A Study of K-12 Mentoring Programs and the Problems That They
Encountered During their First-Year
A research report by Gary M. Kilburg,
Director of the Mentoring Institute at George Fox University
Originally presented at AERA's Chicago conference in 2004
Posted Feb. 10, 2005
Abstract
This article examines the types of reoccurring problems that can inhibit K-12 mentoring
team relationships and intervention strategies to remedy those problems. The study
examines 149 mentoring teams in four school districts over a two-year period. Data
collection was coordinated by the principal researcher who was also the trainer for
the four school districtís mentoring programs. Each year of the study, the
survey and interview process were repeated. From the analysis of data the researchers
identified a common set of reoccurring problems during both years. Intervention strategies
were then identified, introduced and assessed. Results indicate
the need for continuous assessment of mentoring programs and mentoring team relationships,
financial commitment from the school district, a rigorous mentor selection process,
and providing in-service and workshop opportunities for problem solving.
A Study of K-12 Mentoring Programs and
the Problems that they Encountered during their First-Year
Successful mentoring benefits all stakeholders. For school administrators, mentoring aids recruitment and retention; for higher education institutions, it helps to ensure a smooth transition from campus to classroom; for teacher associations, it represents a new way to service members and guarantee instructional quality; for teachers, it can represent the difference between success and failure; and for parents and students, it means better teaching (National Foundation for the Improvement of Education, 2000, p. 4).
Eloise and Samantha met for the first time the day before in-service. They took
the opportunity to talk ahead of time knowing that in-service day was already filled
with meetings. They spent time discussing the students, the culture of the school,
the administration and school board, classroom management issues, and a variety of
other topics that were on Eloiseís mind. That first day seemed quite promising.
Over the next month Samantha and Eloise found it difficult to find a time to meet.
The problem was exacerbated by the fact that Eloise was in an elementary school that
was about a mile away from Samanthaís school. Complicating the matter even
further was the amount of normal preparation that was required of both teachers just
to begin the school year, as well as taking on their new roles and responsibilities
as mentor and mentee. This was a time when Eloise needed information and direction
from Samantha, but it was not occurring on a regular basis because of distance, lack
of time, and both womenís daily duties. Although email was a resource for
communicating, the server was not always available, which further compounded the
issue of distance and time. Both Eloise and Samantha would have liked release time
for observations. Unfortunately, that was not possible. The district had only a small
grant that paid for a few mentoring activities, and release time was not included
as a part of the mentoring program. What had initially seemed promising was not being
given a chance to develop and succeed.
At the close of the school year, Samantha and Eloise reflected on their experience. They characterized their relationship as supportive, even with the limitations that existed. Samantha was not pleased with her lack of being able to support Eloise, although Eloise did not blame her for that. Both were disappointed and frustrated because they had not been able to meet on a regular basis. They also felt that it was not helpful for the school district to have placed a first grade teacher with a mentor who had no experience teaching at that grade level. In the end, the two teachers were supportive of the mentoring program, but recommended some revisions that would be helpful to future mentoring teams.
The story of Samantha and Eloise is illustrative of the experience that results
in many new teachers and their mentors becoming discouraged by the results of mentoring
falling short of what was anticipated. Regardless of the benefits that formal mentoring
programs might provide, it is unfortunate that those programs often fall prey to
a variety of problems that can inhibit the effectiveness and success of the mentoring
relationship.
The researcher recognizes that a majority of mentoring relationships are effective
and successful. This was the case in the school districts that this study reports
on. The concern is that regardless of all that a school or school district might
do in preparing their new teachers and mentors to have a successful mentoring experience,
mentoring practices may still fall short of the ideal. Addressing such failures is
the subject of this research study.
Research Questions
The research questions that are addressed in this study include:
Literature Review
For many new teachers, the transition from their student teaching experience
to their first teaching assignment can be traumatic. The same can be true for mentors
as well. Part of the transition for the new teacher and mentor is dealing with the
responsibilities of a new job (mentoring) along with the other responsibilities they
have. Trying to acculturate and integrate over time all of the changes, the complexities
and the realities of teaching and mentoring, along with dealing with the problems
that are typically encountered in this new environment can be an overwhelming experience
for some (Corley, 1998;Veeman, 1984).
