Croaks from the Lily Pad: Towards the Provision of a Peer Mentoring Program for Principals, 2(1)
J. Tim Goddard
tgoddard@stfx.ca
Assistant Professor and Coordinator of Graduate Programs in Education
St. Francis Xavier University
Abstract
A recent survey sought to identify the professional development needs of principals in Nova Scotia, as perceived by those principals. In this article are explored three findings which arose from that study. First, it is reported that most of the professional concerns reported by the principals can be seen to have emanated from extrinsic factors. Second, ways in which a peer mentor program might be one means for principals to meet their professional development needs are identified and discussed. Third, strategies by which a university education department might facilitate the development of such a program are presented.
In a recent editorial, Daresh (1995a) suggested that issues related to principal mentoring are similar in both the USA and the UK. He also commented that although "the words being used are slightly different on the two sides of 'The Pond', . . . [we are starting to develop a] strong appreciation that the Atlantic is only a relatively small body of water" (p. 4). After a passing mention to some other international perspectives, notably those from The Netherlands and Australia, he returned to his analysis of the USA - UK dichotomy (Daresh, 1995b). In my opinion, this analysis was weakened in that it excluded any discussion of the Canadian context or, indeed, of other nations which border the Atlantic Ocean.
To develop the pond analogy further, we can consider the UK and the USA to be on opposite banks, with Canada floating somewhere in between. Other European countries are further along the banks, while Australia is off deep in the bulrushes. To ignore those countries which do not lie around the rim of the pond, but like Canada are located between the banks, is to limit the effectiveness of the discussion. This paper, then, provides a view from the lily pad.
Introduction
Context
The mid-to-late 1990s are a time of change in Nova Scotia. The downturn in the resource economy generally has had a negative impact on the economic fortunes of the region. Since the mid-1970s, rural depopulation, together with the continuing out-migration of people from the province, has exacerbated the situation, with many smaller schools either being closed or amalgamated. These closures have restricted the transfer opportunities for teachers in the province's education system and have resulted in a bottleneck of candidates seeking promotion to the principalship.
In response to these issues the provincial government has made significant amendments to the Education Act (Nova Scotia, 1996). These include a reduction in the number of school boards, the establishment of school advisory councils, and the proposal of new academic qualifications for principals. An early retirement package was offered to senior teachers and administrators, and enthusiastically received. These actions have resulted in the beginnings of some personnel movement at both school and system levels.
Review of Related Literature
Erlandson (1994), in a study involving Texan and British principals, recommended that new administrators be given comprehensive support and prepared to engage in reflective practice throughout their careers. This support, according to Ashby (1991), should be an individualized process of professional development which emphasizes issues of identity and adaptivity appropriate to the context of the principal.
Professional Development
The first few months and years in a new position are critical to a neophyte principal. This early phase is "marked by the new leader trying to come to terms with the school and the school trying to get the measure of a new leader" (Reeves, Mahony, & Moos, 1997, p. 49). The principal who attempts such a task on her own is often doomed to failure.The establishment of professional relationships with peers who will critique but not criticize, praise but not be paternalistic, suggest but not suffocate, is an important step for a new administrator. Such relationships have been variously described as "collegial support networks" (Erlandson, 1994), "networks of mutual influence" (McQuade & Champagne, 1995), and "personal support networks" (Daresh & Playko, 1997). These networks of critical friends help the principal to participate in a learning community, a collaborative culture where professional growth and development is nurtured and allowed to flourish (Glatthorn & Fox, 1996). The role of mentor, however, has a variety of meanings and interpretations.
Mentoring
As Woodd (1997) observes, "what is most common is the notion of one person giving advice, guidance, knowledge and support to another usually more junior person, and acting as a role model usually in the same organization" (p. 27). Bercik (1994) describes the three foci of mentoring as being the workplace, emotional support, and practical applications. Notwithstanding the recent argument (Showers & Joyce, 1996) that peer coaching often leads to the disintegration of collaborative practice, Sawatzki (1997, p. 157) states that mentoring "often includes the activity of coaching, but can be much more than that. . . . A mentor is a trusted, experienced professional, who is willing to assist a less experienced person by listening, sharing experiences, advising, guiding, and coaching." Coleman (1996a) and Daresh (1997) suggest that coaching should be an integral part of the mentoring of aspiring principals. For principals in post, however, a more collegial and supportive process would appear to be appropriate.Sergiovanni and Starratt (1998) focus on the interdependent nature of that process, observing that mentoring is:
A form of collegial supervision. . . . The mentoring relationship is special because of its entrusting nature. Those being mentored are dependent upon their mentors to help them, protect them, show them the way, and develop more fully their skills and insights. (p. 255)The development of such a relationship, however, is not without its problems.
