Lessons Learned | Creating an Accessible Induction and Mentorship Program: Quality Fidelity Indicators

Participation Quality

Get SET Nebraska promotes accessibility by offering multiple ways to engage with the program materials — online, via Google Drive or as Word documents. Additionally, videos supported teams throughout the program, while the Get SET project manager provided monthly updates/activities via email and individualized assistance. To gauge participation quality, the mentor and the mentee were asked to rate each other. Mentors and mentees closely collaborated during the mentorship and induction process. Mentors evaluated mentees based on their desire to learn and grow and willingness to participate. Mentees had the opportunity to rate mentors on their support and interactions.

A four-point scale was used to rate two key components: interactions and growth (1 = low participation, 4 = high participation).

Ratings activities indicate the quality of participation varied for both mentees and mentors varied throughout the mentorship and induction phases. Phase 1 had the most substantial participation, with over 80% of mentors and mentees rating their counterpart as exhibiting a “strong desire to learn and grow” and putting forth their full effort. Mentees generally felt the mentors wanted to help them, but 10-15% identified workload as a barrier to mentor availability. As the year progressed, about 20-25% of mentors and mentees were perceived as willing to engage, though work responsibilities may have limited their participation. Overall, participants who were consistently rated by their counterparts as demonstrating a strong desire to learn and grow maintained an average participation rate of 60-70% throughout the program.

CONTENT Quality

Gathering input on the content quality is another important factor in understanding program implementation. After completing the program, all participants were asked to rate the quality of the program. Ratings were based on a scale of excellent, good, fair and poor.

MENTORS AND MENTEES

Mentees

Overall, mentees viewed the program’s quality positively, with 35% rating it as “excellent” and 47% rating it as “good” (see Figure 1). Roughly 18% of mentees rated the program as “fair,” which is higher than the percentage of mentors who provided the same rating. No mentees rated the program as “poor.”

Mentors

Mentors generally had a favorable view of the program, with 47% rating the program’s quality as “excellent” and 50% rating it as “good.” (see Figure 1) Only 3% of mentors described the program as “fair” and none rated it as “poor.”

In general, mentors and mentees varied in their program quality ratings. Interestingly, mentors were more inclined to rate the overall program quality as “excellent” compared to mentees. In addition, mentors were less likely to rate the program as “fair.” The reason for this discrepancy is unclear, but it may be that mentors, having experienced the challenges of being new special education teachers, better understand the types of support that can contribute to success.

ADMINISTRATORS

When administrators were asked to evaluate the overall quality of the Get SET Nebraska program, the majority responded positively. Specifically, 56% rated the program’s content as excellent, 36% rated it as good, 9% rated it as fair and none rated it as poor (see Figure 2).

MEETING USEFULNESS

Weekly mentoring meetings help to build a strong foundation for mentoring. According to Weinberg (2021), weekly meetings allow mentees the opportunity to grow through reflectionary practices. The Get SET Nebraska program has implemented opportunities for all team members to connect and reflect. To identify the quality of meetings, participants were asked to provide input regarding the usefulness of meetings.

MENTEE AND MENTOR WEEKLY MEETINGS

Weekly mentor and mentee meetings are recommended throughout Phase 2 with a focus on sharing information, solving problems and developing skills. Throughout the program, teams received support and guidance through written Communication Maps and project manager updates and reminders.

All teams were asked to report weekly meeting attendance at the end of the program year. 43% of team participants met weekly, while additional, 34% of participants met “most weeks” or “some weeks.” Meanwhile, 11% reported never meeting for weekly sessions. Some teams mentioned their meetings shifted to more natural collaboration and planning times during the school day.

Mentees

Overall, mentees were more likely to rate the usefulness of the program as “excellent” compared to their mentors. Overall, 86% of mentees viewed their weekly meetings with mentors as either “excellent” or “good.” As the year progressed, satisfaction among mentees increased, with a spring meeting rating of 95% for those categories. In the fall, 10% of participants rated the program as “average,” but this figure dropped to 4% in the spring. Only 3% rated the meetings as “poor” in the winter, and notably, 0% rated them as “poor” in the spring. Data analysis suggests that some participants may not have held meetings in the spring and chose not to respond to the survey. This could imply that those who found the meetings less useful stopped attending and may have shifted to informal conversations or seeking general support instead.

Mentors

Mentors generally rated meetings as mostly useful, with 80% of them describing it as “excellent” or “good.” This figure increased to 84% in the spring. In the winter, 20% of the ratings were classified as “average,” while none were rated as “poor.” Spring ratings noted a 17% decrease in “average” ratings, but “poor” ratings increased to 7%. The reason for this ratings drop from mentors in the spring is unclear. It’s possible that winter raters did not respond or that their caseloads became busier, as suggested by the ratings provided by both mentors and mentees.
Overall ratings showed that both mentees and the mentors found the meetings valuable. There were noticeable differences in ratings from winter to spring. On average, both mentors and mentees rated the usefulness of the as “excellent” or “good” at 79% in winter and 90% in spring. In contrast, ratings of “average” were reported as 14% in winter and dropped to 4% in spring (see Figure 3). The ratings of “poor” and “did not meet” ranged from 4% to 2%.

