Exemplar 1(572 words)- links to beginning of reflection frame.
Early references to the topic of mentoring (Kram 1983) refer to a mentor as an
admirable person because of his professional and personal skills (the gender issue
was clearly not at the forefront of such theory!); they help you to improve your
effectiveness in a certain field, show you how to become an expert in a profession
and teach you how to develop your skills.
Meyer and Maboso (2007) state “that a mentor’s role has two aspects: First, one is
to supply career development opportunities such as challenge, advancement and
fostering the mentee’s visibility; second, mentors provise psychosocial support such
as conselling and role modelling. Without a mentor an individual will learn less, more
slowly or not at all”. I find this last statement quite profound and from a personal
perspective, throughout my teaching career I have always seemed somewhat
‘misguided’ about my impression of mentoring, perceiving it to be undertaken solely
by Line-Managers. This is borne out of being mentored myself by Heads of
Department, Heads of Year and Senior Leaders without any direct input from myself.
The most rewarding mentoring sessions I underwent are definitely part of the
practice I now implement, whilst the coercive ‘you will be my mentor’ approach is one
I steer away from . It is only in recent years as a strategic leader myself that I have
observed first-hand how much wider and complex mentoring is and that any mentor
does not have to be in a position of authority or line management. Having worked
alongside both trainee teachers and groups of Aspiring Leaders I have facilitated
regular workshops on ‘Effective Mentoring’ and entrusted much of the input to come
from such colleagues themselves. Given the processes and intracacies of mentoring
are so diverse, my assignment just focuses on the practical realities of what Hilbre
was covering. Numerous authors on the mentoring topic refer to how the relationship
can be formal, informal, short-term or long-term. As a learning partnership it is one of
the most effective ways to transfer skills and offer people the opportunity to learn
needed skills that allow them to function at a more senior level. Reference is also
made to how mentoring provides workplace learning in a less stressful environment.
Initial sessions at school centred around devising a framework of what constitutes an
effective mentor. Cited examples include –



Shows empathy
Is often a role model
Creates trust




Is knowledgeable
Asks questions, but invites talk
Is non-judgemental
Is accessible
Whilst such adjectives and characteristics of a mentor may seem straightforward, the
definition of effective mentoring is vigourously debated. Darwin (2000) and
Clutterbuck (2005) refer to the complex, elusive and dimensional nature of
mentoring. My personal preference is for the simplistic statement made by Daresh
(2004) which says “A mentor is a teacher, guide, counsellor, positive role model,
wise and experienced supervisor”. The QIA ‘Skills for Life’ Improvement Programme
states “A well conceived mentoring programme contributes to a culture of learning in
an organisation and supports broad-based leadership and high levels of professional
quality in staff. Such a programme for staff new to an institution helps them to
develop into dynamic and resourceful leaders who can respond to the diverse
academic and social needs of their colleagues and/or learners. Research also shows
that mentoring programmes have the potential to decrease the number of staff who
leave an organisation in their first year of practice”.
Exemplar 2 (2,300 words)
This exemplar reflects on the mentoring session:
Profile of the session
I want to reflect on the initial meeting with the pupil. Tasked with the mentoring, I
had arranged meetings with the pupil in my teaching room at lunchtimes. I dictated
the terms of the meeting. I did not seek his opinion or approval. School lunchtime
runs 1240 - 1400. Lunchtime at the school is a very busy time with up to 23
extracurricular activities available to pupils. I had not taught the boy before, and I
chose him as he was considered a difficult pupil, and I wanted a challenge. There
was no existing rapport between us: his taciturnity and my avuncular blustering were
ill matched. I had never taught him, and never come across him in an extracurricular
activity. The room I chose is used at lunchtimes as a home room by a year 10 form,
and so was an ill conceived location with pupils back and forth. My manner was
brisk, businesslike, though warm: I recognise that I used teaching strategies for the
meeting rather than a different behaviour. I sat behind my desk; he sat behind a pupil
desk. As the meeting was lunchtime I was, on that day, in a rush to end the meeting
as I had to run an English clinic. It was a monologue: my outlining what I was going
to do for him; explaining what I had been tasked with doing; clarifying my role in the
wider context in a year 8 mentoring programme to help boys improve their term
grades, and improve organisation. The pupil felt that the consumption of his free
time, my didactic manner, and this imposed tyranny were unwelcome. He
questioned what he perceived as the punitive nature of the meeting, and subsequent
meetings. It was, I believe, ‘carpeting’, not a mutually cooperative session: for him
‘undeserved.’ He had, he opined, ‘done nothing wrong‘. On reflection, what would I
have thought? I did not outline a time line; I did not suggest a time for ending the
mentoring; I did not give him the opportunity to discuss any worries he might have; I
did not fully elaborate on the nature of the relationship. This first meeting set the
tone for the remaining four months. We met weekly at the same time, in the same
place. The meetings were usually monosyllabic affairs: he wanting to play football, I
wanting to get to the next venue: an academic clinic. Occasionally we had to leave
the room: we had an audience. I kept notes on our meeting: usually time, date, and
topic data. I felt I made no discernible progress. His grades did not improve. Our
relationship soured. Goodwill evaporated. Christmas, mercifully, crept up, and we
agreed not to meet again. He thanked me for my time, and was grateful for my
helping him with the occasional bit of homework. He presented me with a bottle of
tawny Port, lavishly wrapped, and told me that although he thought the sessions
‘boring’ and ‘unhelpful’, he was grateful for my releasing him. The end of the
sessions was a convivial moment. I gave him a diary, ‘to help with planning’. He
was picked up in January by an experienced mentor. He has since, perhaps
naturally, thrived.
