A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF FORMAL SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING PROGRAMS AN HONORS THESIS SUBMITTED ON THE 29TH OF APRIL, 2012 TO THE UNDERGRADUATE

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HONORS PROGRAM OF NEWCOMB TULANE COLLEGE TULANE UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCES WITH HONORS IN PUBLIC HEALTH BY __________________________________ Natanya Meyer

APPROVED:

__________________________________ Professor Katherine Andrinopoulos Director of Thesis

__________________________________ Professor Peter Scharf Second Reader __________________________________ Professor Yuki Kato Third Reader

"!

Abstract This thesis explores school-based mentoring as a newer subset of the established field of formal mentoring programs in America. An extensive literature review explains the history and documented success of communitybased mentoring programs, and establishes certain developmental factors that are important in producing successful mentoring outcomes. Then, the more limited amount of research surrounding the school-based mentoring structure and outcomes are analyzed. This thesis provides structural and relational recommendations for improving the school-based mentoring model. Finally, it suggests incorporating Lawrence Kohlbergs developmental learning techniques through open conversation into mentor training. This is a method of assisting mentors in long-term decision-making skills that will produce greater outcomes, and will be applicable in situations outside of the duration of the mentoring partnership. Acknowledgements First, my thesis Advisor, Professor Katherine Andrinopoulos has been a monumental influence throughout this process. I acknowledge the belief in my abilities, the patience and the important advice she provided during each of our meetings. Thank you for pushing me to higher levels of performance. I would like to recognize my second reader Professor Peter Scharf for making this research possible. His work in moral education inspired me to apply my passion for adolescence and behavior change to an up-in-coming field that needs a critical eye. Finally, Professor Yuki Kato, my third reader for new perspectives and positive support.

#!

Table of Contents
List of Figures and Tables List of Abbreviations Introduction Methods Chapter 1: An Overview of Formal Mentoring A History of Formal Mentoring in America Documented Community-Based Mentoring Program Outcomes Structural Factors Contributing to Successful Mentoring Relational Factors Contributing to Successful mentoring Conclusions on Mentoring as a Developmental Tool Chapter 2: Investigations into School-Based Mentoring Mentoring to Address the Dropout Crisis The Rise of School-Based Mentoring Characteristics Distinguishing School-Based Mentoring Chapter 3: Addressing the Gaps in School Based Mentoring Structural Recommendations for Strengthening the Mentoring Model Relational Recommendations for Strengthening Mentoring Practice Lawrence Kohlbergs moral education as school-based Mentoring tool Integrating Developmental Learning Techniques Into the Mentoring Model Conclusion Bibliography List of Appendices

Page
iii iii 1 4 6 6 10 14 18 24 25 25 28 34 47 47 59 64 72 77 79 82

$!

List of Figures and Tables 1. Summary of Benefits of Big Brother Big Sister after 18months compared to non-program participants 2. 1989 National Mentoring Partnership Quality Assurance Standards 3. DuBois Research-Supported Mentoring Program Practices 4. DuBois Correlation of Number of Practices and Size of Effect on Youth Outcomes 5. Communities in Schools Program Goals Outcomes 6. School-Based Mentoring Factors Regarding Length and Duration 7. A Conceptual Model of Youth Mentoring 8. Lawrence Kohlbergs Six Stages of Moral Development List of Abbreviations BBBS: Big Brother Big Sisters of America CASEL: Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning CBM Community-Based Mentoring CIS Communities in Schools DOE U.S Department of Education NCLB No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 P/PV: Public Private Ventures POE: Program Outcomes Evaluations SBM School-Based Mentoring SEL: Social and emotional learning SMILE: Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment YOS: Youth Outcomes Survey ZPD: Lev Vygostskys Zone of Proximinal Development

Page 13 15 16 16 42 44 62 68

%!

