Abstract
The cases presented describe two levels of struggle. One level identifies two student teachers (ST) and their mentors failing to meet one another’s expectations. Another level presents school administration as it seeks to find ways of meeting STs’ needs while maintaining a positive and productive school climate. Relevant research is presented to help guide possible explanations for how these issues can be ameliorated for STs, mentors, and school administrators.
Case Narrative
Keisha was excited to declare herself an education major in her junior year at Phelan & Clark University. For as long as she could remember, she aspired to become an educator and felt her calling was to better the lives of children. She was absolutely exhilarated on her walk to Education 101, the first course in her teacher education program. In this class, Keisha learned about teaching methods, behavior management strategies, technological supplements, and student learning accommodations, among other basic teaching components. When it came time to fulfill the school observation requirement of the course, she felt more than prepared to observe and critique lessons, and even teach a mini-lesson should her cooperating teacher (CT) Ms. Holbrook permit it.
As she entered her assigned school, Keisha felt a wave of emotion. Although the smell of the school halls brought back happy memories of her own middle school experiences, along with excitement at finally being able to enter a classroom and put her pedagogical knowledge to use, she was nervous about meeting her CT and students. Would they like her? Would she be accepted as a member of their learning community? Would she be able to have an active role in class activities?
The students in Ms. Holbrook’s classroom proved to be enthralled with Keisha. They greeted her with apprehensive smiles, unsure of the visitor in their classroom, but immediately excited at the change in their day-to-day schedule. A flood of questions came toward Keisha from the students; however, Ms. Holbrook simply smiled at Keisha and motioned for her to take a seat in a vacant desk in the back of the room. She then continued on with her lesson. The lack of introduction to the students stung Keisha, but she assumed the CT did not want to interrupt the daily routine.
When the students were dismissed for lunch, Keisha warmly greeted her CT and let her know how thrilled she was to be assigned to her classroom: “I cannot wait to learn more about your students and to see effective pedagogy in action! Do you think I might be able to practice a mini-lesson during my time here?” Ms. Holbrook did not warm to Keisha’s excitement and told her sadly that she was simply “too short on time” to allow for Keisha’s “practice.” Keisha could learn a lot from watching from the back, she said. She proceeded to explain to Keisha that she would get her chance to teach during her senior internship; this was her time to watch and learn. Not wanting to damage her relationship with Ms. Holbrook, Keisha nodded in understanding and thanked Ms. Holbrook for allowing her to sit in on her lessons.
At the end of the school day, Keisha walked to her car with heavy shoulders. She felt disappointed that she would not be able to attempt a mini-lesson, demeaned by the fact that she was not even introduced to the students, and frustrated at Ms. Holbrook’s traditional, lecture-style of teaching. She was sure the students in Ms. Holbrook’s classroom were as disengaged in the lessons as she was, but she knew she would not be able to make a difference in their education. Keisha was suddenly unsure of her role in the classroom.
By the time Keisha entered her senior year, she was beginning to wonder whether majoring in middle grades education had been a huge mistake. She had little opportunity to practice teaching in Ms. Holbrook’s class, and she had failed to develop relationships with any of the students. She felt awkward and shy around the middle school students, and many of them seemed a little scary. In fact, she hoped that she would not be placed in an eighth-grade class for student teaching, because the eighth-grade boys seemed so big and intimidating.
In December, she was assigned to work as a student teacher (ST) at Jackson Middle School (JMS) in Foote County, North Carolina. Jackson had a student population of about 800 in Grades 6 to 8. The school was located in a semi-rural area and was comprised of 46% African Americans, 37% European Americans, 14% Hispanic Americans, 2% Asian Americans, and 1% American Indians, according to a county report on gender and ethnicity. In addition, county school system records showed about 47% of the students were eligible for free or reduced lunch.
Principal Stuart Whitworth had a reputation as one of the best principals in the county. He had managed to retain more qualified teachers than his predecessor and increase test scores for the past 3 years. Stuart enjoyed maintaining a relationship with a nearby research university and volunteering his school as a site for incubating new STs. He believed the ST–CT relationship was a mutually beneficial one and allowed his teachers to learn about new pedagogical methods and research.
However, this year he was faced with two serious problems in the program, and he searched for answers as to how his administrative team could be more supportive. His first problem centered on a shy ST who had been paired with an assertive and dynamic CT. The soft-spoken ST struggled to control the animated classroom environment that the CT had created. The second problem surrounded an ST with an inflated ego who had been placed in the classroom of a CT who was a bit rigid and also had an enormous amount of confidence in his teaching.