Although there is no single mentoring program design that meets the needs of every school district in every situation, there is, however, a broad consensus regarding the factors that can negatively impact the mentoring program and mentoring team relationships. The following is a discussion of some of those factors.
Methodology
This was a qualitative study investigating the interactions and relationships
between mentors and new teachers in four school districts with mentoring programs.
Multiple data collection techniques were used
Gathering data from fieldwork, that is, spending time in the setting where participants
normally spend their time (Yin, 1994,1998);
Providing first hand accounts that contribute to the depth of the study (Yin, 1994,1998);
and
Using survey and interview data to establish a chain of evidence (Gay & Airasian,
2000; Yin, 1994, 1998).
Demographics
Data were collected over a two-year period from 149 mentoring teams in four
school districts. During the first year of the study, there were mentoring teams
in two school districts that were participating in mentoring programs. One school
district was from a large metropolitan area and the second school district was from
a small rural community. During the second year of the study, data were collected
from 105 mentoring teams that were being trained in four school districts, two from
a large metropolitan area and two from small rural communities. Two of the four school
districts had participated in the study during the first year. The school districts
ranged in size from over 1,000 teachers with over 17,000 students to 45 teachers
with 720 students. There were a total of 257 mentoring teams in all four school districts.
Data Collection
The data collection was coordinated by the principal researcher who designed
the school districts mentoring programs and was also the trainer for the four school
districtsí programs. Each year of the study, the survey and interview processes
were repeated--each district had new teachers entering the mentoring process each
year. During both iterations of the study four stages were used to collect data.
The data reduction for the second year occurred one year after the first. Thus, there
was no conscious attempt by the researcher to replicate the commonly occurring problems.
(1) The first stage was to ask the participants to assess the mentoring program at
the beginning of each of four workshops for the mentors and new teachers: in October,
February, April, and June. Surveys given to each participant included open-ended
questions regarding problems that mentoring teams were encountering on a regular
basis. During the last half of each workshop participants discussed their comments
on the survey and the researcher recorded responses. The same survey and discussion
protocol were used the second year of the study with new mentors and new teachers.
The assessment process was part of an ongoing evaluation of the mentoring program
and mentoring team relationship. There was no intent by the researcher to prompt
the participants to answer in any specific way
(2) In step two, common problems were identified in the surveys by the researchers.
Surveys were read one at a time and problems were recorded. Another trainer was consulted
regarding the problems identified. The discussions regarding the surveys were analyzed
by reflecting on the survey data, reducing the data to a manageable form, which then
allowed the researchers to compile a list of categories which identified problems
the mentoring teams were encountering.
(3) The third step was for identifying reoccurring problems that mentoring teams
were encountering from the list of problems identified in step two. Mentoring team
members that had identified reoccurring problems in the surveys were interviewed
in small groups and individual settings over the school year. The objective was to
collect data through in depth interviews that would provide a clear picture of the
negative impact of those reoccurring problems on the mentoring team relationship.
The interviewer took field notes that provided more detail to the survey data and
then transcribed them immediately following each session. Typically, the interviews
were conducted as a part of the four workshops that mentoring team members participated
in during the school year. The time given for each group interview was typically
30 minutes on the average. On the average, between 10 and 14 mentoring team members
were interviewed in an individual setting in one of the school district buildings.
Those individual interviews averaged 50 minutes in length. The interviews were conducted
to discuss the problems mentoring teams were encountering on a regular basis and
to help the researcher form a clearer picture of the collateral damage that was occurring
for both mentoring team members. From the data gathered in the first three stages,
the researcher applied a standard of selection to determine which reoccurring problems
would be addressed through the implementation of intervention procedures. The standard
of selection included the following: the problem had to occur on a regular basis
for at least four months and for at least 50% of mentoring teams that had reoccurring
problems.
(4) In stage four, strategies were selected after the researcher and trainer met
with the mentoring coordinator in the school districtís main office. The responsibility
of the researcher was to provide data regarding the reoccurring problem/s and then
assist the mentoring coordinator in deciding on an intervention strategy to implement.
After the intervention strategy had been implemented, the mentoring team members
met with the mentoring coordinator and/or the trainer in both individual and large
group settings for the purpose of determining the effectiveness of the intervention
procedures.
