Journal of

Educational Professional development for

Administration
33,5
heads: the role of mentoring
Tony Bush and Marianne Coleman
60 EMDU Leicester University, Northampton, UK

Introduction
Mentoring is an important mode of professional development in many
countries, including Australia[1], Singapore[2], the UK[3] and the USA[4]. Its
underlying assumption is that a more experienced colleague can facilitate the
professional development of a new principal.
The notion of mentoring is similar in these different societies and
incorporates the dual concepts of support and professional development. While
new headteachers often welcome “a shoulder to cry on”, there may be
frustration in due course if the mentoring process does not go beyond personal
support to include assessment of the mentee’s professional practice.
Mentoring has grown in importance in the UK and elsewhere partly as a
result of the shift to self-management in schools and colleges. In England and
Wales heads have acquired many new responsibilities since the 1988 Education
Reform Act, including the management of finance and staff. There is also a
growing recognition that school effectiveness depends on the leadership
qualities of the headteacher. The induction of new heads makes an important
contribution to the development of these qualities and mentoring is an
increasingly significant component of the induction process.
Formal mentoring programmes for new headteachers have been in place in
England since 1992, following an initiative by the School Management Task
Force (SMTF[5, p. 3]):
The headteacher plays a highly significant role in school management, being both focus and
pivot at the centre of decision-making. Preparing, inducting and developing headteachers is a
major responsibility of the education service.

Research on the pilot phase of the programme, conducted by Bolam et al.[3]

concludes that new headteachers had responded favourably to their mentoring
experience.

The East Midlands research

Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 33 No. 5, 1995,
pp. 60-73. © MCB University Press,
0957-8234
In 1993, the Esmée Fairbairn Charitable Trust funded a major national research
project on mentoring and teacher education in England and Wales. The work
involved research teams from six universities: Keele, Leicester, Manchester
Metropolitan, Oxford, Sussex and Swansea. The other universities focused on
mentoring and initial teacher training. The distinctive feature of the Leicester
research was its emphasis on mentoring and continuing professional
development. The Leicester team examined the impact of mentoring at three
phases of professional development: newly qualified teachers, middle managers Professional
and headteachers[6]. development for
The research with headteachers involved work with seven pairs in two heads
counties in the English East Midlands (see Table I). The research involved the
following methods:
● two interviews with both the mentors and new heads; one at the
61
beginning and one at the end of the latters’ first year as headteachers, the
1993/1994 academic year;
● observation of one meeting of each mentor pair;
● logs completed by both mentor and new head following some of their
meetings;
● interviews with the co-ordinators of the mentor programme in the two
local education authorities (LEAs);
In addition, the seven mentors participated in the pilot phase of comparative
research being conducted in collaboration with staff of the National Institute of
Education in Singapore. They all completed an extensive questionnaire
designed by the research teams in both countries.

The nature and purpose of mentoring

Bolam et al.[3, p. 3] quote the Welsh Joint Education Committee description of
mentoring as “a process of peer support which is intended to get beyond
anecdote and sympathy into development”. They add that the main purpose is
“to help newly appointed headteachers to manage the transition into headship”
[3, p. 3].
In the English East Midlands, training for mentors was provided by the
Grubb Institute which stresses five purposes for the mentor role.
(1) The mentor provides encouragement and support to enable the new
head to become an effective head of the school.
(2) Mentoring is designed to support the process of finding, making and
taking the role of the head. This involves understanding the nature of the
school as a system, taking ownership of its aim and acting on that
understanding.

County A County B

Primary – one pair Primary – two pairs

Secondary – two pairs Secondary – one pair
Cross-phase – one pair
(primary and secondary) Table I.
The mentor pairs
Journal of (3) The raw material of mentoring sessions is the new head’s experience of
Educational their school – what is happening in the school, how they feel about it and
Administration the way people are reacting to them. It is through talking about,
reflecting on and having support in making sense of the experience, that
33,5
the new head is supported in taking up their role.
62 (4) New heads need to understand how they can take authority. What
matters is that the new head can own and justify the decisions he or she
takes, rather than feeling that they are acting on the mentor’s advice.
(5) The new head’s actions should be for the benefit of the school as a whole.
He or she will be recognized as acting with authority to the extent that
they can relate their decisions to the school as a whole, and what it is
trying to achieve (Grubb cited in[7, p. 5]).
One of the LEA co-ordinators expresses support for the Grubb approach but
adds certain specific purposes:
The purpose is for peer support; the aims include offering an outside view in helping new
heads with boundary management and management of people within boundaries. Helping
them with how they see the school and enabling them to formulate plans for action.