I assert that the first meeting poisoned subsequent meetings, as I had failed to
deploy the appropriate structures to ensure the success of the mentoring
relationship. I will again take up mentoring in September 2011, and hope to learn
from my errors.
Dialogue with the experts.
Clutterbuck’s (2004) helpful outline in establishing the mentoring meeting provides
clear signposts to success. The key to success is to focus on the author’s use of
stative verbs: ‘clarify’, ‘stimulate’, ‘build on’, ‘agree’ and ‘summarise’. Had I
navigated the meeting, using these verbs as bearings I would have established a
positive environment. Simple rapport building exercises would have been helpful. A
getting to know you session in the form of a conversation ladder (Megginson and
Clutterbuck (2004) is essential in the foundation phase. Although Kram’s American
models of the evolution of a mentoring relationship are industry based, they are
instructive in that they assert that success is predicated on the concept that ‘the
protégé strongly identifies with his/her mentor’, one who provides ‘support and
guidance.’ (Kram 1983) My not knowing this pupil; selecting him from a list for the
wrong reasons; failing to distinguish between my didactic and my pastoral role; and
failure to gain early consensus, were clear pointers to failure. I was though, always
aware of the importance of my being a strong academic, male, role model for the
boys at the school. I had been there for ten years, taught English, a core subject,
and Classics. My pupils’ grades at GCSE and A level were very good. I was heavily
involved in UCAS preparation, and often spoke to pupils in large groups. I was a
well known figure in the school. I also know that a positive role model for boys is a
great advantage. James (2011) sums this up neatly. ‘For all boys, the presence of
powerful role models makes a huge difference in the way that they view any activity,
including school.’ My mentee was a marginalised boy, and I wanted to get him back
in the fold. James (2007) asserts that ‘all adults should play an active part in helping
marginalised boys feel like they are part of the school. The students should be
expected to be respectful of adults, but the adults should be expected to be
respectful of the students.’ Teaching the Male Brain (2007) My failure to gain
consensus; to let him have ownership of the session, could be interpreted as lacking
respect for his needs. I was struck by Clutterbuck’s (2004) assertions of what a ‘good
mentee’ is; struck not so much by the content of these assertions, but by using these
assertions to explore, in a detailed introductory session, the nature of the mentee:
*Clear expectations of the relationship
*Clear about their role, and the obligations of the relationship
*Willing to challenge and be challenged
*Respect, humour, and openness. Everyone Needs a Mentor.ref?
How could I have created a successful environment, if I did not discover how my
mentee felt about these issues? It is essential that Clutterbuck’s (2004) foci are
observed when selecting an appropriate pupil. The idea of the choice of the mentee
is a sensitive area for me: I had made a rash decision.
During the session I was behind my desk. The desk is usually cluttered with the
debris of the morning, and so, distracting. My posture was crouched and defensive.
Martin and Rippon (2003) provide helpful advice on the physical, paralinguistic
aspects of the mentoring session citing Rakos’ research. The pupil will react to:
*paralinguistic elements-how the person sounds
*non verbal behaviours-how the person appears
*social interaction skills-timing, initiation, persistence, context (Rakos 1991)
I have already referred to professorial tone, my fidgety ‘need to get on’ behaviour,
my poor organisational interaction: and so it is clearly demonstrated that in
subsequent sessions I need to demonstrate that I have considered, and then
executed these strategies. Egan’s (1990) SOLER mnemonic would have been a
helpful handrail to guide me through the session. Whilst I believe that I was square
facing, and maintained eye contact, I could have been more engagingly relaxed, and
adopted a more open posture.
I was at my desk, in my room entirely on my terms. The atmosphere created by the
posture was not conducive to open discussion. It was clear where the orbit of power
lay. It was, perhaps for him, just another lesson. The mentor presence was
unwelcome. It is clear that my ‘anxious control’ (Heron 1999) meant that I was
talking too much, and imposing too much for him to engage. The prescriptivist
approach is one to be avoided if success is assured. The pupil, an intelligent boy,
was perhaps able to pick up on the superficiality of the meeting: a perception point
made by Martin and Rippon (2003) in their Teacher Induction material. Whilst their
material is focused on teachers, the principle that ‘people are more likely to believe
what they see’ is universal. Children are shrewd, and sensitive. My talking too much
might have, perhaps, been assisted by the use of clean language questions. On
reflection, my utterances to the boy were mainly in the form of declaratives, and
imperatives. My questions were framed to elicit facts, not to stimulate meaningful
contemplation. Tompkins and Lawley (1997) rejoice at the benefits: the results ‘can
be quite astounding…’ and ‘can verge on the miraculous.’ Less is more: The Art of
Clean Language. I am not enamored of the technique. The awkward syntax, the
interminable interrogative mood, and the repetition of the conjunction seem artificial.