Keisha and Ms. Leefolt
The first problem arose when Keisha was assigned to work at JMS for one semester in the seventh-grade language arts classroom of Ms. Leefolt. Ms. Leefolt was a lateral-entry teacher who had worked as a public relations officer for a small college before deciding to become an English teacher. She completed a state-approved lateral-entry program and received her certification in middle grades language arts. Ms. Leefolt had worked at JMS for about 5 years and was becoming restless with the “sameness” of teaching. She was known as a highly creative teacher but seemed to need a steady stream of praise from Principal Stuart Whitworth. She frequently invited Stuart into her classroom to view projects, skits, and presentations, which Stuart enjoyed. However, he was beginning to wonder whether Ms. Leefolt was adequately addressing the curriculum and had heard the murmurs among students that Ms. Leefolt was “the easiest teacher at JMS.” Stuart placed Keisha in Ms. Leefolt’s class with the hope that the two could inspire each other.
When Keisha arrived in Ms. Leefolt’s classroom, she was surprised at the lack of discipline and the relaxed relationship Ms. Leefolt had with her students. Ms. Leefolt did not seem to have many rules, which ran counter to the pedagogical instruction Keisha had been given in university teacher education classes. She observed Ms. Leefolt’s teaching for about 2 weeks before being invited to try things out on her own.
Keisha’s first lesson was on poetry; she crafted her lesson plan carefully with the help of professors at her university. She envisioned the class rapt with attention and interest, but in reality, she could not seem to make the students listen to her or even stay in their seats. Her soft voice could not be heard over the laughter and chatter of the students, and she tried strategy after strategy in a vain attempt to get the students to listen. She felt defeated and confessed to Ms. Leefolt that the lesson had gone badly. Ms. Leefolt agreed the lesson had not been successful and then wondered aloud whether the university professors understood the “real world.” The strategies Keisha had been taught were not effective, Ms. Leefolt told her. However, she provided only one or two concrete suggestions for Keisha to improve.
The next lesson Keisha taught went just as poorly, and the students did not seem to respect her authority in the classroom. She had tried in vain to get the students to complete a K-W-L-Q chart (Fisher & Frey, 2012) that she had been introduced to at the university; this chart guided students to describe what they know and want to know about the topic prior to the lesson, as well as what they learned and what questions they may have had upon completion of the lesson. The activity required students to work in groups, and they had not been trained to work collaboratively. Instead of filling in the chart, the students simply chatted with each other. Ms. Leefolt watched Keisha flounder helplessly to get the students on task and even whispered under her breath, “That girl is a mess!” By the time Keisha had taken over all of Ms. Leefolt’s classes (a university requirement), Keisha seemed at a complete loss as to how to teach. Ms. Leefolt simply shook her head when students threw markers across the room and got up out of their seats. Ms. Leefolt told Keisha that she needed to think more about classroom management and less about elaborate strategies she had been taught at the university. She talked to her about her soft voice and lack of authority. The first step to teaching, she said, was to get the students to pay attention. Secretly, Ms. Leefolt began to believe the university had not taught Keisha anything. When a student yelled out an expletive at Keisha, Ms. Leefolt knew that Keisha’s gentle demeanor was not cut out for teaching.
Keisha was nearly hysterical when she called one of her professors at the university. She confessed she went home every day in tears. She told the professor she had no idea how to manage the students, and Ms. Leefolt refused to help her. She said Ms. Leefolt had even left school while Keisha was teaching, went to a nearby fast-food restaurant, and brought the food back to the classroom. She sat in the back of the room eating her lunch while Keisha tried repeatedly to get the students to sit down and pay attention. She told the professor she felt as if her lessons were simply amusing performances for Ms. Leefolt.
The day after Keisha’s phone call with her professor, Stuart’s office phone rang. It was the university professor wanting to know “more about the situation” with Keisha. Stuart confessed he was in the dark but promised to find out more.
Jessica and Mr. French
The second problem arose with another ST at JMS named Jessica. In her sophomore year at the university, Jessica had raised red flags for her hostile disposition. Professors in the department all agreed she portrayed a stance of “knowing it all” and appeared doubtful that professors could teach her anything she did not already understand about teaching. This attitude, combined with a need to tell experienced teachers what they should be doing in their classrooms, gave Jessica the reputation of being difficult to work with. Jessica’s advisor attempted to address this issue with her in a subtle manner prior to her senior internship; however, Jessica did not seem to understand his message.
