Beginning teachers encounter numerous challenges. Students’ misbehavior and unsatisfying achievements undermine beginning teachers’ self confidence in their ability to become good teachers. Work overload creates stress and burnout. Adapting to the school’s norms and expectations and forming good collegial relationships with other staff members are additional challenges (den Brok et al., 2017; Clandinin et al., 2015). As a result, the attrition rate among beginning teachers is high (OECD, 2021). In the US, nearly 50% of beginning teachers leave their positions within the first five years of teaching (Goldhaber & Theobald, 2022). Similar attrition rates have been observed in England (Lindquist & Nordanger, 2016). In Europe, attrition rates among beginning teachers are lower, though still significant: over 40% among secondary school teachers in French speaking Belgium (Dupriez et al., 2016) and 15% in the Netherlands (den Brok et al., 2017). This alarming phenomenon has severe implications for all stakeholders involved. Beginning teachers may feel personal failure, while students are exposed less-than-adequate teaching. Schools’ work and social cohesion is disrupted, and public resources invested in preparing those teachers are wasted (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019; Clandinin et al., 2015).

To support beginning teachers and prevent attrition, diverse induction programmes were devised (Darling-Hammond, 2017; Reevs et al., 2022). These often include reduced workload, mentorship, assistance from colleagues, academic workshops, and more. However, many of these programme yield inconsistent outcomes (See et al., 2020). Some of the factors that impede the effectiveness of induction programmes are school climate that is not attuned to beginning teachers’ needs (Zavelevsky & Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2020), principals and mentor teachers that are not fully aware of their roles (Schwabsky et al., 2019; Symeonidis et al., 2023), and academic studies for first-year teachers that are not fully coordinated with their pre-service studies (Symeonidis et al., 2023). To overcome some of these shortcomings, this study evaluated a novel project that aimed to provide integrative and coordinated support to first-year teachers, and increase stakeholders’ awareness of their responsibilities to support them.

The study context

This study took place in Israel where each first-year teachers are obligated to participate in an academic workshop and have a mentor teacher from their school, who is appointed by the school principal. School principals are also responsible for devising their school's induction programme, which provides beginning teachers with professional, social-emotional and administrative support. Nonetheless, the attrition rate of beginning teachers’ in Israel is high: Only 70% of teacher education graduates start teaching, and an additional 20%-30% leave the profession during the first three years of their work (Weissblei, 2023).

The “Hand in Hand” project was devised by the Ministry of Education to provide an additional safety net for first-year teachers, by ensuring that they receive the mandated support from their mentor teachers, principals and academic institutions, and by coordinating the work of these stakeholders. As a new approach, “Hand in Hand” counselors’ work and its effects on first-year teachers have not been examined. This study set out to examine the “Hand in Hand” project from two complementary perspectives: the counselors and first-year teachers.

The research questions were:

1. How do the “Hand in Hand” counselors describe their work and their contribution to first-year teachers’ retention?

2. How do first-year teachers perceive the counselors’ work and what influence did this have on their intentions to persevere?

The research used a mixed-methods approach, with a Concurrent design (Sammons & Davis, 2017). Participants: 27 out of the 126 “Hand in Hand” counselors (21%) were interviewed, and 52 (41%) answered a quantitative questionnaire. Four hundred and forty-five first-year teachers (84.3% women) responded to a quantitative survey. Of these, 215 (48.3%) reported they received assistance from the “Hand in Hand” counselors. Research Tools: “Hand in Hand” counselors were interviewed about their work methods and whether they provided added value to first-year teachers beyond the contribution of the mentor teachers and the academic workshops. In the questionnaire, which was based on the interviews, counselors were asked about their perceived roles (such as observing lessons and providing emotional assistance), evaluate their contribution to first-year teachers on a 5-point Lickert-type scale, as well as the extent of their connection with other stakeholders. Finally, they were asked about their demographic and professional background. First-year teachers’ quantitative questionnaire addressed their level of satisfaction with the support they received from different stakeholders (for example, their principal, their mentor teacher) including the “Hand in Hand” counselor on a 5-point Lickert-type scale, the areas in which they utilized “Hand in Hand” counselors, and their intent to persevere in teaching and take on additional roles in school. Data collection: The Ministry of Education provided the researchers with a list of “Hand in Hand” counselors, and some of them were approached for an interview. The Ministry also distributed the quantitative questionnaire to the “Hand in Hand” counselors. The coordinators of teaching entry units at the teacher education institutions distributed the questionnaires among first-year teachers who participated in the academic workshops. Ethical considerations: The authors of this study work for a non-profit research institution and do not have any relationships with the Ministry of Education, or the participants. All of the questionnaires were anonymous and interviewees’ identity was disguised. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics committee. Data analysis: The interviewees' responses underwent content analysis according to Kuckartz’s (2014) analysis method. Survey findings were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and Χ2 and t-tests for group comparisons.

