Mentoring in Educational Administration

In the current era of high stakes accountability coupled with the decreasing number of candidates able to meet the challenges of school leadership effectively, the nurturing and supportive maintenance of principals has become particularly relevant (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004). The nature of education has changed, and the business of schooling has become increasingly complex. These higher expectations, along with the potential for administrator shortages, teacher shortages, and the diverse learning, social, and emotional needs of our children, has placed tremendous pressure on those who choose to lead our schools (Hopkins-Thompson, 2000).

As mentioned, the process of teacher mentoring began to flourish in the early 1980’s; however, by contrast, the practice of providing a novice principal with support has only recently gained widespread attention and support at the state level and within local school districts. As a teacher’s knowledge, skills, and attitudes are most important and relevant to student learning, the required skill sets and traits of an effective educational leader are directly tied to the learning organization (Mann, 1998). Historically, principals are confronted with a “sink or swim” mindset as they try to manage the practical, political, and financial challenges of the various states and districts (Mitgang, 2007). The present trend of increasing numbers of principal induction and mentoring programs would suggest that policy makers and administrative leadership groups are recognizing that well-crafted, purposeful, programmatic interventions are necessary to improve principal development and sustainability.

Traditionally in a profession, mentoring has been described as an informal process that links a senior, more experienced person (i.e., the mentor) with a less experienced, and typically younger person (i.e., the mentee). Mentors are expected to pass on skills, guide, counsel, provoke, entice, teach, constructively criticize, and even reprimand at times (Matters, 1994). Although less intensive than formal mentoring partnerships, Matters (1994) proposed that informal mentoring partnerships are the strongest and most enduring relationships, but cautioned that these informal relationships are difficult to engender due to organizational barriers and human interaction variables. The propensities of both types of relationships (i.e., formal versus informal mentoring) may contain very similar characteristics; however, it is the formal mentoring relationship that is well planned, organized, and methodical in nature. This review of the literature will specifically focus on the development of formal mentoring relationships with specific attention given to selected induction programs and university preparation programs that use formal mentoring relationships.

Definitions for ‘mentoring’ are abounding, frequently overlapping in their technical terminology. Hansford and Ehrich (2006) defined mentoring as a structured and coordinated approach where individuals (mentors/protégés) agree to engage in a personal and confident relationship that aims to provide professional development, growth, and varying degrees of personal support. This definition distinguishes a mentoring relationship from the less formal relationships such as peer assistance, tutoring, or coaching since it involves a more experienced and seasoned professional. Talley (2008) suggested that cultivating leadership skills in practice- intensive specialties is essential and has the potential to create a cadre of scholar-practitioners to bridge the academic preparation or scholarship component with practical leadership skill development. While there is no consistently accepted definition of mentoring, Talley (2008)

explained that several definitions integrate the positive relationship between mentoring, retention, competence, confidence, and professional growth.

Schein (1978) felt that mentors needed to satisfy numerous roles in their relationships with administrative novices, including roles such as teachers, coaches, trainers, role models, protectors, and sponsors. Similarly, Crow and Matthews (1998) defined mentoring in an administrative context as a relationship that involves a “person who is active, dynamic, visionary, knowledgeable, and skilled; who has a committed philosophy that keeps the teaching and learning of students in focus; and who guides other leaders to be similarly active and dynamic” (p. 2). Muse and Wasden (1988) suggested another definition that was particularly relevant when considering the application of mentoring for educational administrators:

The mentor is a master at providing opportunities for growth of others, by identifying situations and events which contribute knowledge and experience to the life of the steward. Opportunities are not happenstance; they must be thoughtfully designed and organized into logical sequence. Sometimes hazards are attached to opportunity. The mentor takes great pains to help the steward recognize and negotiate dangerous situations. In doing this, the mentor has an opportunity for growth through dedicated service, which is the highest form of leadership. (p. 3)

Definitions of mentoring come in all sizes, foci, and levels of inclusiveness (Mertz, 2004). For clarity purposes, Mertz (2004) provided a visual conceptual framework that detailed and served as a building block for the definition and conceptual understanding of mentoring (see Figure 1). According to Mertz (2004), the model used intent and involvement to distinguish among relationships often referenced together under the label of mentoring, arranging them in terms of psychosocial, professional development, and career advancement functions. Hence, this model arranged the roles and relationships cited in the research literature in a coherent way that distinguished mentoring from other less formal relationships, although Mertz (2004) acknowledged that there may be more factors in addition to intent and involvement. Likewise, Hopkins-Thompson (2000) provided an inclusive definition of mentoring that addressed the career and psychosocial development of both the mentor and protégé. According to Hopkins-

Thompson (2000), mentoring is an intense relationship in which a senior person oversees the career development and psychosocial development of a less senior person by providing advocacy, counseling support, and protection that includes feedback and information.

Developing school leaders requires an effort from school districts in addition to university preparation programs. Grissom and Harrington (2010) assessed the role of principal professional development in shaping principal effectiveness, finding strong evidence that not all modes of principal professional development are equally effective at improving principal performance. Furthermore, Grissom and Harrington (2010) found a significant and positive association between principals participating in formal mentoring and principal effectiveness, but they also found that principals who invest in university coursework as professional development were rated less effective.

Browne-Ferrigno and Muth (2004) posited that mentoring affords an incredible opportunity for leadership capacity building through reciprocal sharing between practicing and novice/aspiring principals. Likewise, practicing and beginning principals need opportunities to work together in meaningful ways to foster development and collegial relationships that can sustain new principals in the difficult early years of the principalship. Clearly, developing effective principals must continue beyond the completion of pre-service preparation programs, beyond the placement as school leaders, and beyond the support received during their novice practice years (Browne-Ferrigno & Muth, 2004). Becoming an effective principal takes time, and principals require a large amount of ongoing support (Young et al., 2005). According to Crow and Matthews (1998), the process of mentoring dynamic school leaders should involve more than one mentor in more than a single setting and take place over the course of the leader’s

career development. In essence, mentoring is a life-long professional development experience that affects both the mentor and the protégé.