The Mentor's Dilemma: Reporting a Colleague
Ms. Eze is an experienced teacher and mentor at a public secondary school. She is mentoring Mr. Danjuma, a newly qualified teacher in his first year. Over three months she observes that Mr. Danjuma: (1) frequently arrives 20-30 minutes late, (2) has twice left a class unsupervised to make personal calls, and (3) told a pupil in front of the class that the pupil was 'too stupid to pass'. Mr. Danjuma is popular with some parents and is the nephew of the school's bursar. When Ms. Eze raises concerns privately, he becomes defensive and says she is 'out to get him' and that 'everyone does this'. Ms. Eze's own appraisal depends partly on how well her mentees perform, so a formal report could affect her own rating. The school has no written mentoring policy and no clear procedure for raising concerns about a colleague.
1. Identify the professional-standards issues in Mr. Danjuma's conduct and explain why each matters, not merely as rule-breaking but as harm.
Read the worked answer
Issue 1 - Persistent lateness:
- Harm: Pupils lose instructional time; colleagues absorb cover; the school's reliability is undermined. A pattern of 20-30 minute lateness over three months is not occasional.
Issue 2 - Leaving a class unsupervised:
- Harm: This is a safeguarding and duty-of-care failure. Unsupervised pupils are at risk of accident, conflict, or abuse, and the school is legally exposed. Personal calls are not a justification.
Issue 3 - Public humiliation of a pupil:
- Harm: Calling a child 'too stupid to pass' in front of peers is psychological harm, damages the pupil's self-concept and engagement, and breaches the professional duty to treat learners with dignity. It also models contempt to the class.
Defences examined: 'Everyone does this' is a normalisation fallacy - widespread practice does not make conduct acceptable, and it may indicate a wider culture problem. The bursar relationship is irrelevant to whether the conduct occurred; it may, however, create pressure not to report, which must be resisted.
Framing: These are not merely technical breaches; each has a concrete victim or risk. That framing matters for how seriously the response should be taken.
2. Ms. Eze's appraisal partly depends on her mentee's performance. How should she handle this conflict, and what should she do about the absence of a reporting procedure?
Read the worked answer
Handling the conflict of interest:
- Declare it. She should tell her line manager in writing that her appraisal is linked to Mr. Danjuma's outcomes, so her report may be seen as self-interested. Transparency protects the integrity of the process.
- Separate roles. Where possible, the formal investigation should be handled by someone else (e.g., a senior leader or the head of department), with Ms. Eze providing evidence as a witness rather than as judge.
- Do not suppress the report. Her appraisal interest is a reason to manage the conflict, not a reason to stay silent. Silence would prioritise her rating over pupils' safety and dignity.
Addressing the missing procedure:
- She should raise, in writing, the need for a mentoring and concerns policy covering: how to report concerns, confidentiality, interim protective measures, and the right of the colleague to respond.
- In the meantime, she should follow the nearest safe route: report to the head teacher in writing, keep dated notes of observations, and ensure the safeguarding issue (unsupervised class) is escalated immediately rather than waiting for a policy.
Principle: Absence of a procedure does not remove the duty to act; it shifts the responsibility to escalate through the most appropriate available channel and to press for a proper process.
3. Draft the substance of the feedback conversation Ms. Eze should have with Mr. Danjuma, balancing support with accountability.
Read the worked answer
Structure: support + accountability
- Open with purpose and respect: 'I want to talk about three specific things I've observed, because I want you to succeed here and because pupils' safety and dignity come first.'
- Be specific and evidence-based: Name dates and behaviours, not character judgments - e.g., 'On three occasions you arrived 20-30 minutes late; on two occasions you left the class unsupervised.'
- Name the harm: Explain the safeguarding risk of unsupervised pupils and the impact of the comment on the pupil and class.
- Address the defence directly: 'You said everyone does this. Even if true, it doesn't make it safe - and I'm responsible for your development, not for matching others' practice.'
- Set clear expectations and support: Agree a punctuality plan, a rule that the class is never left unsupervised, and a restorative step (e.g., a private apology and support for the affected pupil). Offer mentoring support and a review date.
- Explain consequences and process: Be honest that persistent failure will be escalated, and that he will have the right to respond through the proper channel.
- Document: Record the conversation and share agreed actions in writing.
Balance: The tone should be firm on behaviour but not humiliating - the aim is correction, not punishment for its own sake. Support and accountability are not opposites; the support makes the accountability credible.