How Administrators and Veteran Educators Can Team Up to Mentor New Teachers

When I first became a middle school assistant principal, one of my priorities was supporting and mentoring new teachers.

Our school district already had a strong onboarding process, but it was clear something was missing. New teachers lacked a space to talk about the quirks, humor, and complexities of working with early adolescents: how to navigate students’ mood swings, how to build relationships, and how to sustain engagement during a time of rapid change.

I wanted to expand our school’s collaborative offerings while also avoiding the pitfalls of traditional mentoring, which is often siloed so that administrators handle evaluations, mentors handle logistics, and new teachers do their best to keep up. These well-intentioned systems can unintentionally isolate teachers. The most meaningful growth happens when learning is collective and public, not private or evaluative.

As an alternative, Fox Lane Middle School came up with a “new teacher series,” a building-based mentoring program that I co-led with veteran teacher leader Amanda Deserio.

By pairing an administrator and a teacher leader, we modeled effective collaboration. Amanda brought deep classroom expertise and credibility; I brought a systems-level view and access to resources. Our partnership sent a message that mentoring isn’t something done to teachers—it’s something we do together. We built a structure that invited teachers, both new and experienced, into a cycle of shared growth, reflection, and belonging.

Here’s how the series worked, as well as the learnings that resulted from our creation.

Starting a NEW tEACHER Series

Amanda and I designed the series to run across the school year, meeting roughly once a month. The sessions were mandatory for new teachers, but held in place of one of their weekly extra-help periods in order to respect their time and ensure consistency. Each cohort averaged eight to 10 participants, creating an intimate and supportive environment.

We alternated leading sessions, blending administrative perspective with classroom practice. Each session was short and intentional (about 30 minutes) so that it fit naturally into teachers’ schedules. The format followed a workshop model: We spoke for less than half the session, usually framing the topic, modeling a strategy, or posing questions, while the remaining time was devoted to teacher discussion, collaboration, and lesson-sharing.

Topics ranged from practical (lesson pacing, managing transitions, student talk routines) to reflective (maintaining balance, navigating feedback, and building belonging). Teachers knew the full-year schedule of topics in advance, which helped them come prepared to contribute ideas and examples from their own classrooms.

Our co-leadership provided psychological safety. Teachers knew they could speak honestly about challenges without feeling judged; the sessions were framed around curiosity and improvement, not compliance. That’s especially important because the middle school years are a unique developmental crossroads where students are discovering identity, testing boundaries, and craving connection. New teachers often feel this tension intensely.

Our sessions gave teachers space to share strategies and stories that were true to this age group. They swapped advisory activities, brainstormed ways to strengthen classroom relationships, and discussed how to differentiate instruction without losing momentum. Over time, the group evolved from “new teachers” to a community of learners who supported one another long after their first year.

How Intervisitations Took Our Series to the Next Level

The series really took off with the introduction of intervisitations, which are structured opportunities for teachers to observe one another in action. We initially framed these visits like clinical rounds in medicine: chances to analyze and learn, not to judge.

Each winter, in place of our February meeting (and as an extension of the series itself), teachers participated in the intervisitations. Before the visits, teachers selected one or two strategies they had learned from the series—such as a student-led discussion protocol or a formative assessment technique—that they wanted to showcase in their classrooms.

Small groups of two to four teachers rotated through observations, spending 15 to 20 minutes in each classroom. Afterward, they gathered for a scheduled debrief, built into the same half-day release, so the feedback and reflections remained fresh. The debriefs followed two guiding questions:

• What did you notice about how students were thinking or responding?
• What might you try or adapt in your own classroom?

By connecting directly back to the strategies explored in earlier sessions, the intervisitations transformed our series from a discussion-based experience into a living laboratory. Teachers were no longer just talking about ideas—they were seeing them in action.

One unexpected outcome we noticed about intervisitations was that they quickly dismantled hierarchy. In many schools, mentoring follows a top-down pattern where experienced teachers mentor novices and administrators observe. But when Amanda and I co-led, we leveled the playing field.

Teachers saw that both of us were learners too. During debriefs, I often shared what I had learned from observing, and Amanda reflected on what had surprised her. This transparency made professional learning feel communal. It also reframed feedback as a form of care, not critique.

By the end of the first year of the series, new teachers weren’t asking, “Am I doing this right?” They started asking, “How can we make this better together?”

The shift was tangible. Teachers began initiating their own intervisitations. A sixth-grade English teacher invited a science colleague to see how she used graphic organizers for vocabulary. A seventh-grade math teacher shared how he embedded social and emotional check-ins into problem-solving routines. We sent around surveys asking for feedback about the new teachers series and intervisitations, and the results revealed three key outcomes:

• Confidence: Teachers felt more prepared and supported than in previous years.
• Connection: Teachers reported stronger relationships with colleagues across departments.
• Continuity: Many teachers continued collaborating after the formal series ended, meeting informally to share lessons or observe one another’s classrooms.

Practical Tips for Replication

Schools looking to replicate our model don’t need a major overhaul—just intentional structure and trust. Here are five takeaways that worked for us:

1. Pair leadership roles. A co-lead model bridges administrative and teacher perspectives and models collaboration.

2. Keep sessions brief and purposeful. Consistent 20-to-30-minute check-ins are better than occasional long meetings.

3. Center the experience of your students. Discuss developmental realities, not just pedagogy. For our school, that meant focusing on the lived experiences of students in grades 6–8.

4. Design intervisitations as learning, not evaluation. Set norms that encourage observation and curiosity.

5. Celebrate growth publicly. Highlight small wins in staff meetings or newsletters to reinforce the culture.