The evidence of the authors’ research is that mentoring is regarded as a central

element in the professional development of new heads. Pre-service training for
heads is not a requirement in the UK although, in practice, many aspiring heads
take award-bearing courses in educational management. In this ad hoc
environment, mentoring may be particularly important, operating as a
substitute for training rather than forming part of it as in the USA and
Singapore.
A new training programme for heads, the “Headlamp” scheme, was
introduced in 1995 and offers new heads the opportunity for professional
development funded by the Teacher Training Agency (TTA). It remains to be
seen whether, and to what extent, mentoring forms part of the “Headlamp”
training.

“Matching” mentors and new heads

The potential advantages of mentoring as a form of induction, or in-service
training, depend to a considerable extent on the quality of the “match” between
mentor and new head. Clutterbuck[8, p. 41] identifies the mismatch as one of
three main reasons for the failure of mentoring.
The matching process, then, is a critical element in determining the success
of mentoring. In one East Midlands LEA, a careful approach is adopted taking
account of location, phase (primary or secondary) and the expressed
preferences of the new heads. All mentors must be trained. In a few cases the
new head nominates the mentor but more often the LEA co-ordinator makes the
allocation, taking account of any “negative preferences” expressed by the new
heads.
 Most new heads and mentors are content with the LEA’s “honest broker” role Professional
although they would have requested a reallocation if they had been unhappy development for
with the nomineee. In practice this did not happen but there were a few heads
reservations about the LEA’s role in the process. One mentor expressed concern
about the “ownership of the mentoring process” and the potential for LEAs to
adopt a “dictatorial” role.
Hall[9, p. 72] criticizes the selection process in one part of the county and 63
quotes one mentor who expressed concern about two nominees:
You can have doubts about the attitudes of some of your colleagues. I felt strongly about these
two when they were on the training course.

Typically, heads are allocated mentors with experience in the same phase.
Occasionally, cross-phase mentoring occurs with mixed results. In one case, the
relationship broke down because of the perceived limitations of experience in
the other phase:
Although we have always said that issues are very similar, for example governors,
interpersonal skills, my understanding of a primary school is greater than that of a secondary
school. I think that cross-phase is a weakness (mentor).
Initially I did not think that cross-phase mentoring would be a problem, but I am not sure any
more (new head).

The importance of the mentor and new head operating in comparable contexts
also emerges from Brady’s[1,10] study in New South Wales. He concludes that
“all pairs operated harmoniously” but adds that “teaching and non-teaching
principals should not be placed together as their roles impose different planning
demands”[1, p. 97].

The impact of mentoring

We noted earlier the dual nature of mentoring, incorporating both personal
support and professional development. Kram distinguishes between the
psychosocial and career functions of mentorship:
A mentor relationship has the potential to enhance career development and psychosocial
development of both individuals. Through career functions, including sponsorship, coaching,
protection, exposure-and-visibility, and challenging work assignments, a [new] manager is
assisted in learning the ropes of organizational life…through psychosocial functions
including role modelling, acceptance and confirmation, counselling and friendship, a [new]
manager is supported in developing a sense of competence, confidence, and effectiveness in
the managerial role[11, pp. 613-14].

In the East Midlands the main impact was on the heads’ personal skills, which
were enhanced significantly, but there was also a recognition of mentoring’s
influence on school management, particularly at the end of their first year in
post:
It’s about me…coming up to speed with some things, picking up on personal skills which were
underdeveloped in a previous post.
Journal of I am not expecting the mentor relationship to have an impact on school improvement except
through my own personal and professional growth. Mentoring impacts on school
Educational development through personal development.
Administration Directly and indirectly he has had an impact on decisions made within the school. I had to be
33,5 comfortable they were my decisions even though they were a product of joint discussion.

In practice, it may be that personal and school development proceed in tandem

64 as the developing skills of the new head lead to organizational improvement:
He has identified personal targets he wants to develop. But, alongside that, new heads
inevitably make an impact on structure and processes (mentor).

The benefits of mentoring

The benefits of mentoring have been well-documented in several countries.
There may be advantages for mentors and the educational system as well as for
the new heads.

