the relationship between the mentor and mentee, and the content in formal mentoring praxis (XX 2013; Chandler et al. 2011; Hobson et al. 2009; Ingersoll & Strong 2011; Langedon et al. 2013; Wang et al. 2008). In our presentation, we will use a systemic approach to discuss what makes induction and mentoring programs sustainable. This makes it possible to investigate the different factors in induction systems that the stakeholders emphasize, and what research shows. Based on this, we can identify certain successful factors in existing reviews. Our overall analytical perspective is to focus on different perspectives on what makes induction and mentoring programs sustainable. At the same time, we see this in connection to what the different stakeholders emphasize. To research further into the stakeholders’ perspectives, we will use focus interviews (Krueger et al. 2014) with representatives from the Union of Education and Education Students (ES) in the Union of Education, The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities (KS), The Norwegian Association of Higher Education Institutions (UHR), National Network for Mentoring Newly Qualified Teachers and Ministry of Education. The systemic approach will make it possible to compare and discuss different perspectives on what makes an induction and mentoring program sustainable.

Chandler, D., Kram, K. & Yip, J. (2011). An Ecological Systems Perspective on Mentoring at work: A review and future prospects. The Academy of Management Annals, 5 (1), pp. 519-570. DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2011.576087 Hobson, A., Ashby, P., Malderez, A. & Tomlinson, P. (2009). Mentoring beginning teachers: What we know and what we don’t. Teacher and teacher Education, 2009. Vol. 25, pp. 207-216. Ingersoll, R. & Strong, M. (2011). The Impact of Induction and mentoring Programs for Beginning Teachers: A Critical Review of the Research. Review of Educational Research, 2011. Vol. 81(2), pp. 201-230 http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/127 DOI: 10.3102/0034654311403323 Krueger, R., & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage publications. Langedon, F., Alexander, P., Ryde, A. & Baggetta, P. (2013). A national survey of induction and mentoring: How it is perceived within communities of practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 44, pp. 92-105.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.004 Totterdell, M. & Arrowsmith, J. (2007). A systematic review of the research evidence on the induction of newly qualified teachers. Presented at ECER Annual Conference, Ghent.