Research for Better Schools (RBS) is a private, nonprofit educational organization that is designed to assist schools or organizations in the improvement of student learning, teacher content and pedagogical knowledge, and operational effectiveness (RBS, n.d.). For the purposes of evaluating the effectiveness of the PLI, RBS had been contracted to conduct interim,
RBS had provided the PLI with a wealth of evaluative data to include results from PLI program leader surveys, mentor/protégé surveys, mentors’ perceptions of the PLI program, protégés’ perceptions of the PLI program, and recommendations for future implementation. These exhaustive reports were prepared by the Evaluation Services Unit of the RBS, and for the purposes of this review, the researcher chose to focus on the results that relate to the mentor training aspects of the retrieved evaluations from 2005 (Evaluation of PLI - Final Report, September 2005) and 2006 (Evaluation of PLI - Final Report Year 2, October 2006).
According to the Evaluation of the PLI – Final Report, September 2005, the PLI Network was developed to satisfy the growing need of connecting principals with each other and providing new principals with a mentor within a safe, confidential, and trustworthy environment. PLI strived to match mentors experienced in school leadership trends with the needs of protégés by providing a minimum of one face-to-face visit a month and weekly contact with the protégé via email, phone, or other electronic means. The PLI program had the overarching goals of supporting the successful recruiting, selection, and training of mentors; matching mentors to protégés based upon need; and the coordination of the mentor-protégé relationship (RBS, 2005). Likewise, each successful mentor applicant underwent a training program related to the philosophy of the PLI Network. Although no applicant had ever been denied, each mentor was to exhibit “positive/supportive personality characteristics, enthusiasm for education, history as a successful principal, exemplary personality, good supportive personality, good reputation, and solid listening skills” (RBS, 2005). Most importantly, mentors needed to be exposed to professional development focusing on the understanding and creation of a positive, supportive, and fruitful mentoring relationship.
Granting the PLI program leaders had identified several strengths of the PLI in 2005, leaders had seen a continued difficulty in identifying and recruiting mentors along with appropriate “buy in” from school districts and respective protégés. As a result, the following, summative recommendations for were suggested by the PLI program leaders:
• Create an improved marketing strategy with the assistance of PDE/Legislature and ask that superintendents support the district’s commitment to such a program;
• Create an improved matching system for mentor and protégé and a criteria system for mentor selection; and
• Improve the ongoing training of mentors so they are apprised as to what is expected of them in this mentoring capacity.
From the mentor and protégé feedback standpoint, only eight mentors and eight protégés had responded to feedback solicitation about the PLI Network. Both mentors and protégés had reported satisfaction with the value of each other’s’ services, their commitment to the relationship, and the mutual benefit of the established relationship (RBS, 2005). Similarly, both mentors and protégés believed that open, honest, and trusting communication were the greatest contributor to the established rapport of their relationships. Overall, seven out of the eight mentors who responded felt that the PLI had met their needs as mentors. Yet, both mentors and protégés reported that training meetings that would include both parties would be productive to further develop the mentor-protégé relationship.
The Evaluation of the PLI Network – Final Report Year 2 (2006) yielded significantly more participation from program leaders, mentors and protégés. Overall results from the surveys completed by the 31 mentors revealed that the PLI program had met their needs. Though 81% of mentors felt significantly supported by the PLI, only 51% reported that the mentor trainings
“significantly” met their needs as a mentor. Thirty-five percent thought that the mentor trainings focused on communication skills, and even fewer (29%) thought that the quarterly meetings significantly covered methods of assessing protégés needs. On these related items, most mentor respondents reflected that the training moderately addressed communication skills and the needs of the mentor and protégé (RBS, 2006). Mentor respondents also identified videoconferencing (31%), webinars (21%), and other technology (e.g., videos and blackboard) as helpful training mechanisms and strategies for connectivity between parties. The majority of the surveyed mentors reported that future professional development foci and implementation should address current trends and evolving issues in education.
The overwhelming majority of the 27 protégés surveyed (82%) reported that they were satisfied with the knowledge, expertise and support of their mentors (RBS, 2006). Similarly, 63% of the protégés thought the program could support them more and flourish in the future by the organization of small meetings with respective mentors and protégés from other schools to create more opportunities for professional development. Incorporating relevant and more appropriate technological resources was also cited as a future recommendation to enhance the training and communication capacities of all parties as well.
PLI program leaders indicated that mentors were reported to have participated in the sharing of mentoring research and literature materials, professional development sessions at quarterly meetings, and hands-on computer training. Some of the professional development topics that were addressed in these quarterly meetings included data-driven decision-making, learning by design, and other topics as chosen based on the needs of the protégés and/or mentors. The PLI program leaders also reported that the greatest strengths of the PLI were the expertise of the mentors, the professional development that was provided to them, and the outstanding results
on the rapport development between the mentors and their protégé(s). Although recognized as a positive and strength, all parties affiliated with the PLI recognized that the mentor training and quarterly meetings had to be upgraded to include more attention to resources and less focus on the managerial aspects of the program. Likewise, matching the mentors and protégés had to be arranged more quickly so the training for the mentors could be more timely and relevant. Additional recommendations to improve the mentor training were to include more of the knowledge that a mentor needs to work with a protégé and adequately fulfill this important role.
As of 2006, the PLI program reported to have become more organized and focused with required mentor trainings and quarterly meetings taking place; however, the program was still experiencing some major challenges in that most of the protégés had not attended the quarterly training meetings with their mentors. Additionally, monitoring of the program was becoming a difficult task due to the increase in participants, and the PLI program was preparing for a major transformation in 2007 when the partnership with the Pennsylvania Inspired Leadership Initiative (PIL) could potentially provide over 200 protégés along with significant increases in the pool of principal mentors (RSB, 2006). As this partnership with the PIL initiative evolves, the monitoring of the PLI program would need to become more intensive and follow-ups will need to occur more frequently to ensure that the programmatic structure and specifically the mentor training aspect of the PLI continues to grow, develop and thrive.