Benefits for new heads

Daresh and Playko[4, p. 150] report on the benefits experienced by mentees in
the USA:
Considerable professional growth is typically observed and attributed to the fact that regular
career counselling and guidance takes place…People who received the support of mentors
reported that they were goal-directed, increasingly serious about the importance of detail, self-
confident [and] reflective.

These findings support the view expressed by Barnett[12] in his discussion of

peer-assisted leadership (PAL) in California. He claims that principals become
more reflective, gain insights into their own styles and actions, and reveal
practices picked up from their partners.
Ho and Chong[13, p. 2] suggest that, in Singapore, protégés gain great
benefits from mentoring and quote one mentee’s experience:
The close relationship [with the mentor] and her frankness in sharing her thoughts and
experiences, guided me and helped me to have valuable insights into the nature of my future role.

Brady’s[1] research in New South Wales reveals several benefits from the
mentoring process:
● gains in knowledge and skills;
● overcoming isolation through face-to-face contact;
● provides a context for self-disclosure without fear of judgement.
Bolam et al.[3, p. 19] identify several benefits based on their research in the UK.
Mentors assisted new heads by:
● acting as a sounding board;
● offering encouragement;
● building confidence;
● encouraging positive attitudes;
 ● clarifying the role of headteacher; Professional
● brainstorming strategies and tactics. development for
The authors’ research shows several benefits for mentees. The new heads heads
typically welcome the opportunity to have privileged and legitimate access to
an experienced professional peer:
Being free from the shackles of the job and being able to take time with a respected 65
professional equal.
Knowing that there is somebody in the background that I can turn to is a great source of
comfort.
Headship…is a plunge into the unknown…You need someone with whom you can speak in
total confidence…and who you can trust to give impartial and objective advice…you are able
to divulge weaknesses and apprehensions in a way that you cannot elsewhere.
In the pilot survey, mentors identified several significant benefits for new
heads:
● an opportunity to test out ideas or share concerns;
● a chance to “let off steam” rather than act in haste;
● a reduction in the feeling of isolation;
● increased confidence and self-esteem.

Benefits for mentors

The benefits of mentoring are not confined to the new heads. Mentors can also
gain from a two-way process of professional development:
It could be argued that they must benefit if they are to invest the time and effort required to
perform the role in a meaningful way[7, p. 8].

Chong et al.[2, p. 20] emphasize the potential advantage of mutual learning and
illustrate this benefit by quoting one of the Singapore mentors. “Every
encounter with the protégé is a learning experience”.
Brady refers to the prospect of mentoring overcoming the isolation faced by
many Australian heads, regardless of their level of experience, through direct
contact and collegiality:
One principal admitted to “being tied up in his own little nest”, and how the approach helped
to “overcome insularity”. Another principal spoke explicitly about enhanced feelings of
professionalism: “I feel very professional being able to share with another person at that
level”[10, p. 373].

Daresh and Playko[4] also emphasize the problems of isolation experienced by

many principals. Mentoring can be seen as one element in a process of
networking designed to reduce professional isolation.
Kirkham refers to the “regeneration” which may result from the mentoring
process. The positive attitude of one new head was transmitted to her mentor:
I was mentally exhausted by the enthusiasm and energy she displayed and was reminded of
my own early feelings. I thought to myself “why don’t I still feel like that?”. I determined that
Journal of from that day I would be less cynical and present a more positive face about the changes in
front of us[14, p. 118].
Educational
Administration The co-ordinator for one East Midlands county is convinced of the benefits for
33,5 mentors and of the advantages shared by mentor and new head:
It is a two-way process; there are benefits for the mentor. It helps the mentor to define and
develop their skills of observation, listening, questioning and shadowing. In a situation when
66 they are walking round the school with the head, observation of the head’s interaction with
others all gets stored away…A further benefit of mentoring is that it…provides an
opportunity for professional development. It is also a sounding board … The mentor and new
head need a shared agenda.

This final point is echoed by one of the mentors participating in the authors’
research, stressing the value of mentoring for both parties because there is “so
little professional development available for heads”.
The mentors acknowledge that “peer support is really a two-way contract”,
providing direct benefits for them as well as the new heads:
The head I mentored last year taught me an awful lot about the way she deals with parents
and governors.