Introduction The idea of a mentor is not a new concept. Dating as far back as Greek mythology, Mentor was the son of Alcimus - Odysseus oldest, most trusted friend. In Homers the Odyssey, Odysseus placed Mentor in charge of his son Telemachus, as well as the entire kingdom of Ithaca while he fought in the Trojan War. Odysseus knew his son would face many tough decisions in his absence. Mentor was able to provide the guidance and wisdom that came with age and experience. Come hither, friend, Mentor said, and stand by me, and I will show thee a thing (Homer, 1909, p.2). The term mentor has been adopted into the English language to embody a wide variety of supportive partnerships. Like Mentor with Telemachus, our world is full of naturally occurring mentoring relationships. From extended family members to neighbors, peers and coworkers, a strong support system can define healthy transitions from youth to adulthood. American child psychologist David Elkind describes adolescence as the most critical period in identity formation, which significantly influences a persons ability to cope with challenges in the future. He asserts that all teenagers need to be surrounded by adults who have a clearly defined value system, in order to test other values and discover their own (Elkind, 1984, p.9). Formal mentoring programs that pair adults with at-risk youth stem from our intuitive beliefs and observations concerning the healing power of social ties, as well as a long history of research on the benefits of naturally occurring helping relationships (Rhodes, 2005, p.30). The field of mentoring has grown

&!

exponentially in the past few decades. Today, thousands of public and private organizations provide community-based mentoring programs that serve a diverse population of students, and have a multitude of different methods and techniques. Many community-based mentoring programs have proven successful at servicing at-risk youth in need of a caring adult who can both advocate for their wellbeing and help them grow as adolescents. This thesis explores school-based mentoring programs as a secondary prevention approach with the potential to promote positive behavior change amongst students whose needs are not being met in the traditional classroom. Today, public education is under critical scrutiny from parents and policy makers alike. School administrators are pushing for multiple reform efforts, and testing alternative education strategies to combat high rates of high school dropouts. Those who advocate for school-based mentoring believe in the relationship between psychosocial, academic, and behavioral outcomes, and that the education system is a showground with the capacity to promote these desired changes. Although the dropout crisis is multifaceted, and blame should not be entirely on public schools, it is becoming increasingly evident that the education system is a showground with the capacity to promote these desired changes. School based mentoring brings the community to the school by drawing in a cohort of dedicated adults who are committed to the lives of the students. Despite the fact that school-based mentoring is the fastest growing subset of mentoring in the United States (Karcher, 2008, p. 99), there is very limited research surrounding this new approach. The small numbers of studies that have

'!

been published show little to no evidence that school based mentoring programs have met their goals and objectives for participants. Why then, are schools continuously investing the time and effort to mentor their students? What factors are preventing adult mentors from making an impact on these scholars? Most importantly, how do we begin to restructure these programs in order to produce more tangible outcomes? Chapter One of this thesis identifies the evidence-based successes of community-based mentoring programs. It begins by laying out the history of mentoring in America. Documented mentoring outcomes are explored based on reports and articles. Next, the structural factors characterizing community-based mentoring models that promote the greatest outcomes are assessed. Finally, both prescriptive and developmental mentoring styles are analyzed. The synthesis of these various literature sources leads to the conclusion that the approach of developmental mentoring is a potentially powerful tool that should be used to promote behavioral change and growth among adolescents. Chapter Two examines the rise in school-based mentoring programs, starting with Americas high school dropout crisis as indication of the need for alternative education strategies. Formal mentoring is identified as one program with the potential to address many of issues adolescents are facing that are encouraging them to forfeit their education. Features distinguish the theoretical school-based model from the evidence-based community-mentoring model are described, including characteristics regarding location, duration, training, and type of activities. The perceived benefits of using the school as a delivery point for

(!

social and emotional development to take place is assessed. The research indicates that the main school-based mentoring studies have produced consistently minor and limited outcomes. Chapter Two concludes that school based mentoring is not making a measurable impact on its participants. In Chapter Three, the root causes of school-based mentoring failures are addressed. First recommendations are provided to improve the structural and relational factors that will both improve mentoring outcomes and cultivate longterm life skills among mentees. Laurence Kohlbergs theory of moral education and its success in the classroom are investigated. The thesis demonstrates the potential of to use similar conversation techniques in the mentoring setting. With the evidence of success of moral education in schools, school-based mentoring provides an appropriate setting to test out these more structured, developmentoriented techniques. Mentors can use Laurence Kohlbergs stages of moral development to cultivate the decisions making skills that help students choose stay in school, and continue to make positive choices for the rest of their lives.

Methods The analysis performed in Chapter One and Two of rely solely on literature review from large-scale mentoring studies, and articles from experts in the field. The literature table can be found in Appendix 5, which highlights the important points of each book, article, and research report quoted and/or used in the thesis.

)!