Results
In responding to the first two research questions on the types of problems
mentoring teams encountered and the types of problems that mentoring teams encountered
on regular basis, the data indicated the following:
The First Year
The first year of the study the average return rate for all four surveys was 94%.
Of the 44 mentoring teams, 75% (33) said that they had no problems and were satisfied
that the mentoring experience had been very helpful. The remaining 11 of the 44 mentoring
teams identified a variety of problems in their mentoring relationships.
Common Problems
Reoccurring Problems
An interesting finding was that mentoring teams that had a problem on a recurring
basis also had several other problems on a regular basis. This indicated that one
problem manifested another. Time was typically the common factor in all reoccurring
problems.
Year Two
The average return rate for all four surveys in the second year of the study was
96%. Seventy-eight of the 105 teams surveyed were from two new school districts that
had not been a part of the first year of the study. Of those 78, 17 teams indicated
that they were having occasional problems in their mentoring relationships. From
the two districts that had participated in the first year of the study, seven of
the 27 new mentoring teams indicated problems.
Common Problems
The following are the problems identified by the mentoring teams from the four school
districts:
Reoccurring Problems
Of the 17 mentoring teams interviewed, ten said they were encountering problems on
a regular basis. The two school districts that participated in the first and second
year of the study found that three of the seven mentoring teams were also encountering
problems on a regular basis.
The following problems were identified as occurring on a regular basis:
It is noteworthy that the reoccurring problems were essentially the same the first
and second year of the study. As we have considered whether or not this finding of
consistency could be an artifact of our scoring we could not identify a confounding
or biasing factor.
Effectiveness of the Intervention
Procedures from a Trainer and Mentoring Coordinator Perspective
Lack of time
The lack of time was by far the most difficult issue to deal with for the majority
of mentoring teams. In almost every case, budget constraints prevented release time
necessary for mentors and new teachers to observe one another.
To address this problem of lack of time, the trainers asked the principals and mentoring coordinators to take a more proactive role in assisting, mentors and new teachers by providing them with observation time. That was done on a volunteer basis. That is, when mentoring team members wanted to observe one another, they requested release time for one of the team members, and the administrator or mentoring coordinator would then volunteer, if available, to substitute for one of the team members. This process was very helpful to mentoring team members. However, not all administrators had time that they could commit to substituting. That was especially true in buildings where there were two or more mentoring teams.
Having time to meet was especially difficult when each team member was in a different
building. The intervention strategies employed in these cases involved the use of
email on a daily or weekly basis and the use of the telephone and meeting off campus
on the weekend or in the evening, when possible. This option provided some relief,
but it was not the same as meeting face-to-face in the classrooms. There were at
least two mentoring teams that would meet outside of school hours at their homes
or at a local coffee shop on Saturdays or in the evenings.
Not in the same building, grade level or specialty
Not being matched according to building, grade level, or specialty area was another
reoccurring array of problems that was reported to have hindered the mentoring relationship.
In these cases, it was decided that the principal and mentoring coordinator would
coordinate their efforts in rectifying each situation according to its unique need.
In several cases the interventions seemed to rectify the concerns. New teachers not in the same school as their mentor were provided with an additional mentor in their building. The purpose was to provide an additional resource guide within the school, along with the primary mentor. The role and responsibility of that new mentor was to assist the new teacher in adjusting to the culture of the school, providing information regarding the politics, policies and procedures of the school, as well as acting as a resource guide at grade level and in the subject area. Being a resource guide did not necessarily mean that the new mentor was at the same grade level or teaching the same subject. However, many times it meant that they simply referred them to another teacher within the building. None of the new mentors received any financial compensation for their work.
At least three new teachers whose mentors were not in their buildings had already sought out other informal mentors within the first few weeks of their teaching experiences and had somewhat resolved their own dilemmas.
Probably the most difficult area to fill was the specialty area. Because of budget constraints, a number of specialist positions had been eliminated in previous years. When a new specialist was hired, he or she had no resources person to work with in his or her area of expertise in many cases. Typically, the method for resolving this problem was to place the new specialist with a veteran specialist not necessarily in the same area. This intervention strategy was not very successful in providing the needed guidance and support for the specialist and left a few of the new specialists frustrated.
