The objectives of the study were: (1) Develop a transformational mentoring strategy. (2) Implement and study the effectiveness of transformational mentoring strategy on (a) Teachers in terms of Self awareness of their behaviors, the communication and interpersonal relationship, professional and personal satisfaction, (b) students in terms of motivation for schooling, individual development, attitude towards their teachers, academic achievement, (c) The school ethos, and (d) The principals’ leadership.

Purposive sampling technique was used for selecting the sample. The sample comprised of 20 teachers of the schools and 179 students of class VI, VII, VIII and IX. Second phase of data collection was done after six months when new academic year was started after the school annual examination was over.

Tools used for measuring the variables were ego state scale by Pearl Drego, Style Profile of Interaction Role in Organization (SPIRO-M) by Udai Pareek, OCTAPACE by Udai Pareek, Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) by Halpin and Winner, Junior Index of motivation scale by Jack Frymier, Self-Esteem Inventory by Rosenberg and marks obtained before and after intervention, unstructured and Semi-structured Interview Schedules.

The study was experimental, followed by pretest-posttest single group design.

The data being quantitative and qualitative were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The qualitative data were analyzed by using t’-test.

The study had following objectives: 1) The study showed that there was increase in the measuring of healthy aspects of the persons, namely, Nurturing Parent (NP), Adult (A) and Natural Child (NC). The increase in these healthy aspects resulted in the significant reduction in the negative aspects, namely, Controlling Parent (CP), Rebellious Child (RC) and Complaint Child (CC). (2) Teachers said that they were clear about the shared vision and mission statements of the school. (3) The overall personality profile of all 17 teachers indicated that majority of them were able to increase the percentage scores on appropriate behaviors of ego status, namely, NP, A and NC. (4) The personality profile showed that the majority of teachers were able to reduce the percentage scores on negative personality dimensions, namely, controlling, aggressive and complaint child ego states after the intervention. (5) There was significant increase in DEQ scores on all the six-dimensions of SPIRO-M scale, namely, supportive Vs. Rescuing, Normative Vs. Perceptive, Problem solving Vs. Rescuing, Normative Vs. Prescriptive, Problem solving Vs. Task obsessive, Innovative Vs. Bohemian, confronting Vs. Aggressive and Resilient Vs. Sulking. (6) The group interaction profile of 17 teachers indicated that most of the teachers had high score on resilient Vs. Sucking. This means they were able to operate from positive aspect of complaint child ego state. (7) The classroom observation of individual teachers showed that teachers were able to increase the frequency of occurrence of positive interaction style after intervention program. (8) OEQ scores showed that there had been a few shifts from prescriptive to normative, from rescuing to supportive and from task obsessive to problem solving interaction styles in post-intervention administration of the SPIRO-M scale for teachers. (9) Students motivation improved for the positive that reflected in students’ regular attendance and participation in different school activities. (10) Students of class VII and IX showed significant difference in the scores of self-esteem. (11) Majority of students’ attitude towards their teachers was reported to be more earrings after negative attitude towards a few teachers. (12) The overall academic performance of students showed that there had been significant difference only in class IX. However, there had been significant difference in some subjects in other classes also. (13) The scores on school examination for standard VI, VII and VIII showed that the students had low performance in subjects, like, mathematics and science in post-intervention examination. (14) The students of standard VIII did not differ significantly in any of the three variables: motivation for schooling, self-esteem, and the academic performance. (15) There had been significant difference in motivation for schooling, self-esteem, and the academic performance. (16) The majority of teaches felt that there was a positive and free school atmosphere after intervention. (17) The teachers did not perceive their principal’s leadership style to be any different after the intervention. However, the majority of them expressed that the leadership behavior of the principal was more humane after intervention. (18) Majority of the teachers reported that they were more nurturing in their behavior with students after intervention program. (19) The majority of them were able to create an open climate in the classroom after the intervention program. (20) Almost all the teachers reported that co-nurturing was helpful in taking important decisions and enhanced the team work. (21) Majority of the teachers accepted that co-mentoring provides a climate of support, which enhanced self-confidence in personal as well as professional life. (22) Majority of the students reported that teacher-student mentoring relationship helped them to build good rapport with teachers and helped to gain confidence and trust in their teachers. (23) Majority of students reported that the peer mentoring helped them in solving academic problems with regard to difficult lessons. (24) Majority of parents reported that they were satisfied with academic performance of students in ICSE examination and the activities of the school. (25) Majority of the parents reported that there was constant change of teachers and lack of qualified teachers in the school which stood as barrier before school effectiveness.