As with research question two, it was difficult to identify existing mentoring models as none of the providers had a specific model of mentoring in place. However, some were accessing (or about to access) mentoring on offer from other organisations as part of the ITT courses and others described how they were supporting staff. It is these two elements that I will consider in this
section; external mentoring models being used and in-house mentoring activity which had not been formalised into a mentoring system.
The one concrete example of a mentoring model in use was that described by F5. A member of her team had attended a PTLLS course with a FE college and the experience had been a negative one because the mentor had been “imposed” and there was a:
“…mismatch between the mentor’s expectations and the organisational ethos and expectations.” (P4/L5)
F5 explained that, as the organisation was a women’s centre (therefore, women-only space) the mentor had to be a woman. The FE college provided a male mentor and informed the organisation that it was their problem. This is a very crude example of mentors needing to be ‘like’ their mentees as examined by Smith et al (2005). F5 went on to say that there was also a mismatch based on perceptions of what the mentor’s role was because:
“…the mentor could see themselves as absolutely supporting the student in order to get the qualification…” but “…this person is delivering in our context in a particular way.” (P5/L3)
This highlights a tension between the aims of the external mentor (to ensure the mentee achieves the qualification by producing appropriate academic evidence) and the needs of the organisation (to deliver in a way which is appropriate to the learners). Using an external mentor provided by the FE teacher-training provider is pragmatic and ensured that a mentor with an understanding of the ITT requirements was available. However, it did not
necessarily meet the needs of the mentee or the organisation. As Cox (2003:1) citing Harris (1995) notes,
Invariably in the coaching and mentoring area it is the relationship which is emphasised, whilst the contexts, which impact on the relationship and within which the relationship exists, are downplayed. This observation reflects the experience of F5 and highlights the importance of the context in which mentoring relationships operate. Without an awareness of the impact of the context, it is unlikely that mentoring activity will be effective as it will not meet the needs of all the stakeholders.
One other organisation, represented by A1, had staff who were already engaged in PTLLS courses. Rather than using a mentor from the FE college, the line manager was providing support. This manager was not a qualified teacher, did not know the requirements of the ITT awards and did not have a mentoring background. She acknowledged that she did not hold a teaching qualification and felt she did not have the skills required of a mentor ((P12/L13). Although she had undertaken the role of mentoring staff on the PTLLS course because she felt it was her responsibility, she did not make any claims to be an ITT mentor. Rather she said that:
“…it’s almost like a bit of counselling, isn’t it? You would sit…would talk through what are the issues. Why are you finding it difficult? Can I help you in any way – if it was a member of staff. Can I give you a bit more time? You know, do you need an afternoon off?” (P7/L7)
The description here is about a supportive line-management approach, using listening skills associated with counselling. This does not constitute a formal
mentoring model but does have elements that provide a practical problem- solving mechanism from the point of view of both the mentee and the organisation. It also shows that A1 is working reflectively, examining how she is interacting with a mentee and the skills in use. Again, this is a pragmatic approach which meets the needs of the organisation but is unlikely to satisfy formal ITT requirements. This does, however, support the assertions of writers such as Maynard and Furlong (1993), Hankey (2004) and Cunningham (2005) that reflective practice is an intrinsic part of mentoring. It also supports the theories of Dreyfuss and Dreyfuss (1986) and Cunningham (2005) who see mentors as role models because a mentor who behaves reflectively is more likely to encourage a mentee to work in this way.
From the limited descriptions of these two models, it seems that the current situation is one of inadequate pragmatism. Using an external mentor does not meet the needs of the organisation and using an in-house mentor does not meet the ITT requirements. Rather than addressing the issue systematically, the organisations have had to use an external mentor as they did not have someone suitably qualified or they have fallen back on informal mentoring to support the mentee to get through the course. Neither of these provides a developmental mentoring model.
The next section examines how the specificity of the VCS, the definitional issues and the lack of existing models influence decisions about future mentoring.