Learning from Experience: Initial Findings of a Mentoring/Induction Program for Novice Principals and Superintendents.

For many professions, the use of mentoring relationships to facilitate and sustain professional development is an age-old tradition. Mentoring programs are studied widely and are reported to be effective in enhancing career development in private industry (Clutterbuck, 1987; Hall, 1976; Kram, 1985; Roche, 1979) and graduate education (Brause, 2002; Erkut & Mokros, 1981). Mentoring and peer relationships in the areas of teacher education (Jonson, 2002; Showers, 1985) and teacher professional growth (McCann & Radford, 1993; Wilkin, 1992; Zimpher & Rieger, 1988) have also been well established for several years. However, the concept of mentoring is a relatively recent phenomenon in the field of educational administration, as calls for administrator in-service programs only began to converge in the mid-1980s (Daresh, 2004). Mentoring models for novice principals and superintendents began to be created in the late 1980s and early 1990s by university-based administrator preparation programs and state policymakers as a vehicle for stimulating reflective practice and providing technical expertise, role clarification, and socialization in a more authentic context (Barnett, 1995; Crow & Matthews, 1998; Daresh, 2004; Kirkham, 1995). Although clinical experiences have become an integral focus of pre-service leadership preparation programs and are well documented in the professional literature base, research related to administrator mentoring programs-particularly induction programs for first-year school administrators-is just beginning to flourish. As new principals and superintendents enter the profession, the development of effective mentoring/induction programming provides an invaluable opportunity to socialize novices into the changing landscape of the field (Bandura, 1997; Daloz, 1998; Phillips-Jones, 1982; Sheehy, 1976). Such programs provide benefits to proteges, mentor administrators, and school districts (Harris & Cracker, 2003). However, many mentoring initiatives have suffered from a lack of sufficient funds and sporadic planning efforts (Daresh, 2004). Consequently, many mentoring programs have provided inadequate training for mentors and proteges, lacked a clear set of goals and responsibilities, and employed poorly conceived methods for mentor selection and mentor/protege pairing (Daresh, 1995,2004). Additional research is desirable to identify salient components of mentoring programs and provide improvement recommendations concerning these commonly overlooked, yet critical features of successful mentoring programs. This article reports findings from formative assessments of one state's administrator mentoring and induction program during two years of program piloting in 2002/03 and 2003/04. The purpose of this evaluation research was to establish baseline data and to detect problem areas so that changes could be made in subsequent years. More broadly, the study provides a window into successful components of an administrator mentoring program, according to these novice and experienced administrators. Theoretical perspectives on effective mentoring programs in educational administration are first presented. Quantitative and qualitative data from two surveys of principal and superintendent mentors and their proteges are then presented and analyzed, including trends that arose from the data. The study concludes by presenting recommendations for the design and implementation of administrative mentoring programs of this type. Theoretical Perspectives With the exception of studies addressing pre-service internship experiences (Caldwell & Carter, 1993; Daresh & Playko, 1988; Kirkham, 1995), research related to the effectiveness of mentoring programs for novice administrators is minimal (Trenta, Beebe, Cosiano, & Eastridge, 2001). Thirty-two states currently have enacted laws and policies related to supportive programs for administrators; however, Daresh (2004) notes that these programs have been "designed for individuals in the earliest stages of their work lives" (p. …