The participants in the pilot survey identify several benefits for mentors:
● the opportunity to discuss professional issues with an equal partner;
● improved problem analysis;
● valuable insight into current practice;
● the nature of different approaches to headship.
These mentors also stress their enjoyment of the mentoring process, referring to
the “sense of purpose” and the shared values that can emanate from the
interaction with the new head.

Benefits for the educational system

National and state governments sponsor mentoring because of the perceived
advantages for the educational system. The arguments in favour of this form of
support go beyond the individual participants to include benefits for their
schools and the professional network.
Daresh and Playko stress the networking benefits arising from the mentoring
process in the USA:
Serving as a mentor brought administrators together not only with their protégés, but also
with others serving as mentors. This type of arrangement provided people with an
opportunity to talk with other educators, and it also served as a way for practicing managers
to learn about new practices and research findings[4, p. 150].
Chong et al. also refer to wider system benefits emerging from the mentoring
process in Singapore:
The relationship proliferates organizational norms and culture, ensures hard-learned
knowledge and skills are transferred to younger colleagues, improves the overall performance
of the work group, and provides a steady supply of trained personnel[2, p. 21].
The mentors in the authors’ research also note benefits for the wider Professional
educational system. One refers to mentoring as “part of an induction process for development for
a new head into an LEA” while another claims that sharing experience helps to heads
develop common values.
Mentors participating in the authors’ pilot survey identify several benefits for
the educational system arising from the East Midlands mentoring programme:
Low-cost, high quality support of a professional nature which is wide-ranging, non- 67
threatening and easily available.
A number of more confident heads.
Schools are supported indirectly as heads are supported and develop their role and efficiency.
More assured school leadership in the initial stage of headship.
In summary, the mentoring process benefits the educational system by helping
new heads to become more effective at an earlier stage in their new careers, and
by the espousal of a culture of mutual support and development among the
wider community of heads and the schools they serve.

The limitations of mentoring

There are many benefits arising from mentoring for principals but there are
also certain limitations. The main difficulties are as follows:
● insufficient time to develop the relationship properly;
● the risk of the new head becoming too dependent on the mentor;
● the possibility of a “mismatch” between mentor and new head leading to
the “failure” of the relationship.

Lack of time
Research in Singapore suggests that a lack of time may be the only serious
limitation of mentoring:
The only one that seemed to emerge from both mentors and protégés was that the additional
time commitments mentors had to make were sometimes disadvantageous to the school. Other
perceived disadvantages did not appear to form any patterns[15, p. 44].

California’s PAL programme has also experienced difficulties arising from the
time required of participants, leading to a modification of the scheme:
The most common complaint we hear about the program is the amount of time principals
must spend away from their schools…Therefore, we are now attempting to reduce the time
spent out of their buildings[12, p. 146].

This issue is also significant in the East Midlands, as one of the mentors
suggests:
[There is] such a shortage of time these days to do everything that you need to do, that’s the
only disadvantage.

Four of the seven participants in the authors’ pilot survey also refer to the
problem of limited time to carry out their role as well as they would like.
Journal of Dependence
Educational New heads are “mentored” at a significant point in their career development.
Administration They have just been promoted to one of the most important jobs in the
33,5 educational system. If this is their first headship, they are facing many events
and situations for the first time, usually in an unfamiliar context. Mentors may
appear to provide a ready source of advice in dealing with these new issues. The
68 difficulty for mentors is judging how much to advise and how much to help new
heads to make their own decisions. There is a very real risk of dependence on
the mentor:
Mentoring can be potentially harmful to growth if and when protégés develop too great a
reliance on mentors, who are expected to provide all possible answers to all possible
questions[4, p. 112].

The Grubb training for mentors in the East Midlands emphasizes the need for
new heads to be guided to “take” the role of head. Mentors are expected to be
self-effacing in suggesting solutions to problems. Rather, they should allow new
heads to find their own answers. In practice, however, there is a danger of
mentors exerting too much influence. One new head reflects on:
the extent to which the mentor’s influence clouded my objectivity. One concern could be “was
I doing this or was the mentor doing it?”.

The training also suggests that the agenda for meetings should be set by the
new head rather than the mentor. This reactive role leads to difficulties for some
mentors, as one of the authors’ interviewees suggests:
[One limitation is] that you don’t actually own the agenda and I think that some people find
that really hard (mentor).