It is also important to note that part of the frustration for many of the new
specialists, as well as for the veteran specialists, was the reduction of specialists
in the school districts due to budget constraints and the impact that had when specialistsí
caseloads of students increased significantly. Because time was such an important
factor in the daily routine, it became even more important with the larger student
population they had to serve. When specialists added their mentoring responsibilities
to the list of the students they were serving, the responsibilities at times seemed
to be overwhelming.
Poor match between the mentor and the new teacher
Typically, a poor match indicated several elements: a personality conflict, a philosophical
difference, a lack of emotional support, or the mentoring team members were not at
the same grade level. Several of these problems are addressed separately below, but
several general comments are in order here.
When a poor match was identified, several intervention strategies were introduced: 1. The mentoring coordinator taking a more proactive approach in mediating the area of concern between mentor and new teacher; 2. The trainer spending more time problem solving in workshops during the school year and spending more time at the beginning of the school year working with mentors on increasing their interpersonal skill levels; 3. Evaluating the matching and mentor selection process so that the school district could determine how the process might be improved and become more rigorous in maintaining quality assurance.
The attention paid to problem solving in workshops during the school year seemed
to provide an emotional support base for both new teachers and mentors. At least
half of every workshop presented included problem solving time, which both mentors
and new teachers seemed to appreciate.
After the intervention strategies were implemented, several of the mentoring teams
reported improvement in their relationships. In these cases, the mentoring coordinators
had played an important role in their problem-solving processes. However, in other
cases the mentoring coordinator was not always informed of problems that were occurring
on a regular basis.
The implementation of a more rigorous mentor selection and matching process was not as successful. The main reason was that the school districts did not feel, at least in the selection process, that they could require the mentors to meet all of the factors that were identified in the literature review. The main reason was that mentors were not offered any compensation for their work and therefore should not have to take on more responsibility in terms of completing applications and going through an interview process.
However, there were several matches between mentor and new teacher that would
not work, despite the best efforts of the mentor, new teacher, and the mentoring
coordinator. In one case a mentoring coordinator replaced a mentor because of the
negative impact he having on the new teacher.
Poor Communication and Coaching Skills
Despite the communication and coaching training that all mentors received in the
initial in-service and subsequent workshops during the school year, certain teams
still encountered problems. For example, a few mentors felt that it was their responsibility
to tell the new teachers how to do their jobs. In these cases, the mentors essentially
did most of the problem solving for the new teachers without asking for their input
and made decisions for the new teachers that the new teachers could have made for
themselves. In those cases, coaching was, in reality, directing.
One of the intervention procedures utilized in the workshops was the use of problem solving time, giving an opportunity for participants to dialogue about an issue or issues that they were confronted with and to discuss possible solutions to managing the problem/s. This seemed to be very helpful to both mentor and new teacher. A great deal of attention was given to addressing the value of coaching versus directing, and to applying those skills in working with the new teacher. Unfortunately, in at least three cases, mentors did not want to adjust their way of communicating with the new teacher. They felt that an authoritarian approach was the best way to help a new teacher. The new teacher felt undervalued and frustrated with the mentorsí approach to providing support, and in one case the mentor was removed because of the problems he was causing.
Building administrators and mentoring coordinators also began to take more time to work with new teachers and mentors in helping them to develop more effective ways of communicating with one another. In some cases it may have been one-on-one and in other cases it may have been working with both team members. In most of the cases this was a successful process. However, there were a few administrators that resisted this intervention because they were concerned they would compromise the mentoring process between mentor and new teacher by becoming involved in helping one or the other. Although they were assured that their support and nurturing were essential, they still felt as though they would be interfering in the mentoring relationship.
In another situation, a mentor was not using the time that he had with the new
teacher in an effective manner. When they would meet, the conversation usually involved
ìbashingî the school board and the administration. The new teacher found
that seeking advice from his mentor was basically a waste of time. After meeting
with the administrator and mentoring coordinator, it was decided that the mentor
would be removed from his position, and another veteran teacher volunteered to take
his place as a mentor for the new teacher.