MENTOR, MENTEE AND ADMINISTRATOR MEETINGS

Administrators were encouraged to participate in each month’s final meeting, referred to as an “induction” meeting. Get SET Nebraska’s Induction and Mentorship program prompted administrators to attend the last weekly meeting of the month. During this meeting, teams discussed mentorship-related concerns and identified necessary support. They also planned for the upcoming month’s conversations. The participant handbook provides clear guidance on the content and items for discussion.

End-of-year data showed administrators’ attendance during the program year was limited. Approximately 28% of administrators reported attending monthly, 40% indicated they attended “most months,” while nearly 10% stated they did not participate in the meetings. Despite concerns about administrator attendance, participants found induction meetings useful.

Mentees

Mentees were more likely than mentors to rate the usefulness of induction meetings as “excellent” or “good.” In both spring and winter, mentees rated the usefulness at roughly 81% (see Figure 4). However, participation throughout the year influenced the average ratings, resulting in a 7% decline from winter to spring. The reason for this reduction is unknown. The lack of administrator participation in the spring may have contributed, as 12% of respondents selected “not applicable” compared to only 3% in the winter. Additionally, it’s possible meetings were held less consistently, leading to deviations from the suggested meeting format.

Mentors

Mentors found the winter induction meetings to be useful, with an overall rating of “excellent” or “good” at 73%. Additionally, 18% rated them as “average,” while 9% rated them as “poor” (see Figure 4). There was a noticeable decline in ratings from winter to spring. The percentage of “excellent” or “good” ratings decreased, and the percentage of “poor” ratings increased. The reason for this shift is unclear; it may be related to a decrease in administrator participation, as discussed earlier, or a lack of adherence to the suggested meeting format.

Administrators

In general, administrators found the induction meetings to be useful. A total of 86% rated them as “excellent” or “good,” while 14% rated them as “average,” and none rated them as “poor” (see Figure 4). Data indicates that the non-attendees did not impact the ratings, as the response rate was between 21-22 participants. It appears that those who did not attend the meetings also did not submit ratings.

Recommendations

Study results indicated that perceived program quality correlated with Get SET Nebraska Program implementation. Based on the results described above, Get SET Nebraska offers several recommendations for administrators to enhance program implementation.

ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:

1. Follow the Get SET Nebraska recommended start times.

Teacher feedback indicated program content was most effective when teams began at the recommended start time — before the start of the school year. Several teams were not able to start prior to students reporting to classrooms. Following program-suggested start times helped alleviate time constraints, allowing teams to engage fully with the content. Several participants noted the effectiveness of Phase 1 forms when teams followed the suggested start time.

2. Take time to review and prepare team materials.

Although teachers recognized the quality of the materials, they recommended that leaders review the content in advance to pinpoint the most relevant activities based on their specific district roles. Several administrators prepared for program implementation by creating binders filled with printed handbooks or by saving computerized versions of a binder. This step would allow administrators to individualize the program to the district’s needs.

3. Allocate protected time for program activities and meetings in the mentor’s and mentee’s schedules.

Fidelity data indicated showed a decline in both the frequency and quality of team meetings over time. While scheduling is a concern for all teachers, administrators should ensure protected time is set aside for teams to meet. Administrators should allocate 45 minutes to one hour of weekly meeting time to address this quality issue in teachers’ schedules. Furthermore, effectively communicating the program’s significance and the value of meetings to all teachers may help ensure that meeting time is safeguarded. This communication should involve both the participating staff and those affected by the protected meeting times.

4. Complete mindful planning activities to ensure consistent meeting attendance and provide support during activities.

Administrators’ attendance rates in the Induction and Mentorship Program was low, and the reason for their lack of involvement is unclear. Program feedback suggests that mentees and mentors valued administrators’ participation. Therefore, administrators should be mindful about participating in required activities and meetings. Administrators should aim to identify and overcome any barriers to their involvement to provide stronger support and information to new staff members.

Administrators can increase participation by:

• Meet with team members to schedule work time for Phase 1 activities that require administrator support. Starting this process before the school year begins may make this step easier to implement.
• Set aside weekly, unstructured time to check in with the mentor-mentee team and answer questions. 2023-24 program administrators shared that they used asynchronous methods to check in with staff and keep track of progress. Check ins may be helpful to administrators during monthly induction meetings.
• Plan for meeting attendance at the start of the year. Placing all induction meetings from Phase 2 into the calendar as protected meeting time helped 2023-24 administrators to ensure they were active in the process.

5. Monitor program fidelity throughout the participation year.

Get SET Nebraska provides easy to access to fidelity monitoring tools. To maintain fidelity, administrators are encouraged to provide teams with fidelity monitoring tools and ensure teams are consistently monitoring their fidelity. Fidelity measures are provided at the end of each Phase, offering three key data points to inform decision making. These fidelity checklists can be used to guide discussion with teams and assist administrators in planning for future years of Get SET Nebraska. Administrators may refer to the IRIS module on program fidelity for additional guidance related to fidelity monitoring.