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

"What Really is a 'Trained' Mentor?"

A Discussion of Training & On-Going Support for Mentors

The Letter That Brought the Question

Hi Barry,

We recently had our first New Staff Orientation and it went very well. We followed the advice you gave in the materials we bought on your web site. Now, I have many questions but one that is more important than any other. I was hoping you would be able to send me an answer to it soon. Thank you for your time and commitment to development of excellent novice teachers.

The state DOE is providing Mentor Training Institutes across the state. They are three days with two follow-up meetings during the school year. Last year 14 of our district teachers were trained, they were each assigned to a mentee, they kept a log of their meetings, they attended monthly support meetings and after the two follow-up meetings were considered to be "trained mentors". They were NOT paid for the work they did because it was considered part of their training. This year they were able to apply for the $1000 stipend that was available to "trained mentors".

This past summer 5 more teachers at our high school attended a training institute for three days and they should attend two follow-up meetings during the school year. When it was time to match them up with a mentee, they refused when they found out they would not be eligible for the stipend until they completed the year-long "training".

My question...do you think this year of unpaid "training" is an unreasonable request? I have never actually seen a definition of what a 'fully trained mentor' should be like. The school district feels that the training process should include working with the mentee, the time log, support meetings, etc.

Your response would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, M. Sargent

• If they did not know ahead of time, they should have. No one likes surprises. If this is the case, check out the early info your program provides to mentor candidates and redesign it. In fact, you want to give a full and clear idea of what's involved in being a mentor and what's not involved to all mentor candidates precisely because you want to weed out very early, those who get into mentoring for the wrong reasons or who should not become mentors. They will self-select out if they don't want to do what is needed. That way you don't have to stand in their way of becoming mentors.
• Of course many programs keep some mentor expectations a secret until later after the initial training, hoping not to scare away potential mentors. Districts may do this because they need a lot of mentors to serve all the new teachers they are employing. My advice is "Be careful you don't want mentoring in the worst way, as you may get it that way". Unclear expectations often lead to mentors who do not meet expectations.
• Clearly, with all five of the new mentors refusing to serve, they are communicating with each other and they have a strategy at work there, although not necessarily to sabotage the program. Usually, when there is a problem, some put their foot down, some argue but then give in, and some do what's asked anyway, even though they may not like it. That all five have refused suggests there are underlying problems and mistrust within the school district itself, probably extending way beyond mentoring. In that case, mentoring is just the current "hostage".
• If teachers are not treated professionally, some times they do not respond very professionally. One area to check, if you got my materials on program development, is the one pager on incentives, support and recognition. Look specifically at the "rules of thumb" I recommend for the mix of these three issues. The lack of a balance in these three areas may been some of your problem.

Even when there is mistrust, the mentoring program can succeed, IF it is framed and openly marketed, discussed, and conducted as an effort to create an alternative culture to the prevailing one of mistrust and suspicion. That of course, requires higher level administrative understanding that changes are needed, so openly confronting the problems can occur.

The term "trained mentor" can mean many things. Some good, some not so good. For example, it can suggest someone who "knows it all" and is as good as one can get. Such an idea should be avoided however. The term "trained mentor" gets entangled with red flags and negative implications because, in part, staff development has for so long been only "training", and no follow up support, etc, has been provided, such as your state's approach attempts to do.

Perhaps the term should not be used as the threshold for entering service as a mentor. For example, allowing for some safe guards in an inclusive approach (see later on), I always advocate that persons who complete an INITIAL mentor training, be identified as "mentors" even if they are not assigned to work with a protege. There are several great reasons to do so, which I can detail if you'd like to know them.

I think you should:

1. Stick to your definition of a "trained mentor" but clarify expectations earlier, clarify why the definition is used, such as "workshops don't cause much change unless there is follow up support for implementation". That is not just the message of how trained mentors are created, it is also how the trained mentors MUST THEMSELVES WORK. (That is, mentors must support new teachers' implementation of the best practices they learn in training, so the mentors must MODEL best practices too.) It makes no sense to not "walk the talk".

2. Consider paying LOCALLY for the early three days of workshops, follow up meetings, and mentoring time spent "as training", even if the state approach does not. Here's why.

Waiting to pay the mentor stipends until the second year when the mentors are "trained" tastes of a somewhat "exclusive" approach to ensuring that mentors are the very best people possible. (You have to prove yourself worthy first.) I certainly understand that desire, however, I have years of experience that has taught me this approach is to be avoided at all costs. It creates divisions (as you are seeing) and does not create the collaborative, trusting environment for professional growth we need in schools. Essentially that approach says that "some mentor candidates are not good enough". Certainly, a more "inclusive approach" requires some safe guards, for not every one should become a mentor. Again, if you got my program development materials, look in the mentor selection section for advice about what I am saying here. First of all, I would hope to only say that any experienced teacher should not become a mentor in a very few cases and as infrequently as possible because:

• It does not align with our stated desire and beliefs that all teachers need to improve and be continually learning, so as to better impact student learning. You can not have mentoring by only "the best" because it is inconsistent with the other professional growth programs' fundamental beliefs.
• It does not honor that every teacher is literally doing the best they can (I believe that). Even a total "burn out" by definition can't have burned out UNLESS they were ONCE ON FIRE. If people are not performing at the levels we expect or new teachers need, then there are legitimate systemic reasons why not and obstacles which must be addressed. Dealing with the results of those issues is a supervisory problem, NOT a mentoring problem.
• It ignores that 1/2 of the power of mentoring is the growth that occurs in the mentor. Clear evidence shows that this part of the equation is very significant and to be desired for all experienced teachers who can meet basic criteria for mentoring.
• In fact, it may be likely that the year of "training" your state seeks for mentors beyond their initial training event, is NOT really "training" at all. Do the two mentor meetings and monthly support groups they attend constitute additional "training" such as in a workshop in which skill development and coaching activities take place? These meetings are more likely for follow up support and discussion of problems, and perhaps, some monitoring and supervision of some kind.
• If your mentoring program targets a high impact (as my materials assert) on teaching and student learning, then a one year experience as a mentor is NOT ENOUGH to assure that your "trained mentors" are done with their training and ready to serve that purpose (high impact). Such sophisticated mentoring may take 2-3 years to attain. Also, I would never say the mentor is done learning, as the policy suggests.

This is especially true if there is not substantial "Mentoring of Mentors" (or MoM, as I call it). Few if any of your mentors are likely to have ever personally experienced receiving the kind of mentoring I am asserting is needed for a high impact on teaching and student learning. Further, if they have never experienced it themselves, how can they possibly provide it to others? They simply can not! That is why they need to BE mentored by a MOM as a part of their training (if possible) and that MOM experience must accomplish several specific things (not explained here). Then, you can expect to stand back and expect the transformation of teaching and increase in student learning.

Done well, including powerful mentor training and follow up support, mentoring can gradually but significantly change a district. That transformation will be accelerated and its impact increased if it is coordinated with the other improvement initiatives in that district.

If you need help doing any of this, we should talk, at least on the phone if not face-to-face. I have provided high impact mentoring and training for Mentors of Mentors to thousands of mentors all over the country and know what it takes. Further, the problems I infer from your comments, are likely just the surface and addressing them may be critical to your district, not just your mentor program. I urge you to let me help in specific ways, at least by giving me more specific questions to address.

Best regards,

Barry Sweeny, President

Best Practice Resources, Inc.