Need for Emotional Support
Several new teachers felt they were not being given emotional support from their
mentors. Part of the problem stemmed from the mentorsí lack of interpersonal
relationship skills, including poor communication and coaching skills, directly impacting
their ability to provide the support the new teachers needed.
Workshops presented during the school year for both mentoring team members began routinely providing more problem-solving time for them. New teachers and mentors were encouraged to be forthright about issues they were encountering and to seek assistance if they were not able to resolve the support issue in a timely fashion.
Additional assessments were also used to help mentoring coordinators identify and better understand issues that might be impacting mentoring team relationships. The assessments were also used to gather data on the impact of the intervention procedures that were used.
In at least two cases, the mentor thought that they were being too supportive, but found through a discussion with the new teacher that the reverse was true. In one case the new teacher found that they were too intimidated by the mentor to confront them about the lack of emotional support, so the mentoring coordinator intervened on behalf of the new teacher. The problem was resolved.
It was also the case that new teachers who were not in the same building or at the same grade level or in the same specialty as their mentors felt not only a physical (distance) detachment, but also an emotional detachment from their mentors. When the new teachers were provided with an additional mentor, the problem was resolved. The unfortunate result of having a new mentor was that the original mentor spent less time with the new teacher.
It was also determined that more emphasis needed to be placed on educating the
mentor and new teacher about the process of change. Critical to that change process
is understanding transitional shock and the problems that it may cause within the
mentoring relationship. This issue was seen as extremely important to the personal
growth of each team member as well as to the development of the mentoring relationship.
Personality Conflict
Most of the personality conflicts that occurred in this study were really conflicts
that dealt with poor communication, poor coaching, lack of emotional support, and/or
the lack of time spent meeting or observing one another. There were a few occasions
in which both team members disagreed with one another philosophically. In those cases,
the issues were identified as ìnot seeing eye to eye about classroom management,î
ìdisagreement on teaching technique,î and ìlack of planning.î
Normally, these conflicts were really an iteration of the previously identified problems.
The intervention strategy that was normally used was to have the mentoring coordinator
or administrator meet with the participants. In most circumstances, one member of
the mentoring team would complain to the coordinator about an issue. The mentoring
coordinator would then meet with the other team member and finally all three would
meet together to resolve the differences. There were at least two occasions in which
the coordinator met with each team member separately to clarify the problem. At the
conclusion of the meeting the team member that had met with the coordinator, sought
out the other team member and eventually resolved the conflict. For the most part,
almost all of the personality conflicts that the researchers knew about were resolved
through the intervention process described.
Conclusions
As a result of the data collection and analysis, the following conclusions have been
drawn that provide direction not only for the four school districts that participated
in this study, but also for other school districts that have mentoring programs as
well as for school districts that may be interested in developing mentoring programs.
Time
The data indicates that the single most important factor that caused repeated problems
for mentoring teams was the lack of time. If mentoring teams are not given sufficient
time to carry out the mentoring conversations that are so important to developing
relationships, the mentoring experience may be seen as nothing more than a token
gesture (Ganser et al. 1998; Guyton & McIntyre, 1990;).
School districts need to commit in advance to providing the release time needed
for mentors and new teachers to observe, attend workshops and carry out their mentoring
conversations (Arends, 1998; Klug & Salzman, 1999; Tauer, 1998). If financial
concerns are an issue, the districts need to be creative on behalf of the mentoring
team members. That creativity may come in the form of seeking out retired teachers
with exemplary teaching records who are willing to volunteer as mentors. It may also
come in the form of release time provided by the mentoring coordinator or an administrator
who is willing to substitute for one of the mentoring team participants.
Not in the Same School, Grade and Subject
When possible, mentors and new teachers need to be placed in the same building, the
same specialty, at the same grade level and in the same subject. When that is not
possible, then creativity needs to become part of the matching process. If, for example
a mentor is not in the same building, but is the only one available for the new teacher,
the district needs to seek out another veteran teacher that is willing to become
a mentor in that school for the new teacher. It may also be the case that the new
teacher is asked to seek out another teacher in the same building, to mentor him
or her regarding the culture and politics of that particular school (Brock &
Grady, 1998; Ganser, 1995; Huling-Austin, 1992; Kilburg, 2002).