Chapter One draws many of its statistics from a study performed by Public/Private Ventures. This report assesses the relevancy of Big Brothers Big Sisters, the United States largest formal mentoring organization. In addition to this document, publications are cited from many well-known experts in the mentoring field including community health sciences professor David Dubois, child psychologist Jean Rhodes, and vice president of Pubic/Private Ventures Jean Grossman. In Chapter Two, the commentary on the high school dropout crisis is based on articles and reports from various stakeholders including government affiliates, school staff, parents, and the students themselves. The evidence for identifying school-based mentoring outcomes comes from the three large-scale evaluations published specifically on school-based programs. These include Big Brother Big Sister, the United States Department of Educations National Mentoring Partnership and the non-profit organization Communities in Schools. The recommendations for restructuring the school-based mentoring model and its practice are based on the evidence found in Chapters One and Two. The commentary on moral education and social learning draw upon articles and books that document Lawrence Kohlbergs work in moral development and moral education. This research is used to create recommendations for incorporating the techniques into school-based mentoring through restructuring its goals, training and ongoing support. Four sample worksheets are included in the appendixes. These are to be incorporated into the mentors pre-match training manual, as a

*!

part of a larger section on developmental learning and developmental conversation. Chapter 1: An Overview of Formal Mentoring A History of Formal Mentoring in America In the 19th century, a troubled child in America could be incarcerated, put on trial, and sentenced as an adult. The United States was experiencing unprecedented growth in industry, technology and urban life and many uneducated families jumped into the hustle and bustle of the metropolis. Cities were crowding workers eager for their share in the changes taking place. It was this subset of children that became lost in the progress, and were most susceptible to delinquency. The number of underage offenders rose, neighbors were riled up, and children remained defenseless against the brutality of the criminal courts. Despite the grievances by the more affluent public, many of the wealthy were contributors to a cohort of progressive thinkers who were petitioning for issues such as womans suffrage and workers rights. It was these activists who founded child-saving movement. This association held the conviction that troubled youth were victims of their external environment. After years of lobbying and a great deal of coercing a group of influential, freethinking women including Nobel Peace winner Jane Addams - founded the first Juvenile Court in Chicago, Illinois in 1899. Privately supported probation officers were Americas first formal mentors. They began as untrained, unpaid volunteers who were assigned a juvenile offender and encouraged to provide unconditional support. Most

"+!

probation officers went above and beyond their official duties, and advocated for their delinquents rights as minors. These mentors understood that as children, their subjects were just beginning to form critical thinking and reasoning skills. As delinquents, they proved to be at-risk for further poor decisions, and new infractions. For these volunteers, the desire to provide a secure adult relationship was instinctual; they took it upon themselves to see past juveniles offenses, and guide them, as any other child, through this significant developmental period. The success of probation programs rapidly gained attention, and shortly following its beginnings, the first major formal mentoring program was born. Ernest Coulter, founder of Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America (BBBS) began as one man who had made a strong connection with one boy. As a court clerk, he noticed a trend of fatherless boys passing through his courtroom, and knew their lives could be changed with a significant adult in their lives. Big Brothers Big Sisters has grown to become the largest, most widely known mentoring movement in America, and remains true to Coulters original objectives: the organization relies entirely on volunteers who are committed to providing positive adult companionship. Despite the growing popularity of community-based mentorship, social scientists of many fields were suspicious of mentoring, calling it a form of unsupervised, forced behavioral intervention. In the 1900s, Psychologist William Healy, head of the Juvenile Psychopathic institute and the nations key informant on juvenile behavior publicly asserted that delinquents must be assessed primarily from a medical perspective. Consequently, he claimed that medical professionals

""!

must administer psychosocial counseling, and was not to be handled by the community or volunteers. Mentoring received more positive attention with the growth of community psychology and the community mental health movement in the 1960s. There were simply not enough trained mental health professionals to meet the needs of the growing population, and these services were becoming costly. President John F Kennedy advocated for community intervention and signed the Community Mental Health Centers Act. This provided the funding for mentoring programs to begin promoting the social and emotional well being of Americas youth. Up until the 1990s, mentoring programs were growing in size, but their success remained largely unevaluated. David Dubois, leading researcher describes mentoring as having, enormous face validity: it looked and felt like the sort of intervention that should work and we wanted it to work (Rhodes & Dubois, 2006, p.10). However, there was increasing pressure on these programs to conduct research showing that mentoring had a substantial impact on participants. This would aide public and private organizations, as well as the federal government in directing their funds towards successful endeavors. It was difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of mentoring programs because it is a form of youth programming that first and foremost works to provide a positive adult relationship. Some of the programmatic outcomes, such as increased academic performance, decreased truancy, enhanced self-esteem and enhanced relationships with parents, teachers and peers cannot be evaluated over a long term, and may not directly connect to the effectiveness of the mentoring relationship. This differs