The counselors reported they visited graduating students at their academic institutions before the school year began, shared information about the year ahead and promised to help them when needed. During the school year, they were responsible for a large number of first-year teachers (M=117.5, SD=97.05), and dedicated most of their time to problem-solving: "Throughout the year, I received inquiries from first-year teachers. That means they weren’t getting enough support” (Counselor 11). The counselors also handled administrative aspects such as salary issues that less familiar to principals and mentors. The counselors claimed they provided a high level of support for first-year teachers (Mean=3.71, SD=0.75) and principals (Mean=3.71, SD=0.87). They advised principals on how to devise induction programmes for first-year teachers: "We could see which schools... have many first-year teachers... Is a principal in their first or second year... red-flagged schools... we were needed more there" (Counselor 21). In addition, the counselors reported a moderate level of contact with mentor teachers (Mean=3.04, SD=0.77), supervisors (Mean=3.06, SD=1.31), and academic institutions (Mean=3.08, SD=0.92). First-year teachers reported a low level of support from the “Hand in Hand” counselors (M=2.41, SD= 1.39). However, those who received any level of support from the “Hand in Hand” counselors were more satisfied with the overall support they received during their induction-year compared to other first-year teachers (M= 4.04 versus 3.65, t(443)=4.10, p<.001). They also reported a higher intent to persevere in teaching (83.7% versus 73.5%, Χ2(1)=6.89, p<.01) and expressed a greater interest in roles beyond teaching (M= 4.21 versus 3.97, t(443)=1.99, p<.05). The effects of “Hand in Hand” counselors’ work point to the beneficial potential of a systemic-ecological approach to the induction and retention of beginning teachers (Symeonidis et al., 2023; Zavelevsky & Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2020), that builds on collaboration among stakeholders and integration of their separate contributions.

den Brok, P., Wubbels, T., & Van Tartwijk, J. (2017). Exploring beginning teachers’ attrition in the Netherlands. Teachers and teaching, 23(8), 881-895. Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(36). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3699 Clandinin, D. J., Long, J., Schaefer, L., Downey, C. A., Steeves, P., Pinnegar, E., McKenzie Robbleea, S., & Wnuk, S. (2015). Early career teacher attrition: Intentions of teachers beginning. Teaching education, 26(1), 1-16. Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher education around the world: What can we learn about international practice? European Journal of Teaching Education, 40(3), 291-309. Dupriez, V., Delvaux, B., & Lothaire, S. (2016). Teacher shortage and attrition: Why do they leave?. British Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 21-39. Goldhaber, D., & Theobald, R. (2022). Teacher attrition and mobility over time. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 235–237. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative text analysis: A counselor to methods, practice & using software. (K. Metzler, Ed., A. McWhertor, Trans.) Los Angeles: Sage. (Original work published 2002) Lindqvist, P., & Nordanger, U. K. (2016). Already elsewhere: A study of (skilled) teachers' choice to leave teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, 88-97. OECD. (2021). Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Reeves, T.D., Hamilton, V., & Onder, Y. (2022). Which teacher induction practices work? Linking forms of induction to teacher practices, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education 109. doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103546. Sammons, P. & Davis, S. (2017). “Mix methods approaches and their application in educational research.” In D. Wyse, N. Selwyn, E. Smooth & L.E. Suter (Eds.). The BERA/SAGE Handbook of Educational Research (pp. 477-504). London: Sage. Schwabsky, N., Goldenberg, J., & Oppenheimer, O. S. (2019). Principals’ and mentors’ shared responsibilities in induction of beginning teachers. Roczniki Pedagogiczne, 11(3), 5-26. See, B. H., Morris, R., Gorard, S., Kokotsaki, D., & Abdi, S. (2020). Teacher recruitment and retention: A critical review of international evidence of most promising interventions. Education Sciences, 10(10), 262. Symeonidis, V., Haas, E., & Schneider, K. (2023). Personal, social and professional support for newly qualified teachers: Teacher induction in Austria. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103916. Weissblei, E. (2023). The teacher shortage: A review. Jerusalem: The Knesset’s Research and Information Center. [In Hebrew] Zavelevsky, E., & Shapira-Lishchinsky, O. (2020). An ecological perspective of teacher retention: An emergent model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102965