The history of the development of the mentoring programme in the CSLA

The CSLA introduced a mentoring programme in 2005 as the Scottish National CPD team placed a renewed emphasis on coaching and mentoring. There had reportedly been a previous scheme in place and so, to establish the history of mentoring in the CSLA, any background, rationale or arrangements for mentoring prior to 2005 was explored through a search of the policy archive. No evidence appeared to be retained in electronic format although it was believed, through anecdotal reports, that some headteachers who had been involved throughout had retained a paper record. This archive was sought by personally contacting individual headteachers who had been mentoring for some time and asking if they held any documentation on the processes prior the instigation of the current arrangements.

From this search, it was found that the policy arrangements surrounding mentoring for newly appointed headteachers in the CSLA was introduced 1987. The programme aimed to support new headteachers and was managed by the link Education Officer for the school with the new incumbent. A two day residential training programme was required of the experienced headteachers who had agreed to act as mentors. The aims of this training programme and what was included was not explicit within the documentation available. In the 1987 policy, mentoring was described as ‗an informal, one to one relationship which lasts for the first year of appointment as a headteacher‘. The criteria for matching as stated within the policy document was that the ‗mentor would be selected on the basis of size of school and geographical area‘. The mentor was selected by the link Education Officer or then Advisor for the school. Following the year long period of mentoring, headteachers were then invited to join a peer support group. This progression was also managed by the school link Education Officer although the details of matching criteria and aims of the peer groups were not available. It was clear however, from conversations with headteachers who were involved at the time, that the progression to peer group was only considered appropriate after the newly appointed headteacher had undertaken the allotted year long period of mentoring.

There are no details available as to how many headteachers participated in the mentoring arrangements either as mentor or mentee. What is known is that 14 peer support groups, each group with between 4-8 members, were ongoing in 2005. These peer groups necessitated no employer input and could be considered informal voluntary networks. Neither the peer support groups nor the mentoring programme were evaluated and it is not clear from authority records exactly when the mentoring arrangements for newly appointed headteachers stopped. One headteacher colleague

recollected that this programme fell into abeyance in the 1990s due to a lack of headteacher mentors. When asked her perception of why this was the case, her recollection was that the mentors felt under-supported in dealing with the emotional aspects of mentoring. Although this is only one recollection, it provides useful background as to one reason why the 1987 programme ceased to exist as a formal, employer-led, induction strategy.

Following the recommendation of an authority consultative group on headteacher support, a decision was taken in 2005 to resurrect mentoring for newly appointed headteachers and, in a shift from the previous arrangements, included depute headteachers. The timing of this response was consistent with the prominence of leadership development and initiatives on coaching and mentoring at a National level as discussed earlier in this thesis. The policy arrangements which emerged from this consultation process - The Headteacher and Depute Headteacher Mentor Programme Policy and Procedures August 2005 - forms the basis of practice to be explored in this thesis (Appendix C). This policy was implemented at start of session 2005 with all newly appointed headteachers and deputes having the offer of mentoring. All existing headteachers and depute headteachers were invited to join a pool of mentors to provide formal mentoring to a newly appointed headteacher or depute headteacher over their first year in post. There was a positive response from experienced headteachers and, following a day of training, the mentor pool was established and the matching process initiated. The matching process was overseen by a small working group of headteachers and officers.

Mentors and mentees were put into contact with one another following the agreed process and, if nothing further had been communicated, after a year the officer responsible would establish whether the dyad were still within a formal mentoring process, by letter to the mentor. If not, the mentor was ‗freed‘ to go back to the pool and the cycle repeated. Refresher training and support sessions were offered to mentors as part of the authority level CPD programme.

The policy in 2005 stated that after a year in a mentoring relationship each mentor would be entitled to an honorarium of £500 per mentee, paid on submission of invoice to the department. The rationale behind the offer of payment at the time was to ensure teaching headteachers, and the schools which they led, were not disadvantaged.

For example, should a teaching headteacher of a rural school relinquish their management time on a regular basis in order to support a colleague, it could be argued that the school‘s devolved budget would be adversely affected.

On reflection, there was an unwritten assumption that if payment was requested, the mentoring meetings had been undertaken outwith the school day. Also problematic was the assumption that the newly appointed headteacher would (i) wish to have a mentor and (ii) attend mentoring sessions in their own time without additional payment – again on the untested assumption that they would find this of such benefit to their professional practice that they would concur.

