Expert services in teacher mentoring & coaching that target your needs. 

Using a Mentor Selection Process With Staged Criteria and Safety Checks

©2008, by Barry Sweeny

The use of an "inclusive" approach to selection and matching of mentors and proteges has been advocated elsewhere on another web page on this site. That same page suggested the use of the earliest of "Staged Criteria and Safety Checks" to make such an inclusive process work effectively. Here is an example of such criteria and steps.

1. Integrate selection & matching as ONE process.
2. Set criteria in several stages, not just at one“do or die” point in the process. In other words have criteria which function as "safety checks" for:
   • Application to be a mentor (the “threshold”)
   • To attend the initial mentor training
   • To enter the mentor “pool” & be called “Mentor”
   • To be matched with a protege
   • To remain matched with the protege
   • To work a 2nd year with the same protege
3. Focus criteria on what’s needed to succeed as a mentor
4. Identify BOTH “self” and “program” responsibilities for making decisions about if selection criteria are met.
   • SELF-SELECTION:
     • What’s needed for success at each stage is clearly defined.
     • Candidates are counseled & guided through self- assessment of their strengths compared to the criteria at each stage.
     • Clarify what it means to move to the next stage and the strengths mentors need at the next stage.
     • “Ask” if the candidate feels they can succeed at the next stage.
     • Make decisions a matter of timing, so that a “No” allows for future involvement. (eg. "If you're uncomfortable doing this, maybe now isn’t the right time to be a mentor."
   • PROGRAM SELECTION:
     • The principal has unique information and deserves an input opportunity
     • The Mentor Trainer/Coordinator/Committee has unique information about the mentor & should have input too.
     • Use language which honors each candidate and protege & which does not suggest that a person has made mistakes or is not “good enough”, such as:
       • “Your strengths are not what this novice needs"
     • When dealing with a mismatch, the PROGRAM should assume as much of the fault as possible, such as by saying:
       • “We had inadequate information when we had to do the initial match back in July. Now we know better what is needed.”
       • “It’s not fair to mentors to match them to novices who do not need what the mentor has to offer.

An EXAMPLE of a Selection & Matching Process With Staged Criteria and Safety Checks