Critiquing the “National Standards for School-based Initial Teacher Training Mentors” in England

Abstract

Purpose In 2016, the National Standards for School-based Initial Teacher Training (ITT) Mentors were published in England. The purpose of this paper is to critique these standards through a comparison of how others have framed and defined the role of the mentor, drawing on equivalent standards already published in nursing (2008) and social work (2012). Design/methodology/approach An analysis of three sets of professional standards was conducted by adapting the “constant comparison” approach in which the researchers sought to combine a form of inductive coding with comparison across the texts. This enabled the identification of a number of common themes and omissions across the three sets of standards. Findings The analysis revealed the ITT mentor standards provide a comparatively limited account of the role of the mentor, particularly in relation to the process of assessment, the power dynamics between mentors and student teachers, and the school as an institutional site for professional learning. Originality/value The study’s originality lies in the inter-professional comparative analysis, which revealed a number of potentially contentious issues not immediately apparent from a close textual analysis of the ITT mentor standards.

National Standards for school-based mentors: the potential to recognise the “Cinderella” role of mentoring?

“…However, there was a notable lack of specificity from the respondents about what such CPD could entail. This could potentially be attributed to Peiser et al ' s (2018) and Jerome and Brook (2019) observations that the National Standards do not fully capture the essence of mentoring, and as such the lack of detail in the National Standards is potentially problematic and unhelpful. The reciprocal learning relationship between mentor and mentee and the collaborative dimension of dialogic mentoring as noted by, for example, Hobson (2016), are notably absent from both the National Standards and in relation to the responses by mentors in the survey.…”

“…The reciprocal learning relationship between mentor and mentee and the collaborative dimension of dialogic mentoring as noted by, for example, Hobson (2016), are notably absent from both the National Standards and in relation to the responses by mentors in the survey. The “silences” in the National Standards, as reported by Jerome and Brook (2019), are evident in the silences in the data where, for example, mentor respondents note the National Standards could “guide” mentoring and support CPD but offer little in the way of exploring how this could be facilitated.…”

“…The rationale for the introduction of the National Standards, Lofthouse (2018) asserts, was to provide quality-assured mentoring in ITT, but Peiser et al (2018) argue that the distillation of the mentor's work into four standards oversimplifies the complexity of the mentor role that is well documented in research. Such a perspective is endorsed by Jerome and Brook (2019) who focused on comparing the National Standards with those in the nursing and social work professions, given their similarities. Their comparative study revealed a number of “silences” in the National Standards' account of the role of ITT mentors, “most significantly in relation to the nature of the schools as a context for professional education, the relationships between mentors and student teachers and indeed, the educational processes at the heart of the role” (Jerome and Brook, 2019, p. 131).…”

“…Such a perspective is endorsed by Jerome and Brook (2019) who focused on comparing the National Standards with those in the nursing and social work professions, given their similarities. Their comparative study revealed a number of “silences” in the National Standards' account of the role of ITT mentors, “most significantly in relation to the nature of the schools as a context for professional education, the relationships between mentors and student teachers and indeed, the educational processes at the heart of the role” (Jerome and Brook, 2019, p. 131). Disturbingly, they found that the mentor's role in ITT is presented as relatively one-dimensional, whilst the other professions dwell much more on what the mentor actually does to create and implement a personalised learning plan.…”

“…Disturbingly, they found that the mentor's role in ITT is presented as relatively one-dimensional, whilst the other professions dwell much more on what the mentor actually does to create and implement a personalised learning plan. “This speaks to a more nuanced account of their educative role and assumes the PWE [mentor] has access to a varied repertoire of roles and activities” (Jerome and Brook, 2019, p. 127).…”