Two of the survey respondents also refer to the issue of agenda setting and the
need to promote the independence of the new head:
[One problem was] knowing that I wasn’t setting the agenda; not knowing what would be
discussed in advance.
I was very aware that I must not let my mentee take my views “on” too much.

Mismatch
As we have already noted, a sound “match” between mentor and new head is an
essential component of successful mentoring. They need to be able to develop
good personal and professional relationships if the partnership is to flourish.
While care may be taken to match participants, for example in terms of location
and phase, there remains the possibility that some pairings will not “gel”.
One new head quoted by Kirkham[14, p. 120] appears to have been the victim
of a mismatch:
Although the mentor to whom I was allotted was a pleasant and helpful person, our
educational philosophies and approaches to the staff were quite different, which was apparent
from an early stage in our meetings. Before long we drifted apart.
The co-ordinator for one East Midlands county has the responsibility for Professional
matching and concedes that it is not always successful: development for
As facilitator of the process for the county one difficulty is just keeping track. Trying to heads
respect confidentiality causes difficulty because then you are not aware when things go
wrong…Most of the mentors are reluctant to admit to failure and it is difficult for the new
heads who don’t find time or confidence to say it is not working.

One new head told the researcher about her reservations but did not discuss 69
them with the county co-ordinator. This head welcomed the support of the
mentor but, by the end of the first year, expressed concern about a lack of
“rigour” in the process.
While the lack of time, and the risk of dependence or a mismatch, are
significant limitations, they appear to be outweighed by the benefits. Chong et
al.[2] cite Reiche’s[16] study where 50 per cent of protégés report no
disadvantages. Two of the authors’ pilot survey mentors claim that they
experienced “no real difficulties” while the other respondents all say that the
benefits exceed any limitations.

Conceptualizing the mentor relationship

Mentoring for principals is now well established in many countries but there
is little clarity about the nature of the relationship. One important objective of
the authors’ research was to locate mentoring within a conceptual framework.
Several different concepts have been advanced in the literature but they are
not well supported by the empirical evidence and no dominant model has
emerged.
One model tested in the research is the “novice-expert” continuum
associated with Berliner[17]. This model has received some support in the USA
in respect of teacher education[18] but its validity for principals seems to be
limited. The evidence from the authors’ research is that mentors are reluctant
to be cast as “experts” because new heads are all experienced and successful
teachers extending into the next stage of professional development:
It is not a novice-expert relationship. New heads are expert and will be experts in their own
schools. To become principals they have demonstrated knowledge, skills and abilities.
Mentors are there to help them develop to the benefit of the new school. The job of the
mentor…is not to be prescriptive.

Another mentor implicitly rejects the “expert” label in describing the role:
A mentor is not someone who knows the answers but someone who makes the heads build up
a picture of their own school – the school they have in their mind.

An alternative conception of mentoring is that of peer support. Here, the mentor

and new head are generally regarded as “two people of equal standing”, as two
participants suggest:
The mentor has had areas of experience that the new head does not have…I have areas of
experience he did not have (new head).
I am learning from [the new head]. It is a two-way relationship (mentor).
Journal of The notion of peer support is strongly advocated by one county co-ordinator
Educational and is the dominant normative model arising from the Esmée Fairbairn
findings and from the responses of the survey mentors (see Table II).
Administration The weakness of an undue emphasis on support may be that mentoring
33,5 becomes too passive and does not challenge the new head. More “rigour” may
be needed to make the best of the relationship. Field[19, p. 67] stresses that
70 mentoring should go beyond support to facilitate professional growth:
There is a distinction between social support that puts newcomers at ease and professional
support that advances knowledge and practice.

Effective support may require the development of counselling skills.

Clutterbuck[8, p. 13] regards counselling as one of “the key roles of mentoring”
while Finn[20, pp. 153-4] suggests that counselling may be an appropriate
metaphor for the mentor relationship:
Everyone needs somebody to help them through problems, to share ideas and gain advice.
Mentors need to be good listeners, be good at handling negative situations, [and] be able to
focus the protégé on the central problem.