Limiting Factors in Mentoring
An often overlooked factor is that the entry of new principals has come about, in part, due to the early retirement of incumbents. The "greying of the principalship" predicted by Drake and Roe (1994, p. 41) has been overtaken by the fleeing of the principals. As a result, there are often too many potential mentees chasing too few potential mentors.A second factor, as Hughes (1994) observes, is that "even the most well-conceived mentor program will thrive only within a broader context of mutual trust, support, and collegiality" (p. 217). This, in turn, require that mentors receive training which prepares them to know when best to play the various roles of responder, colleague, or initiator of change (Bercik, 1994), and how to develop "the willingness and ability to offer . . . helpful assistance and feedback [on practice]" (Hughes, 1994, p. 224).
Third, in rural areas anywhere and specifically in Nova Scotia, a number of other factors conspire against the spontaneous development of an effective mentoring program. These include geographic and professional isolation, community attitudes, limited time and fiscal resources, and the irrelevance of those opportunities which are offered and yet are usually targeted to an urban audience (Miller & Hull, 1991).
That these obstacles can be overcome is evident from the literature. Often, however, the catalyst for change is the intervention of an outside agency. As Darling-Hammond (1998) reports,
Some school districts have begun to create new models of induction and ongoing professional development for teachers and principals. These feature mentoring for beginners and veterans; peer observation and coaching; local study groups and networks; . . . and school-university partnerships that sponsor collaborative research.This does not only happen within a North American milieu. Trotter, Ellison and Davies (1997) (p. 59). Universities can coordinate such a process. observe that, in the United Kingdom, "national schemes have been set up to establish pairings where an existing headteacher acts as a coach or mentor to a newly appointed headteacher".
The involvement of universities in the professional development and peer mentoring of principals serves a number of functions. In addition to being the catalyst which precipitates change, university personnel can connect widely dispersed neophyte principals with those who would act as mentors, provide the appropriate training to the mentors, and involve all participants in a process of reflection and collaboration.
Method
The survey had two parts. In the first part, seven items sought demographic data about the respondents. Respondents were asked to specify the newly amalgamated board in which their school was located (item 1), the length of time they had been a teacher (item 2), and their experience in an administrative role (item 3). Other questions explored the size of the school (item 4), the grades offered (item 5), and the location of the community served by the school (item 6). Item 7 sought to discover whether the respondent was male or female.
The second part contained six open-ended questions which required a narrative response. Three of these items asked respondents to report on their professional development experiences to date, and on the preferred format and location of future activities. The final three items are the topic of this paper and are presented and reported on in the findings section of this paper.
Respondents
The survey questionnaires were mailed to all principals (n=480) in the province. A total of 193 (40%) of the questionnaires were returned. Such a response rate is lower than that normally associated with surveys administered to school administrators and does place some limitation to the study (for a fuller discussion, see Goddard, 1996). Any extrapolation of the findings should be conducted with caution.The respondents were drawn from across the province and reflect the predominantly rural nature (n=89, 47%) of Nova Scotia. Fewer than one quarter (n= 43) of respondents reported that they worked in schools which served an urban environment. A further 15% (n= 29) suggested that they worked in suburban communities and 1% (n=2) reported that their schools were in isolated locations. Thirty respondents (15%) failed to identify the location of their school.
The schools in which the respondents worked tended to be elementary schools offering grades primary to six (n=91, 48%). There were 25 high schools (13%) and 23 middle schools offering grades 7 to 9 (12%). Some 6% of schools had the full range of grades from primary to 12 (n=11), and 21% (n=41) had some other combination of grades.
Some 69% (n=133) of the respondents were male, and 31% (n=60) were female. Approximately 28% (n=54) had less than five years experience as an administrator whereas 17% (n=32) had been in such a position for 20 or more years. The majority of the women principals (72%, n=43) had less than 10 years experience as a school administrator.
Findings
First, respondents were asked: What new or repeated professional development activities would you like to see offered, either for your benefit or for the benefit of new administrators, over the next three years? Five thematic clusters of preferred professional development activities were identified and categorized. Within this broad variety of responses, however, many concerns focused on the changing role of the principal and the ensuing changing responsibilities.
Administrators seem to be seeking both definition and direction in an attempt to better understand their new role. There was evident a general sense of unease and uncertainty; uncertainty about change, the future, amalgamation and site-based management. As respondent #008, a principal from small urban school, commented: "We are not getting a grasp of our changing mandates and prioritizing tasks! What are we now?"
