Mentor Teacher Support (Case Study 1)

Raising Texas Teachers is a Charles Butt Foundation initiative aims to improve the status of the teaching profession by enhancing the recruitment of a talented and diverse teacher workforce through the Charles Butt Scholarship for Aspiring Teachers, supporting retention of teachers in the classroom, and partnering with university-based teacher preparation programs to raise the overall quality of teacher preparation across the state by promoting continuous improvement in the field. 

Through the Foundation’s partnerships with teacher preparation programs, faculty teams identify common areas for improvement and form cross-university groups called Educator Preparation Program Improvement Communities (EPPICs). Each EPPIC spent two years listening to mentor teachers, teacher candidates, and other stakeholders, testing interventions on their own campuses, and learning from what other universities were finding.

Each EPPIC shared a write-up of their findings. The post below shares what one of these EPPICs discovered. To learn more, click here. 

A Critical Role, with Uneven Support

Across our institutions, one thing was clear: mentor teachers matter deeply.

They spend the most time with teacher candidates. They shape daily practice. For many candidates, they are the most important source of feedback and guidance. But when mentor teachers are underprepared or unclear about their role, the negative effects are potentially long-lasting. Candidates report increased stress, inconsistent feedback, and diminishing quality of their preparation.

Over time, conditions around mentoring have shifted. Post-pandemic turnover has made it difficult to recruit experienced mentors. Additionally, candidates are more geographically dispersed, making it more challenging to provide and align support for mentors. Differences across program models, particularly between residency and traditional pathways, mean that access to training and support varies widely.

External pressures have added urgency. The Texas Education Agency’s (TEA) Continuing Approval Review rubric directly mentions the need for stronger, more constructive mentor feedback. Policy changes, including the enhanced residency certificate, further underscored the importance of getting this right.

Starting with a Shared Inquiry

“We had been making plans for these mentor teachers before really even talking to mentor teachers.”

SPEAKER 2, UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON [05:45]

To better understand this landscape, institutions came together to design and implement a shared mentor teacher survey.

The survey explored:

• Mentor backgrounds and prior experience
• Preparation and support provided through both universities and districts
• Confidence in key mentoring practices
• Areas where additional support was needed
• Open-ended reflections on what would make training more valuable

While the survey provided a common structure, each institution adapted it to fit its context. Some supplemented the data with focus groups or interviews, allowing for deeper insight into mentor experiences.

What the Data Revealed

Across the institutions, several patterns emerged.

1. Mentor teachers consistently asked for clearer expectations. Many were unsure what the role required, particularly when district and university expectations did not align.
2. One of the most pressing challenges was providing constructive feedback and navigating difficult conversations. Mentors wanted to support candidates, but often felt underprepared to balance encouragement with honest, growth-oriented critique.
3. The data revealed that mentoring is a distinct skill set. Even experienced teachers with many years in the classroom were often new to mentoring and still developing the skills needed to coach effectively.
4. Access to training was uneven. Some mentors received support from their districts, others relied solely on university training, and many experienced a patchwork of expectations and opportunities.

Notably, the EPPIC found that identifying mentor needs in advance did not automatically lead to engagement. Even when training aligned directly to what mentors said they wanted, participation remained inconsistent.

When Support Works, and When It Doesn’t

As the EPPIC compared findings across EPPs, a key insight emerged: the success of mentor teacher support depends heavily on a system of conditions, some of which are outside of the locus of control (the conditions, policies, etc. an organization has direct control of) of EPPs.

The most promising examples came from residency-based models, where mentor teachers could engage in training during the school day while a resident assumed instructional responsibilities. In these cases, participation was built into the structure of the work.

District partnership also played a critical role. When districts actively supported mentor development through scheduling, communication, or expectations, engagement improved.

Compensation mattered as well, but so did something less tangible: status. Across institutions, there was a growing recognition that mentoring is often treated as an additional duty rather than a form of professional advancement. Elevating the role and positioning it as a leadership opportunity rather than an extra duty may be just as important as providing stipends.

At the same time, some assumptions did not hold. Designing training around high-need areas like coaching and feedback that had been identified by the mentor teachers was not enough to ensure participation. Virtual formats (for example, training provided through Zoom) increased access for some, but did not consistently lead to meaningful engagement.

What This Means for Teacher Preparation

One of the most important lessons from this work is the need to pay close attention to the broader policy context.

While the EPPIC was working on this area, TEA announced it was developing new mentor teacher training requirements. The EPPIC made a deliberate decision not to build training that might become redundant. Instead, we are taking a measured approach and waiting to see what the TEA training includes while continuing to learn from our data.

For other programs, this suggests a few starting points:

• Stay attuned to state policy and timing before making major investments
• Use short, targeted surveys to understand mentor needs
• Design support with attention to time, structure, and incentives, not just content
• Approach virtual training thoughtfully, balancing accessibility with meaningful participation

Looking Ahead

Mentor teachers are central to candidate development, but supporting them effectively requires more than better training. It requires the right conditions.

As a group, we are continuing to explore how to align our efforts with upcoming TEA guidance while asking bigger questions about the role itself. What would it look like to truly elevate mentor teaching? How can universities and districts work together to create a more coherent support system?

These are not questions any institution can answer alone. But through this collaborative sub-group of EPPs, we are beginning to see what becomes possible when we ask them together.

Resources

The EPPIC created a poster outlining their work and findings: