Peer review and assistance user guide

Peer Assistance and Review (PAR) is a mentoring program for teachers launched in Toledo, Ohio, in the early 1980s. What became known as the "Toledo Plan" was created by the presidents of local teachers' unions in collaboration with school administrations to enable expert teachers to serve as mentors for other teachers, and thus improve the quality of teaching delivered by them in schools.

Although the plan is relatively well known and appreciated in the U.S., its implementation has not yet been deployed on a large scale, as it requires perfect agreement between the parties concerned, unions and administrations. Its application also requires a systematic approach to teacher evaluation, as well as a significant financial contribution.

The return on investment in a peer review and assistance program can be very attractive when the program is well set up and run. This is why the program is attracting the attention of policy-makers, school administrators and teachers' union leaders, who see it as a promising component of an effective human resources management strategy.

How the program works

The program, the Toledo Plan, is designed for two groups of teachers: those who are just starting out in their careers, and those who, although experienced, are experiencing difficulties in fulfilling their role.

So how does it work? A committee of administrators and union representatives selects the expert teachers who will become the program's mentors. These mentors, the driving force behind the plan, will assist and evaluate the teachers in demand. This is where the major cost of the program comes in, as a group of experienced, full-load teachers must be replaced in the classroom from their usual duties by being asked to become program mentors. In most cases where the plan is applied, these teachers are released from their duties for 3 to 5 years, and receive an annual bonus of between $3,000 and $10,000 on top of their salary.

A major functional change brought about by the plan is performance evaluation, which is no longer carried out by school principals but by mentors. A certain amount of resistance, and even discomfort, is observed when experienced but ineffective teachers, who have become participants in the program, are thus evaluated by mentors they have known, sometimes for many years. The union's relationship with its members, mentor and mentee, becomes difficult. This is why most school districts have, until now, preferred to integrate only beginning teachers into the program. Conflicts are avoided and program costs are reduced. Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of underperforming experienced teachers.

Program benefits

The benefits are obvious. By allowing the best teachers to teach beginners, we ensure a higher level of quality in the latter: they will learn from the best. The mentor assists the beginner by creating a plan and goals. The mentor helps set up courses, find the necessary materials and resources, and can also arrange for the beginner to attend classes with successful teachers - no, they don't all become mentors!

The follow-up, the support, that new teachers are offered in this way has a remarkable effect on staff turnover. These teachers stay. And that's where school districts, and teachers' unions too, come into their own.

The idea itself isn't revolutionary - it's simply the application of the age-old master-apprentice model to the world of teaching. Still, it's sometimes surprising to find that the oldest ideas are still the best.

The full 100-page user's guide can be downloaded from A user's guide to Peer Assistance and Review.

Photo : kevin dooley / Foter / CC BY