The concept of counselling has gained some empirical support in the authors’
research:
Mentoring does have elements of counselling, notably in listening and empathizing with the
mentee (mentor).
[The mentor’s] work is like that of a counsellor, she listens and makes me reflect (new head).
Counselling appears to be more significant in the early stages of mentoring with
the relationship becoming more one of peer support by the end of the first year
of headship.
The county co-ordinator reinforces the “listening” aspect of counselling but
does not welcome the “telling” element:

The following terms are often used to describe mentoring. To what extent do you regard them as
appropriate terms?
Very Very
appropriate Appropriate Inappropriate inappropriate

Expert novice 1 5 1
Peer support 5 2
Co-counselling 4 3
Coaching 3 2 2
Socialization 1 4 2
Mutual/reciprocal learning 2 5
Collaboration 3 3 1
Career sponsorship 1 1 4 1
Table II. Executive succession 5 2
The responses of the Altruism 3 2 2
survey mentors
 Mentoring involves highly refined listening and questioning skills to allow the new head to
Professional
arrive at their own solutions.
development for
The pilot survey heads disagree about the relevance of counselling, with four heads
respondents saying it is an appropriate term and three regarding it as
inappropriate (see Table II).
Another way of conceptualizing mentoring is through use of a coaching
analogy, as Finn[20, p. 152] suggests: 71
Mentors act as coaches to help develop protégés’ skill and capabilities. The purpose is to
prepare the protégé for their future.

Barnett[12] acknowledges the work of Joyce and Showers[21] on the value of

coaching in education but adapts the concept to the specific role of principal.
Instead of using coaching in the sense of evaluating and assisting principals in the
development of a particular leadership skill or style, we encourage principals to provide non-
evaluative feedback to their partners. The non-judgemental nature of this form of “coaching”
allows principals to decide for themselves their strengths and weaknesses[12, p. 141].

Garrett et al.[22, p. 175], referring to the East Midlands scheme, use the
coaching analogy to describe the mentor/new head relationship:
The relationship between the new head and mentor [is] like that of coach and professional
sports person. Like the coach, the mentor head at different times has to support and encourage,
to challenge and develop, to enable the colleague “player” to see the whole school situation.

The response of the pilot survey heads was mixed with three regarding
coaching as an appropriate metaphor for mentoring and four considering it to
be inappropriate. Interestingly, one mentor thinks that it may be a suitable
descriptor “in certain circumstances but I did not experience it”.
Two of the mentors in the authors’ Esmée Fairbairn research give some
support to the notion of coaching as a metaphor for mentoring while one new
head acknowledges its value for him:
[The mentor] has coached me in the process of interviewing and appointing. I had to appoint
ten staff this year and it was important that I get the right people…[The mentor] was involved
in the first interview for two English teachers. I then used the techniques for other interviews.

The pilot survey heads were asked for their assessment of the appropriateness of
several terms as descriptors of mentoring. Table I shows support for the concepts
of “socialization” and “mutual learning” as well as peer support and counselling.
Kram[11] emphasizes the dynamic or changing nature of the mentor
relationship, stressing that it changes over time. At certain points it might
include elements of coaching, counselling, socialization and “mutual learning”
but the relationship is individual, depending as much on the personal
characteristics of mentor and new head as on any predetermined notions.
Mentoring is an elusive concept which resists simplistic “labels”.

Conclusion – mentoring for professional development

The research reported in this article relates to the experience of mentors and
new heads in two counties of the English East Midlands. The other evidence
Journal of presented here suggests that their experience is not untypical but the findings
Educational inevitably reflect the particular context in which they operate and the nature of
Administration the mentor training led by the Grubb Institute.
The authors’ research shows that mentoring can be a significant element in
33,5 the professional development of headteachers. The opportunity to receive
support and guidance from a more experienced colleague may help to reduce
72 the uncertainty experienced during the early stages of headship. Our findings
suggest that effective mentoring reduces professional isolation, provides
support and feedback on performance and gives confidence to new heads
during a period of change and uncertainty.
It is evident, too, that the benefits are not confined to new heads. The mentors
also refer to their gains from the process, including reappraisal of their own
practice prompted by the ideas of the new head.
Earlier, we referred to the tension between the supportive role of the mentor
and the need for a more rigorous approach leading to professional development.
Many of the participants in the research regard support as an essential element
of mentoring. New heads may feel insecure and need support from a more
experienced colleague who understands the demands of headship. However, it
is evident from our work that a more rigorous approach, involving challenge
and feedback, is required to achieve meaningful professional development. This
finding supports the work of Elliott and Calderhead[23, p. 172] who advocate a
two-dimensional model of challenge and support to enhance professional
growth.
The “Headlamp” scheme, referred to earlier, may serve to introduce more
rigour into the process of headteacher induction. The guidelines for the scheme
suggest that development activity should be preceded by a period of
assessment leading to a personal development plan. It is not clear whether, and
to what extent, mentoring will form part of the process. If the concept is not
built into Headlamp programmes, headteacher mentoring may founder, to be
replaced by more challenging but perhaps less supportive arrangements.