This strategy is employed by tabloid newspaper journalists to bridge short
paragraphs. The purpose is to give the illusion of continuity, fluent prose, and mirror
the cadences of spoken language. The repetition of the conjunction also reminds me
of Yeames’ painting in the Walker Art Gallery, And When Did You Last See Your
Father? Yeames has carefully contrived the conjunction for the same purpose as
Tompkins and Lawley.(1997) The Parliamentarians are questioning the son of a
Royalist. The adult deliberately uses the conjunction to suggest an informal, pally,
and innocent question. In fact it is a linguistic strategy to inveigle oneself into
another’s confidence. The incantatory quality of this line of questioning would cause
me some unease, and no doubt unsettle the mentee with this cataract of
conjunctions. In its favour though, I do see the significance of a more insightful line
of questioning; a questioning based on the need to explore more profound ideas,
and engage with the mentee on a much more intellectually challenging level.
Naturally, human communication is not uniquely spoken. It also involves writing, and
reading. It also involves listening. Listening skills are fundamental to success. The
data provided by the TTA Accreditation of School Based Tutor Training Project
suggests four listening styles. The ‘reflect, focus, and accept’ criteria of level 4
would clearly allow for warm, interactive exchanges. The mentee would feel part of
the exchange, not the redundant onlooker. On reflection I feel I was a Level 1
listener, largely as a result of my managing the topics, the topic shifts, and the
structure of the session. The equation is simple: the more you talk the less you
listen. Successful mentoring requires a subtle balance.
The issue of mentor presence, in this case, is wholly connected to the classroom
location. The core concepts of CUREE suggest ‘quiet spaces that allow confidential
reflection.’ Mentoring and Coaching 2004 2005. I had chosen badly. I had not
considered location. Constraints of timetable, issues of child protection, and simple
geography led me to this room. The lucid and well organised Standards for
Mentoring publication highlights the paramount importance of location. They make
the obvious point that ‘location and quality of the mentoring area is crucial.’ It was
something I had not even considered. The successful practices experienced in
Haringey(2008), distilled into their easily navigable document, are predicated on
planning, and considering where the mentoring takes place. The area should be
‘private to promote a confidential relationship with the mentee.’ Learning Mentor
Guidance (2008). Colleagues in Haringey insist on the allocated space. Naturally this
issue raises the question of the whole school policy on allocated rooms and
timetabling. If a school wants to take mentoring seriously, then it has to take
rooming seriously. The Good Practice Guidelines for learning Mentors tackles the
theme of location with considerable enthusiasm. On reflection I need to embrace at
least some of their suggestions where possible.
*Private space without interruptions is important.
*Some rooms have had pupil input-in decoration and layout.
*There should be permanent meeting space-safe secure and well equipped.
*The base should be comfortable, accessible and appropriate to the age of the
pupils.
*Telephone and computer links are needed-for learning mentors and pupils.
*It is important to have pupils’ work and thought on display.
*Storage for confidential papers and information is crucial.
In discussion with colleagues who mentor, I discovered that there are rooms
available which can be used if booked in advance. Despite my knowledge of the
school, I did not know these locations were bookable. They are used by our
marketing department to lubricate donors. Pastel shades, well upholstered furniture,
low tables, the walls celebrating pupils’ work from the art rooms influence the tone of
the room. Parents rooms, and SMT rooms were available but always appeared
occupied. In my next round of mentoring the room must be the focus: the whole
dynamic will shift.
Brockbank and McGill’s(2006) Mentoring Code of Practice, highlights the importance
of the shape of the sessions. I have alluded to the nebulous shape of our sessions;
the failure to determine short, medium , and long term goals. Above all a failure to
determine the end game. Our sessions simply imploded with the approach of
Christmas. The end was not managed, rather stage managed. ‘The mentor and
protégé share responsibility for the smooth winding down and proper ending of their
relationship, when it has
achieved its purpose, or renegotiating a future
development.’ Brockbank and McGill’s (2006) confident contention throws my own
practice into a sharp contrast to perceived academic wisdom. Rundell (2002)
enlarges. ‘Agree the purpose of the mentoring relationship (with a mutually agreed
time scale), discuss goals and the success of the criteria.’ The Mentoring
Relationship. The Standards Agency provides robust entry and exit criteria which
any teacher embarking on mentoring would do well to read. The salient point is that
any administration generated before the event will always act as a handrail, a helpful
means of navigation across the course of the mentoring period. I was struck
particularly by the references to forms as means of tracking. Had I incorporated this
paper trail, it would have nailed down the sessions to something tangible, and
measurable.