Administrators appeared to be asking specifically for help in the creation and the operation of school councils. Analysis of the responses by gender for site-based management and school councils showed no significant difference. This supports other research (e.g., Brown, 1996; Coleman, 1996b; Early & Weindling, 1988; Evetts, 1990) which suggests that gender is not a significant variable in the types of issues identified by principals. That is not to suggest that gender is not significant in how those principals might deal with the issues they identify. As Hall (1997) observes, "taking over a new school has to be done within the constraints of existing organizational structures and cultures. Gender is a component of both these, particularly when the new head is a woman" (p. 314).
Some difference was evident when an analysis by the number of years of service was conducted. Overall, 37% (n=71) of the respondents had more than 25 years of teaching service yet, of the respondents selecting school councils as an area for future in-servicing, 43% (n=83) had more than 25 years of experience. This suggests that administrators with the greatest experience were the ones who were experiencing the most stress and angst with the proposed changes in governance.
This may be because older principals place a greater importance on governance (Bruce G. Barnett, personal communication, 26 March 1997). Conversely, it may be that older administrators are more comfortable with the status quo and are less willing to accept the shifts in power commonly associated with the decentralization of school governance to the local community.
Related to the need for activities associated with school councils and site-based management were requests to identify techniques which would facilitate positive community involvement. As a male administrator with responsibility for three rural elementary schools observed, "It is obvious that management demands are going to increase on site-based leaders so we will need activities which will improve our knowledge and efficiency in management" (respondent #060).
In an apparent effort to cope with changing mandates, many administrators stressed the importance of sharing ideas and of communicating with fellow leaders to offset isolation. The continued emphasis on fiscal restraint and increased independence was reflected in requests for guidance with financial and time management issues. Other noteworthy areas included: teacher evaluation; curriculum development; technology and computer literacy; and school law.
Second, respondents were asked: Does the formation of the new amalgamated boards change your professional development needs? A majority of respondents (60%) indicated that amalgamation would affect their professional development needs. Two words were repeated throughout the responses: isolation and responsibility. Administrators appeared to be concerned that the loss of support services, when occurring simultaneously with decentralization, would result in a corresponding increase in responsibility and accountability. The new role of a principal was perceived to require training in the development of skills related to the role of a site-based manager, strategies for the establishment of school advisory councils, and methods for formulating budgets and conducting financial planning. Drawing upon her more than 25 years experience as a teacher, survey respondent #008 noted that as "support systems are being eroded and as site-base[d] emphasis and decentralization takes place, we are more and more isolated and increasingly totally responsible for more and more".
Third, respondents were asked: As an administrator, what is the most significant issue you expect to face next year? Respondents reported that the two most significant issues they faced were (1) the introduction of school councils and (2) the ongoing amalgamation of school boards and small schools. They repeatedly referred to the isolation experienced in rural communities, to the uncertainties of the change process, and to their concerns with respect to increased responsibility and yet fewer resources. Administrators appeared to be seeking guidance on strategies which would facilitate their obtaining maximum effectiveness in the creation and operation of advisory councils. Respondent #156, who is responsible for a rural elementary school, reflected many of the comments made by fellow administrators when he expressed his view that "introducing school advisory councils in a way that is positive for the students, staff and communities" is important for the effective implementation of site-based management.
Respondent #121, the principal of a medium-sized urban primary to grade 2 school, described amalgamation as "dealing with all the changes without stable leadership". The concern that administrators were facing a changing role, requiring greater time and financial management skills while coping with fewer resources and less support services, was evident throughout the responses.
Discussion
Professional Concerns Emanate From Extrinsic Factors
First, it is noted that the professional concerns identified by principals emanated primarily from extrinsic factors. They were outcomes of strategies implemented by government agencies, professional associations, parental and business lobby groups, and so forth. These felt needs were common across age, gender, and geographic distribution. Further, respondents repeatedly referred to the isolation they experienced in rural communities, to the uncertainties of the change process, and to their concerns with respect to increased responsibility and yet fewer resources.
There was little if any identification of personal or intrinsic issues. Principals were not calling for help with their day-to-day professional practice. Such practice, however, is at the centre of all the concerns identified. It appears that principals are so overwhelmed by external pressures that they are failing to recognize or implement internal strategies to address those concerns.