When Jessica arrived at JMS, she was confident she knew what to do and felt sure she would make an excellent teacher. Jessica was assigned to the eighth-grade social studies classroom of Mr. French. Mr. French was a veteran teacher with more than 20 years of teaching experience. He was the social studies department chair and was the frequent recipient of awards and accolades. Parents often called Principal Stuart Whitworth and requested their children be placed in Mr. French’s class. Stuart felt comfortable putting several special needs students with Mr. French, including a recent transfer student who had spent time in juvenile detention and had fathered two children. In Stuart’s opinion, there was no better place for a ST than in Mr. French’s room. He placed Jessica with him in hopes that she would be able to learn from the best.
Mr. French created a desk space for Jessica in a corner of his room and set out the semester calendar, a detailed syllabus, and a list of all resources she would be able to use during her student teaching experience. He also briefed her on classroom rules and procedures and asked that she maintain those during her stay. He asked her to provide him with advance copies of all lesson plans so he could review them and give her feedback. He felt it was his duty to help usher in the next generation of teachers, and he wanted to make certain Jessica was on the right path and would be successful. He asked her to observe his teaching for 2 weeks and then allowed her take over one of his classes. He did not want to “throw her to the wolves” too soon, and he wanted to make certain she was ready. He tried hard to offer advice and observations after each lesson in hopes that Jessica could tweak her instruction to better meet the needs of students.
Jessica, however, felt suffocated by Mr. French’s efforts. She longed to use the creative unit plan she had crafted at the university, and she knew she was perfectly capable of teaching a class without Mr. French’s constant criticism. He told her what she was supposed to teach, and she felt she was allowed no freedom to make her own lessons. She resented his comments, and began to roll her eyes occasionally when he corrected her. Although she complied with his request for advance lesson plans at first, she grew annoyed with Mr. French’s intense micromanagement and soon stopped giving him lesson plans. She grew to dislike his earnestness and felt he did not know how to teach in the 21st century way. She had learned about cooperative grouping, technology integration, and student-centered lessons at the university—and Mr. French incorporated none of these in his lessons. Eventually, Jessica became openly dismissive of his comments and refused to eat lunch with the rest of the team because she did not want to be around Mr. French more than necessary. She soon became irritated with the entire faculty. At required faculty meetings, she tried to pass the time by texting her boyfriend and dreamed of the day when she would be free to become the great teacher she knew she could be. Jessica knew she only had to bide her time until she graduated and was free to teach in the way she thought best.
It was not long before Stuart found himself completely embroiled in the controversy between the mentor teachers and STs. The issues with Keisha and Jessica had escalated, so Stuart stopped by the classrooms of Ms. Leefolt and Mr. French to check in. Both teachers confessed they were unhappy with being asked to host STs who were ill-prepared by the university’s teacher education program. Ms. Leefolt felt that Keisha did not have a clue what she was doing; Mr. French felt Jessica was arrogant and overconfident.
When Stuart called the STs into his office to talk, he was unprepared for the tears and disappointment of the two young women. Keisha said she felt completely unsupported by her mentor teacher and confessed that she was humiliated when Ms. Leefolt did not help calm students. Jessica voiced feeling upset by Mr. French’s lack of creativity and stern discipline, along with the fact that he did not seem to trust her to craft a lesson and teach it without his input. What could Stuart do? Is there any way for him to repair the damaged relationships? Should he intervene? What about next year? Should he continue to offer his school to the university as a training ground for STs?
Discussion
This case study describes two levels of struggle. First, two STs and their mentors fail to meet one another’s expectations. However, Principal Stuart Whitworth can serve a valuable leadership role in the school. He must find ways to meet the STs’ needs, while respecting the teachers in the school to maintain a positive and productive school climate. As Stuart seeks ways to repair the damaged relationships, he can reflect on the complicated nature of the mentor–mentee relationship in school settings.
Stuart knows that effective CTs exhibit a specific set of practices. Sayeski and Paulsen (2012) identified six salient areas in which CTs can most effectively mentor their STs. They cited (a) pre-planning; (b) sharing of resources; (c) constructive, specific feedback; (d) multi-modal feedback including written feedback; (e) modeling of effective practices; and (f) practices demonstrating trust and confidence. Stuart must reflect on whether either CT was demonstrating these qualities.
