The induction year is the most formative period in a teacher’s career. It is important to provide a strong foundation or professional base at this time of greatest receptiveness and willingness to learn and develop. Yet, across the world, the first year as a teacher is seen as very difficult. As Darling-Hammond et al (1999, p. 96) note, whereas in other professions novices continue to ‘hone their knowledge and skills under the watchful eyes of more knowledgeable and experienced practitioners … [t]he normative conditions of teaching are far from this Utopian model’. Research chronicles the high wastage rates of new teachers (Townsend and Bates, 2007). In the USA, for example, approximately 30 per cent of those who enter the profession leave within three years, and up to 50 per cent leave within five years (Ingersoll and Smith, 2004). Researchers have found that teachers in schools serving high-poverty communities have an even greater risk of leaving at the end of their first year (Smith and Ingersoll, 2004) and more advantaged schools have better retention of teachers (Haughtonet al, 2008). This early departure has been attributed to unsupportive schooling conditions (Johnson et al, 2004). Beyond retention, developing the quality of new professionals is paramount. Further, from an educational change perspective, new teachers are the next generation responsible for promoting equitable schooling for those under-served by the current system (Achinstein and Athanases, 2010).

Thus, this paper asks

‘What are the most significant tipping points of newly qualified teachers' first year, that make the difference to their effectiveness and resilience? ’and ‘What aspects of induction (eg mentoring, reduced teaching load, assessment) make most difference?’

It will draw on the conceptualisation of schools as expansive/restrictive learning environments (Fuller et al, 2007) and consider whether the structure of induction helps both the strongest and the weakest new staff to become effective teachers who make a positive impact on their students. As such, this paper will be of international importance in understanding how to support the first year of teaching.

Achinstein, B. and Athanases, S. (2010). 'New Teacher Induction and Mentoring for Educational Change'. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (Eds), Second International Handbook of Educational Change (pp. 573-593). New York: Springer. Bubb, S. (2007). Successful Induction for New Teachers: A Guide for NQTs & Induction Tutors, Coordinators and Mentors. London: Sage. Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B. T., Haselkorn, D. and Fideler, E. (Eds) (1999), Teacher recruitment, selection, and induction: Policy influences on the supply and quality of teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fuller, A., Unwin, L., Felstead, A., Jewson, N. and Kakavelakis, K. (2007). 'Creating and using knowledge: an analysis of the differentiated nature of workplace learning environments'. British Educational Research Journal, 33 (5), 743-759. Haughton, P., Gledhill, J., Hramiak, A., Potts, A. and Drew, S. (2008). NQT Quality Improvement Study for the Training and Development Agency for Schools - Literature Review. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University. Ingersoll, R. and Smith, T. (2004). 'Do Teacher Induction and Mentoring Matter?'. NASSP BULLETIN, 88 (638), 28-40. Johnson, S., Kardos, S., Kauffman, D., Liu, E. and Donaldson, M. (2004). 'The support gap: New teachers' early experiences in high-income and low-income schools'. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12, 61. Kelchtermans, G. and Ballet, K. (2002). 'The micropolitics of teacher induction. A narrative-biographical study on teacher socialisation'. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 (1), 105-120. Killeavy, M. (2006). 'Induction: A collective endeavor of learning, teaching, and leading'. Theory Into Practice, 45 (2), 168-176.