The Quality of Mentoring Matters

1. The Quality of Mentoring Matters February 22 and 23, 2012 INTC Conference Rosalie Gardner Facilitator

2. Purpose • Continue discussion on quality mentoring • Identify areas for revision • Look at data collections from last year • Where do we go with this from here? M O N R O E – R A N DO L P H R E G I O N A L O F F I C E O F E D U C A T I O N

3. Alphabetability • At your table, quickly introduce yourself, your district/school, and your role in mentoring and induction. • Identify a recorder • Using Alphabetability chart on your table, • identify something you know about mentor quality for each letter of the alphabet (word or phrase) • Share out M O N R O E – R A N DO L P H R E G I O N A L O F F I C E O F E D U C A T I O N

4. Mentor Quality Tools Review the mentor quality rubric from last year M O N R O E – R A N DO L P H R E G I O N A L O F F I C E O F E D U C A T I O N

5. Mentor Selection Criteria

6. Mentor Selection and Assignment, Standard 5.1 Program leadership, program partners and all stakeholders are guided by clear rigorous selection criteria and processes to ensure that beginning teachers will receive high quality mentoring throughout their participation in the induction program M O N R O E – R A N DO L P H R E G I O N A L O F F I C E O F E D U C A T I O N

7. Criteria in 5.1 • Demonstration of effective teaching practice • Knowledge of pedagogy • Self-reflective • Strong intra- and inter-personal skills • Knowledge of context • Content knowledge • Skills and interest in supporting diverse learning needs M O N R O E – R A N DO L P H R E G I O N A L O F F I C E O F E D U C A T I O N

8. Translating qualities into action At your table • Compare the criteria on the left with the criteria listed on the last slide • What needs to be revised, deleted, or added? • Evaluate the rubric scale and descriptors. Make revisions you feel are needed. What would you use for cut scores? Identify your ideas on chart paper and post for sharing. M O N R O E – R A N DO L P H R E G I O N A L O F F I C E O F E D U C A T I O N

9. Scorecard

10. Process Baseline data • All mentors self-evaluated summer 2010 First data collection spring of 2011 from new teachers (1st and 2nd separate), mentors (year one separate from year two), and administrators Data analyzed Second data collection spring of 2012 in same manner M O N R O E – R A N DO L P H R E G I O N A L O F F I C E O F E D U C A T I O N

11. Analyze data • At your tables, review the baseline data and the 2011 data. • What do the data say about mentor quality… • From new teacher perspective? • From mentor perspective? • From administrator perspective? • What discrepancies do you see between the data from the different stakeholders? M O N R O E – R A N DO L P H R E G I O N A L O F F I C E O F E D U C A T I O N

12. Baseline Data Baseline Mentor’s perceptions • Teaching Ability: 2.69 • Working with Adults: 3.0 • Sensitivity to viewpoints: 2.62 • Active, open listener: 2.55 • Interpersonal skills: 2.55 • Role Model: 2.72 • Organization, communication, management: 2.79 • Commitment: 2.97 • Best Practices: 2.79 M O N R O E – R A N DO L P H R E G I O N A L O F F I C E O F E D U C A T I O N

13. Mentor Selection Criteria

14. Where do we go from here? • What do you not learn from the data that you want to know? • How can that information be collected? • How would you use this data with program participants? • What are you doing in this area? How does it fit with or compliment this work? M O N R O E – R A N DO L P H R E G I O N A L O F F I C E O F E D U C A T I O N

15. Wrap-up/evaluation Tool is available as a word document on the INTC website under shared resources Questions: Rosalie Gardner, rgardner@roe45.org 618-939-5650Monroe-Randolph ROE 45 Waterloo, IL 62298 M O N R O E – R A N DO L P H R E G I O N A L O F F I C E O F E D U C A T I O N