In addition, Stuart read in one study of effective mentor–ST relationships that it is important for CTs to maintain a delicate balance of control in determining how much independence to allow STs (Glenn, 2006). The CT must allow the ST the “primary authority in the classroom, but (be) willing to step in should the need arise” (Glenn, 2006, p. 89).
Stuart also knows that the classroom selected for a preservice teacher’s student teaching experience is highly significant for his or her success (Torrez & Krebs, 2012) and as a result, should be chosen carefully. Mentor teachers have a great responsibility as they prepare preservice teachers for the challenges of classroom teaching (Hennissen, Crasborn, Brouwer, Korthagen, & Bergen, 2011); mentors are capable of modeling effective instruction, collaborating with STs to strengthen student learning, and guiding preservice teachers’ thought processes as they construct lesson plans, among other helpful strategies (Schneider, 2008). However, mentor teachers are not always prepared for their roles (Grossman & Davis, 2012), as exemplified by the cases of Ms. Holbrook, Ms. Leefolt, and Mr. French. Mentor teachers should be carefully selected for service (Washburn-Moses, 2010), as a poor pairing between a preservice teacher and mentor may result in an ineffective mentoring experience (Rajuan, Beijaard, & Verloop, 2010). Furthermore, administrators’ support of the mentoring process may make a difference in its effectiveness (Grossman & Davis, 2012). Consider, Ms. Leefolt and Mr. French were recruited because of their special teaching qualities. Although they certainly may possess other qualities that would help them serve as teacher-leaders, being a good teacher is not the only criterion for serving as a mentor (Grossman & Davis, 2012; Magaya & Crawley, 2011). Stuart, and other school administrators, should seek to understand more clearly the mentor teacher selection process. Furthermore, both mentor teachers and administrators should be aware of common frustrations felt by preservice teachers, one being the belief that they lack freedom (Patrick, 2013), evidenced by Jessica, to prevent such tensions from occurring.
This selection process is especially important because success of the mentoring relationship is largely dependent on the mentor teacher’s ability to assist the preservice teacher appropriately (Hobson, Ashby, Malderez, & Tomlinson, 2009). Part of the selection process should include providing prospective mentor teachers with an explicit job description (Magaya & Crawley, 2011). Also, placement should not be solely based on mentor teacher volunteerism; ST placement should be an intentional act between colleges of education and local school administrations (Magaya & Crawley, 2011). Perhaps in the future, Stuart will be more aware of which teachers he places with students. For example, Mr. French was an exemplary teacher; however, this did not indicate him to be the best fit for Jessica.
Once a relationship between the ST and mentor teacher has been established, it is critical that the partnership be positive (Lu, 2013). Mentor teachers have the potential to help or harm preservice teachers’ future teaching practices (Hobson et al., 2009). In Keisha’s case, the negative relationship did not help her develop good teaching practices. To develop these effective practices, preservice teachers should have ample opportunities to teach (Lu, 2013). Although Keisha was able to teach lessons, Ms. Leefolt was more of a distraction or hindrance than a role model. To avoid this type of negative environment for the ST, mentor teachers need explicit training in observational skills to provide guidance and helpful feedback for mentee teachers (Strong & Baron, 2004). STs desire feedback that provides emotional support and task assistance (Hennissen et al., 2011) while building their own skills and confidence. According to Hennissen and colleagues (2010), emotional support refers to meeting STs’ needs by nurturing them and instilling qualities of trust and care in the mentor relationship, whereas task assistance refers to the actual execution of lesson plans and teaching related duties.
Both mentor teachers and STs have duties and expectations of the mentor–student relationship. Effective mentors should certainly have expectations for their mentees, yet also understand their positions as role models (Russell & Russell, 2011). Goering (2013) posits there may be no greater impression made on a preservice teacher than that made by his or her mentor teacher. Therefore, mentor teachers should intervene and not let STs flounder through lessons (Weasmer & Woods, 2003) as was evident in Ms. Leefolt’s class. In contrast, it is possible that mentors can achieve professional development through their work with STs (Margerum-Leys & Marx, 2002). Both mentees and mentors can benefit from cooperation during the mentoring experience (Russell & Russell, 2011) if the expectations are clearly established and both parties are prepared for their responsibilities. The provided research should aid in achieving such mentioned goals in the field.