Peer Mentoring To Meet Professional Development Needs
Second, there appears to exist a potential for a principal peer mentoring process to be initiated. Such a process could address issues related to professional isolation, job overload, management of change, sexism and sex-role stereotyping, and the need to bridge the perceived gap between the rhetoric and the reality of school administration (e.g., Brock & Grady, 1996; Draper & McMichael, 1996; Ehrich, 1994; Mercer, 1996; Southworth, 1995). A mentoring program might also address psychosocial conditions (Dupuis, 1997) by providing an avenue for mature principals to develop their sense of professional worth.In addressing these individual and intrinsic issues, a mentoring program might serve to bring clarity to an obscure world. In the midst of rapid and chaotic change, a focus on personal growth and professional awareness might help principals address issues which, in the abstract, appear overwhelming. In establishing control over some aspects of their professional lives, principals may be psychologically more able to address other issues.
Strategies To Facilitate Program Development
Third, these issues are contextualized within the realities of program delivery to a predominantly rural and widespread population. Schools are often an hour away from each other, and up to two or three hours away from the central office. In such a situation it is unrealistic to expect principals to meet "after-hours" for coffee and conversation, or to expect board-level personnel to address individual needs.One way to address these issues is through the establishment of a formal mentoring program. Such a program could provide neophyte and experienced administrators with the opportunity to share ideas and to concretize more abstract knowledge. This type of program provides benefits for both the mentor and mentee (e.g., Daresh & Playko, 1993; Erasmus & van der Westhuizen, 1994). In addition to increased self-confidence and improved interpersonal skills, mentees learn the art of personal reflection while mentors achieve heightened motivation and enhanced professional satisfaction. The rich interchange of ideas from other schools, the exposure to recent research from other jurisdictions, all contribute to increased personal and professional growth. Unfortunately, the establishment of such a program is fraught with difficulties.
Establishing a Peer Mentoring Program
The first stage would be for universities to develop the institutional will to support such a program. To have the idea is one thing; to initiate and then abandon the process is another. Those university personnel involved should be willing to make at least a three year commitment to the program prior to it being established.
Once the institutional will is confirmed, the second step would be to establish a collaborative relationship with a local school board. Through this contact it will be possible for issues identified in the literature to be grounded in the immediate context of the board. The danger of an academically driven agenda which fails to reflect practitioner realities and needs is therefore avoided, or at least minimized. The establishment of a joint steering committee, with equal university and board representation and a commitment to consensual decision making, would be appropriate at this time.
The third stage would be the recruitment of both mentors and mentees. A number of decisions would have to be made. Should all neophyte principals be accepted to the program? Should mentees be permitted to select their mentors, or vice-versa? Should mentors be recruited from volunteer principals, or should they be carefully screened and invited to participate? If interschool visits are involved, how will administrator release time and cover arrangements be implemented? The answers to these and related questions would come from wide-ranging discussions among the members of the steering committee.
Once the basic ground rules are agreed and understood, the program itself can be developed. The parameters of the mentorship program can be quickly established from a review of the literature; the specifics can be identified only following discussions with the participants. The steering committee would be responsible to canvas the opinions of both experienced and neophyte principals. At this time representatives of those groups would join the steering committee.
The development of the peer mentoring program to this stage is expected to take one full school (academic) year. Once the steering committee has determined the ways in which the program might operate, the board representatives would withdraw from the process. Through the first two years of operation of the program, the university personnel would take an increasingly less active role. They would move from being involved in the establishment of the program to acting as a professional development resource for participants. In the third year of their involvement, university faculty would remain 'on call' but would only participate as invited. At the end of the third year the university would withdraw from the program, allowing the initiative to continue on its own under the management and guidance of the principals themselves.
Conclusion
As the HEADLAMP initiatives in the UK have found, it is important that peer mentoring programs for principals are led by principals. In a perfect world, these would also be initiated by principals. As this is not happening, then others should initiate the process. As Wilmore (1995) cautions, the process of choosing a mentor requires "mutual consent and commitment, . . . [and] no central office intervention" (p. 95), for otherwise participants are wary that professional development might incorporate an evaluatory dimension. Therefore, the universities must take a lead role.
These parameters provide the university with the opportunity to act as a catalyst
for change and the board with the opportunity to facilitate the development of a
professional peer mentoring program. It is critical, however, that neither the
university nor the board attempts to take ownership of such a program. Once the
eggs have been laid and fertilized, the frogs must return to the lily pad
and allow
the young to survive on their own.
This article is adapted from a paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the British
Educational Administration and Management Society, Robinson College, Cambridge,
England, in September 1997.
References
Benson, K., & Goddard, J. T. (1996). Professional development needs survey report for practicing and aspiring educational administrators in Nova Scotia. Unpublished research report. Halifax, NS: Nova Scotia Educational Leadership Consortium.