These payment arrangements were reviewed in 2007 following feedback from School Leaders Scotland⁸ who recommended that providing an honorarium for currently employed headteachers to mentor colleagues was not standard practice across Scotland. It was, however, felt to be more acceptable to provide payment to retired headteachers to undertake the same task. To ensure that no person or school be disadvantaged by the decision to be involved in mentoring a newly appointed colleague, the 2007 arrangements led to the honorarium being discontinued and the equivalent of three days cover being added to each mentor‘s devolved school budget. This would allow the teaching headteacher to be released for mentoring meetings during school time in addition to attending training and review meetings. In sum, the operational policy in the CSLA is as 2005 with the 2007 amendment related to payment (Appendix C).

2.4.8. Claims and Assumptions

As introduced in Chapter 1.4.1 this purpose of this study is to explore the process and outcome of formal mentoring for newly appointed headteachers and depute headteachers in the CSLA. This study set out to articulate and test the claims and assumptions behind this approach to school leadership development. A starting point for this work based research was the operational policy of the CSLA, the history of which is as described in the previous section.

To enhance understanding of McClellan et al.‘s (2008) first dimension of mentoring, this research set out to explore and describe the processes involved. Descriptive elements felt to be of most importance to make meaning from mentoring were: what happens;

when; where and how. From this descriptive knowledge, understanding of the process and models of mentoring used in the CSLA emerges and assumptions can be tested.

8 A professional association which represents secondary headteachers and depute headteachers, previously the Headteachers‘ Association of Scotland.

2.4.8.1. Hunting assumptions

Making provision for a period of mentoring for newly appointed headteachers and depute headteachers is generally accepted by the CSLA as useful and sustainable.

Deeper critique of the mentoring policy and practice establishes that this acceptance appears to be premised on assumptions around what mentoring means and how people behave. Work of Brookfield (1995) was helpful in prompting this reflective enquiry into unchecked ‗common sense‘ and as Brookfield terms the ‗conspiracy of the normal‘ (p.10). There was much in what was assumed about the mentoring process that was both prescriptive – what was thought to be happening - and predictive – what was thought would occur as a result (Brookfield 1995). In order for assumptions to be tested, understandings which underpin and intertwine with mentoring as a leadership development programme were teased out and articulated, as recommended by Daresh (1995).

Developing a testable series of assumptions was an iterative process informed by the literature, knowledge and experience of practice and the early stages of the empirical work. These assumptions are made explicit below:

 The match of the mentor to mentee is important and that the ‗right‘ match is determined by the size of school which offers relevant experience and location as these are factors – ‗to be taken into account‘ for matching in the mentoring policy (Appendix C).

 All newly appointed headteachers and depute headteachers will want a mentor as it is perceived to offer a unique form of support.

 Sufficient peer headteachers will come forward to take on the mentoring role because it is valuable or beneficial to them.

The assumptions about the mentoring programme tested in this research are articulated as follows;

Assumption 1: Relevant experience and location are important factors in matching a mentoring dyad

Assumption 2: Peer headteachers will accept a nomination to become a mentor or volunteer to join the scheme because they find it a rewarding process.

Assumption 3: Mentoring provides a form of support which differs from other forms of leadership and management development

2.4.8.2. Testing Claims

To explore McClellan et al.‘s (2008) second dimension of mentoring, the policy aims were translated into a series of outcomes. These outcomes were expressed as claims which were tested by this research. Mentoring in the CSLA aims to support wellbeing and effectiveness and build self confidence and independence (Appendix C). These four concepts form the outcomes which were expected to be achieved by the mentoring programme. It was apparent that these were not four discrete outcomes, as they are broad functions where, it is proposed, synergy and overlap exist. Using the conceptualisation of mentoring functions proposed for this thesis (2.4.3), these four concepts were separated into two claims, based upon Kram‘s psychosocial and career enhancing functions, recognised as separate by Allen et al. (2008). These claims are as follows:

This research tests the claim that mentoring achieves psychosocial outcomes;

Claim 1: Mentoring builds self-confidence and supports wellbeing

This research tests the claim that mentoring achieves career enhancing outcomes;

Claim 2: Mentoring builds independence and supports effectiveness

In sum, the purpose of this study is to explore the process and outcome of formal mentoring for newly appointed headteachers and depute headteachers in the CSLA. The description of what happens throughout the process and within a relationship help make meaning about mentoring. The claims and assumptions made about the outcomes of mentoring are tested in order to understand more about this approach to leadership development which could translate into recommendations for practice.