"#!

from problem-oriented approaches that work to address specific issues, and are able measure the effectiveness of their technique (i.e. academic tutoring, vocational counseling, drug rehabilitation). Bringing evaluation into Big Brothers Big Sisters did not mean changing what the organization stood for. In fact, the very first scientific research on mentoring gathered data from 1988-1995 and reported positive directions in the field; participants showed reduction in drug and alcohol use, improvements in academic performance, behaviors and attitudes, and improved peer and family relationships (Sipe, 1996, p.5). Participation in mentoring programs had achieved affects that mirrored the goals of more accepted corrective programming techniques. Mentors were not trained in specific areas of drug prevention, academic tutoring, or counseling, but by befriending youth, they were providing the necessary support to overcome many of these risk factors. In the past twenty years mentoring has been acknowledged by the professional world, and has received unparallel political and financial support. The influx of funding for mentoring speaks to the level of faith society places on one-on-one relationships between positive adult role models and vulnerable youth, and their faith that mentoring programs have, significant capacity to reproduce through more formal mechanisms the types of benefits that have been indicated to accrue [from] natural mentoring relationships between youth and adults (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002, p.187). Along with BBBS, the National Mentoring Partnership was founded 1990, and has provided millions of children and adolescents with adult mentors. In 2000, Former

"$!

Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the imperativeness of having a mentor in Americas Promise, his nationwide campaign encouraging children to graduate from high school. In 2003, the federal government invested $100 million into the expansion of the Department of Educations and Department of Health and Human services mentoring programs (National Mentoring Partnership, 2010, p.2). Most recently, these federal endowments, along with other generous funds have allowed formal mentoring to try out new styles including peer-to peer mentoring, group mentoring, and E-mentoring, where sessions occur online. The mentoring field is going through transformations that adapt to shifts in society and are tailored to the needs of the modern adolescent. Most recently, communitybased endeavors have given way to alternative models where mentors and mentees interact in a particular setting (usually a school). These site-based programs offer certain benefits to both the modern child at-risk, and the mentors themselves.

Documented Community-Based Mentoring Program Outcomes This chapter identifies major documented successes that are a result of community-based mentoring programs. In the 1990s, Big Brother Big Sisters of America, the largest major mentoring organization in America collaborated with Public/Private Ventures (P/PV), a national non-profit organization committed to improving the effectiveness of community initiatives. They carried out a number of longitudinal assessments of their programs. Over the years, Public/Private

"%!

Ventures has remained a faithful partner to BBBS, and has documented their progress including valuable reports from newer subsets of BBBS. There are three reasons that set Public/Private Ventures and their Impact studies apart from other examinations of mentoring programs in the United States. First, BBBS represents the large majority of mentor/mentee relationships occurring across the country. They are able to represent the largest possible range of demographics. They work with over 500 local agencies in hundreds of locations that deal with a range of at-risk youth, and consequently, a range of mentoring techniques. Second, their methods are sound and experimentally designed to assess behavior before and after mentorship. This study is one of the only evaluations to date that utilized a randomized control setting by comparing a treatment group to scholars who were put on a waiting list. This means that researchers were able to link participation in the program to the calculated average differences in behavior between the two groups. Finally, the agency provides a set of basic standards practices by which all participating groups must abide. Elements include simplified screening for volunteers and youth, requiring basic orientation for volunteers, and a modicum amount of supervision including contact with parents and case supervisors. From there, programs were free to tailor their practices to the needs of their youth. These program irreducibles- the minimum set of required program practices- provided the base upon which accurate data could be collected. From there, the evaluations were able to assess the practices that were associated with the best outcomes.

"&!

