There is a prevailing assumption that it takes no special talents, training, tools, or resources to provide effective mentoring (Gray, Fry, Bottoms, & O’Neill, 2007) Furthermore, the training most often consists of meetings that focus on roles and responsibilities rather than on providing effective experiences for learning, demonstrating and recognizing leadership standards.
Unfortunately, poorly trained or untrained mentors can damage novice administrators (Hall, 2008). Gray et al. (2007) found that only 38% of the mentors in their study indicated that they received training prior to serving as a mentor. Of these trained mentors, 70-89% indicated that the training covered what it means to be a mentor, including a calendar of program events and tasks. Less than half of the trained mentors expressed that their mentor training provided instruction on modeling essential competencies for leading school improvement, establishing rapport and trust, facilitating reflection, promoting adult professional development, or active listening. According to Mitgang (2007), the training of mentors places more focus compliance issues than on developing the relationship and addressing the individual needs and realizing the standards that are needed to support the learning goals.
Clutterbuck (2004) identified the most important aim of the mentor development is to motivate the mentor and assist him or her in seeing how to better contribute to the mentee’s overall professional development. Additionally, Allen and Poteet (1999) noted that the mentor’s viewpoint had often been neglected in the mentoring literature. In terms of the identification, recruitment, selection, and training of potential mentors, Allen and Poteet (1999) suggested that organizations and school entities use a two-step program whereby mentors are selected based on the requisite personal characteristics and then trained to address any skill, experience, ability, or
screening and objectively gauging the degree that potential mentors possess desired characteristics (Allen & Poteet, 1999). Furthermore, Allen and Poteet (1999) proposed that organizations develop mentoring support groups that meet regularly to address issues in which the mentors lack the necessary experience, training, and skills. Similarly, protégés could rotate to different mentors based on the respective mentors’ strengths and skill sets.
Along the same lines, Dukess (2001) stated that successful mentors must possess a solid understanding of the context of the organization, and these mentors need effective training on learning philosophies, relevant curricula, and assessment as well as information about the achievement data, demographics, and community of the mentee’s school. In order for mentor training to be received as being helpful, mentors need to be provided with ongoing, high-quality learning experiences, consistent feedback, and monitoring throughout the relationship.
In order to promote the formation of beneficial, mutual relationships with a protégés, mentors have to be carefully selected and trained (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2006). Likewise, mentors need to be respected by their peers, innovative, and effective in their own practice. Most importantly, mentors must be committed to the ongoing support of aspiring and practicing principals, assuring that quality professionals remain in the leadership field. To challenge new principals in the field, mentors must model professionalism and life-long learning by attending workshops and conferences, pursuing further graduate studies, keeping abreast of current leadership trends through targeted reading exercises, and participating in principal association, district, and state leadership activities. Too often, existing state and district-level programs result in ‘buddy systems’ or check-list exercises that do not do nearly enough to help prepare principals to become knowledgeable and courageous leaders of better teaching and learning in their schools (Mitgang, 2007). In order to provide structure to an otherwise unstructured and primarily
informal process, Daresh (2001) outlined a five-domain mentor preparation model. This model, presented in Table 2.2, can be used to prepare individuals who serve as mentors in programs designed to support principals in any stage of development.
Table 2.2
Daresh’s Five-Domain Mentor Preparation Model
Domain Description
Domain 1:
Orientation to Mentoring
This portion of the model clarifies what mentoring is, identifies the benefits, and explores why mentoring is a worthwhile professional venture. Mentors share personal experience regarding relationships that they have developed in the past that may have represented a fundamentally strong mentoring relationship.
Domain 2:
Instructional Leadership
This part of the mentor training focuses on the outcomes of the mentoring relationship. Instructional leadership and instruction are of primary import, and the focus is on the “sharing of personal visions, values, and philosophies of the mentors and with the administrators (protégés) with whom they are working” (Daresh, 2001, p. 46).
Domain 3:
Human Relations Skills
In this area, mentors gain a greater awareness of human
relationships. “Specifically, some information might be provided concerning adult learning and development and the importance of appreciating alternative behavior styles” (Daresh, 2001, p. 47). Hence, the differentiation of adult learning styles in comparison to student learning styles is clarified and illustrated.
Domain 4:
Mentor Process Skills
This domain targets three major skill areas: problem solving skills, listening skills, and observation skills. A seven-steplinear problem solving template is presented that can be used to assist mentors in their professional work with protégés. This domain also focuses on the use of role playing exercises, conferencing methods, on-the-job shadowing, observation skills, and reflection exercises.
Domain 5:
Local Implementation Issues
This domain examines how mentoring fits into the nature of the mentors’ local conditions and relevant arrangements. At this point, it is important to examine goals, objectives, needs, and the time involvement of both parties.