References
1. Brady, L., “Peer assistance in the professional development of principals”, Curriculum and
Teaching, Vol. 8 No. 1, 1993, pp. 91-8.
2. Chong, K.C., Low, G.T. and Walker, A., Mentoring: A Singapore Contribution, Singapore
Educational Administration Society, Singapore, 1989.
3. Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Pocklington, K. and Weindling, D., “Headteacher mentoring: a
route to effective management”, paper presented at the American Educational Research
Association Annual Meeting, New Orleans, April 1994.
4. Daresh, J.C. and Playko, M.A., “Mentoring for headteachers: a review of major issues”,
School Organisation, Vol. 12 No. 2, 1992, pp. 145-52.
5. School Management Task Force (SMTF), Developing School Management: The Way
Forward, HMSO, London, (forthcoming).
6. Bush, T., Coleman, M., Wall, D. and West-Burnham, J., “Mentoring and continuing
professional development”, in McIntyre, D. and Haggar, H. (Eds), Mentors in Schools:
Developing the Profession of Teaching, David Fulton, London, forthcoming.
 7. Bush, T., “Mentoring for principals: pre-service and in-service models”, Singapore Journal Professional
of Education, Vol. 15 No. 1, 1995, pp. 1-13.
8. Clutterbuck, D., Mentoring, Henley Distance Learning, Henley, 1992.
development for
9. Hall, L., “The professional development of headteachers: the mentoring perspective”, heads
unpublished MBA dissertation, University of Leicester, 1995.
10. Brady, L., “Intervisitation and mentoring: professional development for principals”,
Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 23 No. 4, 1993, pp. 371-5.
11. Kram, K.E., “Phases of the mentor relationship”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26
73
No. 4, 1983, pp. 608-25.
12. Barnett, B.G., “Peer assisted leadership: peer observation and feedback as catalysts for
professional growth”, in Approaching Administrative Training in Education, New York,
SUNY Press, 1987.
13. Ho, W.K. and Chong, K.C., “Mentoring in management education: the NIE model”, NIE
News, Vol. 10, October 1993.
14. Kirkham, G., “Mentoring and headteachers”, in Smith, P. and West-Burnham, J. (Eds),
Mentoring in the Effective School, Longman, Harlow, 1993.
15. Walker, A., Chong, K.C. and Low, G.T., “Principalship training through mentoring: the
Singapore experience”, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 31 No. 4, 1993, pp. 33-50.
16. Reiche, M., “The mentor connection”, Personnel, Vol. 63 No. 2, 1986, pp. 50-6.
17. Berliner, D.C., “Implications of studies on expertise in pedagogy for teacher education and
evaluation”, in New Directions for Teacher Assessment, Proceedings of the 1988 ETS
Invitational Conference, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NH, pp. 39-68.
18. Kagan, D.M., “Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers”, Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 62 No. 2, Summer 1993, pp. 129-69.
19. Field, B., “The new role of the teacher – mentoring”, in Field, B. and Field, T. (Eds),
Teachers as Mentors: A Practical Guide, Falmer, London, 1994.
20. Finn, R., “Mentoring – the effective route to school-based development”, in Green H. (Ed.),
The School Management Handbook, Kogan Page, London, 1993.
21. Joyce, B. and Showers, B., “The coaching of teaching”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 40 No. 1,
1980, pp. 4-10.
22. Garrett, J., Logan, P. and Maden, M., “The enabling local education authority: a
Warwickshire case study”, in Ransom, S. and Tomlinson, J. (Eds), School Co-operation: New
Forms of Local Governance, Longman, Harlow, 1993.
23. Elliott, B. and Calderhead, J., “Mentoring for teacher development”, in McIntyre, D.,
Hagger, H. and Wilkins, M. (Eds), Mentoring: Perspectives on School-based Teacher
Education, Kogan Page, London, 1993.