The goal is to provide the necessary resources to assist new teachers in becoming
more informed about the students and subject(s) they will be teaching, the schools
they will be working in, and their own practices. In the final analysis, the support
provided by the school district through the mentoring program should help the new
teacher become more successful and effective in his or her teaching and professional
development.
Selecting and Matching
It is important that school districts develop a rigorous standard of selection for
mentors. That is, more should be required than the veteran teacher volunteering for
the position. The standard of selection should not only address the factors identified
in the review of literature, but should also include the mentorís willingness
to work with a new teacher, his effectiveness as a peer coach, patience in working
with other adults, the ability to understand and work with change, and the effective
use of interpersonal relationship skills (Brock & Grady, 1998; DePaul, 1998,
2000; Ganser, 1995; Huling-Austin, 1992)
Poor Communication and Coaching
It is important to recognize that not all veteran teachers who want to become mentors
are effective communicators. Planning committees and mentoring program coordinators
should be alert to the practices of those teachers who want to become mentors. Communication
is such a critical feature in the mentoring process that it requires a mentor to
have good listening skills and coaching skill. When a mentor is not skilled in those
areas, the result may be that the mentor directs, commands, takes away authority,
reduces or eliminates input from the new teacher or simply shuts down and makes a
choice not to collaborate with the new teacher (Boreen, Johnson, Niday & Potts,
2000; Brewster & Railsback, 2001; Kinlaw, 1999; Weeks, 1992). When this happens,
the mentoring process may become nothing more than an act of intimidation and an
example of what mentoring is not about.
Emotional Support
In the beginning stages of the mentoring relationship, it is extremely important
to provide emotional support for the new teacher; to nurture and value the individual.
Research conducted with the four school districts in 2002 by the senior researcher
indicated that 87% of the new teachers believed that having a strong support mechanism
was very important, especially as it relates to their emotional well being (Kilburg,
2002). One of the main reasons that a majority of the mentoring relationships was
effective and successful in this study was because of the emotional support new teachers
received from their mentors. When new teachers did not receive that support, many
fell prey to anxiety, insecurity and a lack of confidence. When mentors were able
to provide the needed support, the new teachers felt encouraged, empowered and were
given direction, even when they faced difficult circumstances in or out of the classroom.
Personality Conflict
Despite the gifts that a mentor and new teacher may bring to the mentoring
relationship, there is no guarantee that personality conflicts will not occur. Again,
that is why the selection and matching process is so critical. Even when those conflicts
occur, it is important that there is a process in place to help team members deal
with the issue they are facing, if it is appropriate. When conflicts occur that require
more resources than mentoring team participants have at their disposal, the mentoring
coordinator needs to have in place a process that provides those services that not
only encourage resolution, but also encourages growth in the mentoring team participants
(Weeks, 1992).
Change
Although the problem of change was not necessarily seen as a major issue by mentoring
team participants in this study, the researchers saw change as a potential impediment
to the mentoring process, and in several cases, to the mentoring relationship. Mentoring
programs need to prepare their mentors and new teachers for the changes and transitions
that might be encountered, not only at the professional level, but at the personal
level as well. For some of the mentoring teams in this study, it seemed that change
was the destabilizing force that caused frustration and anxiety. Mentoring planning
committees and mentoring coordinators need to recognize that although change is planned
for, it is not always anticipated, nor appreciated. As Fullan reminds us, ìChange
is everywhere, progress is notî (Fullan, 1991, pg. 345). The knowledge that
some mentoring team members might encounter problems should help those who are planning
and coordinating mentoring programs develop strategies that will address the issue
of change and provide a more realistic expectation of potential problems.
This study is a call to school districts, planning committees, and mentoring program
coordinators to continually be aware of the needs of mentoring team participants
and to regularly assess the mentoring team relationships. It is also a call to school
districts to provide the necessary resources, including adequate funding, for the
purpose of preserving the integrity of the mentoring program and quality of the mentoring
relationships. This will positively impact the entire educational endeavor, which
is what we are all about.
All information on this web page is copyright protected under USA and international laws, © 2003, by the International Mentoring Association, http://www.mentoring-association.org
However, you MAY copy this page, but only under the following conditions:
Home page - General Info - Nonmember Resources - Member Resources - Annual Conference - Membership - Goals - Board