NPQSL Implementation Project
Building a clearer mentor role during the Grade 5 PYP Exhibition.
This page is about a leadership project, not the wall. The rest of this site documents my own class's wall. This project was bigger than my classroom. It ran across the whole grade.
The Grade 5 Exhibition had more than 35 student groups and over 70 mentors. Getting every mentor and group into the same room at the same time was a real job on its own, and our PYP Coordinator carried that scheduling across free periods and Unit of Inquiry time. My focus was the part that happened next. The meetings themselves.
The question I cared about was simple. When a mentor and a group finally sat down together, were both sides clear on what to do? Often they were not. So the work was getting students and mentors prepared and clear before they ever sat down.
I started by surveying my own team, then the whole staff, about the mentor process. The answers were blunt. Mentors were not clear on their role, and a lot of them felt the process was extra work stacked on top of teaching.
That told me what kind of problem this was. Not a caring problem. A clarity-and-workload problem. Buy-in was going to come from making the role lighter to carry and clearer in purpose, not from asking people to care more. A clear purpose builds confidence, and confidence builds buy-in.
Where it started
Mentor meetings were a core part of the Exhibition. With 35+ groups and 70+ mentors, they happened across many different schedules. The PYP Coordinator made that timetable work. What happened inside the meetings was the part that was harder to keep consistent.
The mentors were committed and wanted students to succeed. The problem was not a lack of care. The problem was that the mentor role was not always clearly understood, or carried out the same way from one pair to the next.
Some mentors naturally coached through questions and reflection. Others slid into task-mode or product-mode. At times mentor advice pulled students away from the homeroom Exhibition process, or quietly took ownership away from the kids.
The problem
Mentor support was valuable but inconsistent, and the survey showed why.
Mentors were not clear on what their role actually was, and many felt the process was extra work with an unclear payoff. When a role is fuzzy and feels like a burden, people fall back on what they know. What most adults know is managing tasks.
So some students left meetings with clearer thinking, better questions, and a next step. Others left with tasks that did not connect to their central idea, lines of inquiry, research, or action plan.
How do we build mentor buy-in and clarify the role so adults facilitate the thinking and students lead the meeting, without the process feeling like extra work?
The aim
The aim was to raise mentor buy-in and consistency by making the role clearer and lighter, and by getting both sides ready before the meeting. The line I kept drawing was simple: students lead the meeting, mentors facilitate. I wanted mentors and students clear on:
The key message
Mentors are not project managers. Mentors are inquiry coaches.
Everything came back to one line. The student leads the meeting. The mentor asks the questions that make the thinking harder. A coach builds the thinker. A project manager builds the product.
Theory of change
If mentors understand the purpose of the PYP Exhibition and have a clear, light structure for supporting students, then mentor meetings become more consistent, inquiry-focused, and useful. And students still keep ownership of their inquiry.
More specifically. If I clarify the mentor role, make the tools simple and short, prepare students to lead the meeting, and set up regular contact between mentors and homeroom teachers, then mentors are more likely to facilitate than to hand out tasks. That should make support more consistent across the grade, cut confusion, lower the sense that this is extra work, and help students leave meetings with stronger questions, a clear next step, and more ownership.
The work
Implementation
I worked through it in four stages: explore, prepare, deliver, sustain.
I started with a survey. First my own team, then the whole staff, about the mentor process. The answers were clear and a little uncomfortable. Mentors were not sure what their role was, and many felt the process was extra work. That survey set the direction for everything after it.
I rebuilt the mentor materials and cut them down: a shorter handbook, a one-page guidance sheet, student-facing meeting expectations, meeting norms, a meeting record, and an overview deck. The thread through all of them was the same. Students lead, mentors ask questions. I also planned a lesson for Grade 5 teachers to run, so the kids knew what a mentor is and how a meeting works before the first one happened.
Mentors and students used the materials through the Exhibition, and the PYP Coordinator's scheduling got each pair in a room. The student-prep lesson did more than I expected. Kids walked in knowing how to lead, which made it easier for mentors to facilitate instead of take over. When support still drifted toward managing tasks, I went back to the mentors and made the role clear again.
Most of the toolkit now exists: handbook, guidance sheet, student expectations, meeting norms, meeting record, and the overview deck. The next step is to hand it to future Grade 5 teams as a ready set, with the student-prep lesson built in, so a new team does not start from scratch.
When it got real
One moment mattered more than the rest. Mentors were frustrated that a group's work looked AI-generated and disconnected from the agreed action plan. The concern was fair. The students needed stronger thinking, clearer evidence, and better follow-through.
But the moment also showed why the role had to be clear. If mentors respond by handing out tasks, they can accidentally take over the inquiry. If they respond by asking sharper questions and sending students back to their evidence, they make the students stronger.
That is what sharpened the message for me. Mentors should drive the thinking, not run the project.
Reflection
Buy-in is not the same as agreement or enthusiasm. Every mentor cared. The survey made that obvious, and it made the real problem obvious too. The role was unclear, and it felt like extra work. Buy-in went up when the work went down and the purpose got clear.
Transparency with the kids mattered more than I expected. Once students were taught what a mentor is and how a meeting runs, they led better, and the mentors had an easier job facilitating. Clear on both sides of the table beats clear on one.
Student-led inquiry depends on the adults being aligned. The best support happened when adults wanted the same thing and used the same language. Implementation is not a one-off launch either. When meetings drifted toward managing tasks, I had to go back and make the role clear again. It needed watching, adjusting, and following up. The leadership part was clarifying roles without blaming anyone. Nobody was short on commitment. We were short on clarity.
Evidence
These are the real materials from the project, the ones mentors and students actually used. Click any image to read it.
Buy-in was never about asking mentors to care more. They already did. It came from less work, a clearer purpose, and students who walked in ready to lead the meeting.