Teaching Notes
The cases presented describe two levels of struggle. One level identifies two STs and their mentors failing to meet one another’s expectations. Another level presents school administration as it seeks to find ways of meeting STs’ needs while maintaining a positive and productive school climate. Relevant research was presented to help guide possible explanations for how these issues can be ameliorated for STs, mentors, and school administrators.
Instructors teaching graduate courses in educational leadership and school administration, as well as teacher educators, can use this case to facilitate discussions about the complex issues surrounding the mentor, or CT and ST relationship, and the role administrators play in supporting it. Working relationships are always a potential source of conflict, but none is more fraught with peril than that of the CT and ST bond. A close and supportive student teaching experience is essential for a healthy sense of efficacy in new teachers (Lu, 2013). The cases presented illustrate the challenges involved in establishing a mutually beneficial relationship between STs and CTs, as well as the difficulties that can arise for STs, CTs, and school administrators when a personality mismatch occurs. Administrators must balance the needs of established teachers with those of the new and vulnerable STs. They also must find ways to establish guidelines and provide professional development for mentoring young teachers.
Professional development instructors can use the activities and questions below to facilitate discussions on the expectations of STs and CTs, the role that administrators have in nurturing relationships, the establishment of a professional development program for mentor teachers, the part that schools play in supporting the apprenticeship of unlicensed teachers, and the management of conflict in a school setting. In class, students should be encouraged to break into small groups and collaborate on solutions.
Discussion Questions
Ms. Leefolt is a creative teacher who has a close, easy relationship with her students. How can Ms. Leefolt support Keisha without feeling as if she is “losing” her students? How should she help Keisha build relationships?
Mr. French’s adherence to rules and well-established procedures is off-putting to Jessica, who wants the freedom to create her own classroom community. What can Mr. French do to allow Jessica some leeway without completely abandoning the classroom environment he has found successful? What steps can Jessica take toward building a better relationship with Mr. French?
Both mentor teachers have complained to Stuart about the teacher education program at the university. How should Stuart respond to these complaints? Should he do anything?
Stuart finds himself faced with unhappy teachers, unhappy STs, and a tenuous relationship with the university. What are Stuart’s priorities? How can he facilitate a resolution that is satisfying to all parties?
Stuart enjoys partnering with the local university and believes it benefits students and teachers. However, he is frustrated by the recent interactions with the STs and the mentors. How can he address his concerns with the local university’s education department? Should he address these concerns or just give up the partnership?
Stuart found himself in a difficult situation. His teachers and the STs were unhappy with their working relationships. What could Stuart have done earlier to prevent these precarious situations? How could he have intervened?
Keisha needs help with classroom management. What are some specific actions Ms. Leefolt could have taken to help Keisha develop her area of weakness? What steps can Keisha take toward building a better relationship with Ms. Leefolt?
Jessica feels stifled and micromanaged in Mr. French’s classroom. However, Mr. French is clearly an excellent teacher. How might Jessica and Mr. French find balance in the classroom between their two teaching philosophies?
Class Activities
Collaborate and describe: Allow students to form small groups of two or three. Ask them to develop a job description for mentor teachers. The criteria should include specific skills necessary for creating an optimal mentoring relationship with a ST. How can STs’ task needs be addressed in the job description? How can STs’ emotional needs be addressed in the job description?
Collaborate and inform: Allow students to form small groups of three or four. Ask students to create a brief presentation designed to help mentor teachers understand their duties as lead partners in the mentoring relationship. As the leadership team, what do you think mentor teachers need to understand about their duties? What do you expect from them? What do you expect your teachers to know before the STs arrive? How will you explain your role as principal in the mentoring process? Share how you will support the ST and CT relationship and protect the interests of both individuals. Groups will present their presentations to at least one other group to receive informal peer feedback.
Collaborate and lead: Part of maintaining positive mentor relationships in a school is having an ongoing model of open communication between STs and mentor teachers. Ask students to form groups for three or four. Each group will design a 2-hr in-service professional development training module designed to actively involve student and mentor teachers in tasks that encourage communication and collaboration. What activities can STs and mentor teachers engage in that encourage collaboration? How can both the ST and the mentor teacher act as experts in the professional development module? How can both the ST and the mentor teacher act as learners in the professional development module?
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.