Bercik, J. T. (1994). The principal's role in mentoring. Streamlined Seminar, 13 (3).
Brock, B.L., & Grady, M.L. (1996). Keepers of the keys. Momentum, 27 (1), 48-50.
Brown, D. W. (1996). Principal's perceptions of community and staff involvement in shared decision making. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 12 (1), 17-24.
Coleman, M. (1996a). Re-thinking training for principals and others: The role of mentoring. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. April. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED 397 479)
Coleman, M. (1996b). The management style of female headteachers. Educational Management and Administration, 24 (2), 163-174
Daresh, J. C. (1997). Improving principal preparation: A review of common strategies. NASSP Bulletin, 81 (585), 3-8.
Daresh, J. C. (1995a). Editorial. Journal of Educational Administration, 33 (5), 4-6.
Daresh, J. C. (1995b). Research base on mentoring. Journal of Educational Administration, 33 (5), 7-16.
Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1997). Beginning the principalship: A practical guide for new school leaders. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Leaders.
Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1993). Benefits of a mentoring program for aspiring administrators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association of School Administrators, Orlando, Florida. February. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354603)
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55 (5), 6-11.
Department of Education and Culture. (1995). Education facts, 1994-1995. Halifax, NS: Author.
Drake, T. L., & Roe, W. H. (1994). The principalship (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Draper, J., & McMichael, P. (1996). I am the eye of the needle and everything passes through me: Primary headteachers explain their retirement. School Organisation, 16 (2), 149-163.
Dupuis, P. (1997). Mentoring: A basic need in mid-life, a powerful tool in early career. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Association for the Study of Educational Administration, St. John's, Newfoundland. June.
Early, P., & Weindling, D. (1988). Heading for the top: The career paths of secondary school heads. Educational Management and Administration, 16 (1), 3-14.
Ehrich, L.C. (1994). A mentoring programme for women educators. School Organisation, 14 (1), 11-20.
Erasmus, M., & van der Westhuizen, P. C. (1994). Guidelines for the professional development of school principals by means of a mentoring system in a developing country. Paper presented at the 8th International Intervisitation Programme, Buffalo, New York. May. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 371440)
Erlandson, D. A. (1994). Building a career: Fulfilling the lifetime professional needs of principals. Fairfax, VA: National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED 385 920)
Evetts, J. (1990). Women in primary teaching: Career contexts and strategies. London: Unwin Hyman.
Glatthorn, A. A., & Fox, L. E. (1996). Quality teaching through professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Goddard, J. T. (1997). Voices from the swamp: Identifying the professional development needs of principals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois. March.
Goddard, J. T. (1996). Fractured paradigms: Preparing teachers for ethnocultural diversity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Hall, V. (1997). Dusting off the phoenix: Gender and educational leadership revisited. Educational Management and Administration, 25 (3), 309-324.
Hughes, L. W. (1994). The principal as leader. New York: Macmillan.
McQuade, F., & Champagne, D. W. (1995). How to make a better school. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Mercer, D. (1996). "Can they walk on water?": Professional isolation and the secondary headteacher. School Organisation, 16 (2), 165-178.
Miller, B. A., & Hull, J. L. (1991). Overcoming professional isolation in small, rural schools. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED 344 707)
Nova Scotia. (1996). The Education Act. Halifax, NS: Department of Education and Culture.
Reeves, J., Mahony, P., & Moos, L. (1997). Headship: issues of career. Teacher Development, 1 (1), 43-56.
Sawatzki, M. (1997). Leading and managing staff for high performance. In B. Davies and L. Ellison (Eds.), School leadership for the 21st century: A competency and knowledge approach (pp. 144-162). London: Routledge.
SCRE. (1995). Issues in teachers' continuing professional development. Interchange 33. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Sergiovanni, T. J., & Starratt, R. J. (1998). Supervision: A redefinition (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53 (6), 12-16.
Southworth, G. (1995). Reflections on mentoring for new school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 33 (5), 17-28.
Trotter, A., Ellison, L., & Davies, B. (1997). Determining and developing competencies in schools. In B. Davies and L. Ellison (Eds.), School leadership for the 21st century: A competency and knowledge approach (pp. 54-67). London: Routledge.
Wilmore, E. L. (1995). It's not easy being green: Mentoring for the first year principal. NASSP Bulletin, 79 (570), 91-96.
Woodd, M. (1997). Gender differences in mentoring: A biographical reflection. Educational Management and Administration, 25 (1), 25-34.