The 1995 Impact Study of Big Brother Big Sisters acquired data from eight agencies that were among the largest in the federation, representing six percent of total matches at that time. The 487 treatment and 472 control youth were ages 10-16 and represented relatively equal gender ratios. 55% were members of a minority group, mainly African-American. Each mentee was accepted into the program based on background characteristics that classified them, in some way, as an at-risk adolescent - one in need of the benefits of mentoring. These variables included living with only one parent or grandparent and living in a low household income. Many had past charges of truancy, social disturbance, or a history of physical or emotional abuse. The 400 volunteer mentors in the study were typically well-educated young professionals. The pool consisted 60% college graduates and 40% of households with an income over $40,000. (Tierney, Grossman & Resch, 2005, p.19-31) The Big Brother Big Sisters mentor matches were characterized by a oneon-one approach to mentoring that involves certain operating standards. These include volunteer and youth screening and an orientation for volunteers. In regards to the matching process, BBBS provides no requirements for making matches, other than recommending that agencies take into consideration the volunteers ability to help meet the needs of a specific youth. However, every agency in the study looked into practical factors such as age, gender, geographic proximity and availability when making matches, in addition to documenting youths and parents preferences. Volunteers were also asked the type of youth they would like to be matched with in terms of age, rage, and the types of

"'!

activities they wanted to engage in during their partnership (Tierney et al, 2005, p.17). Pre and post-match data, meaning information that was gathered before the mentoring began and after the mentoring terminated, came from the youth themselves, parents and a case manager. Mentees were assessed at the baseline for background demographics and, at the time of the match, and after an 18-month follow-up. The researchers selected five hypothesized impact areas as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Reduced Antisocial activities, Improved Academic performance, attitudes, and behaviors Better Relationships with family and friends Improved Self concept Social and cultural Enrichment

The evaluation did not find increases/decreases in all areas. However program participation showed to have an impact on the youths social behavior, attitudes towards their education, and relationship with parents. The most significant outcomes are highlighted in the chart below: Summary of Benefits of Big Brother Big Sister after 18-months compared to non-program participants
Outcome Change

Antisocial Activities Initiated Drug Use -45.8% Initiated Alcohol Use -27.4% Number of Times Hit Someone -31.7% Academic Outcomes Grades 3.0% Scholastic Competence 4.3 Skipped Class -36.7 Skipped Days of School -52.2 Family Relationships Summary measure of quality of the parental relationship 2.1% Trust in the parent 2.7 Lying to the parent -36.6 Peer Relationships Emotional Support 2.3% *Note: all impacts are statistically significant at least 90 percent level of confidence * Adapted from Table 16 (Tierney et al, 2005, p. 42)

"(!

They found many of these factors to be interrelated, and were a product of generally positive mentoring relationships. For example, youth may have experienced better attitudes towards school because of an improved relationship with parents or because of a newfound relationship with an adult who was vying for their future. They may have had fewer opportunities to be using drugs or consuming alcohol when spending a substantial amount of time on schools campus.

Structural Factors Contributing to Successful Mentoring After documenting the significant outcomes of community-based mentoring, it is important to look into how organization structures their program, and what factors produce the strongest results. The term structural factors is used in this paper to define objective aspects of the mentoring model that do not rely on the characteristics of the mentor, but have the ability to affect the subjective nature of the mentor-mentee relationship (Nakkula & Harris, 2005, p.105). In addition to the 1995 Impact study of Big Brother Big Sister, two other large-scale BBBS studies are utilized: the University of Missouri-Columbias Investigation of a Process Oriented Model, and Public/Private Ventures earliest study that bring into play many studies between 1988-1995. Information is also cited from Edna McConnell Clark Foundations synthesis of 11 formal mentoring programs. In 1989, the National Mentoring Partnership brought together a panel of mentoring experts to create the first ever framework for program development. The Quality Assurance Standards (QAS) set out ten focus areas that served as

")!

accepted practices for high quality mentoring programs. At this time, the set of best practices was based largely on mentoring theory, due to the fact that there were no large-scale studies that connected these practices to tangible outcomes.

1989 National Mentoring Partnership Quality Assurance Standards

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. A statement of purpose and a long range plan A recruitment plan for mentors and mentees An orientation for mentors and mentees Eligibility screening for mentors and mentees A readiness and training curriculum for all mentors and mentees A matching strategy A monitoring process A support, recognition and retention component Closure steps An evaluation process

*adapted from (North, Sherk & Strother, 2011, p.3)

In 2002, leading researcher David DuBois saw a need for sound empirical evidence to back up these structural recommendations. He led a groundbreaking meta-analytic review that synthesized existing empirical literature in the field. DuBois synthesized 55 different evaluations of the effects of mentoring programs on youth. This is perhaps the most important document to date on communitybased mentoring because of number of programs it includes and his ability to identify certain omissions and biases in these program evaluations. Dubois tested for significant differences in evaluation regarding 13 factors that were either previously emphasized as important to the mentoring field (theory-based), supported by his review (empirically-based), or had both elements. DuBois was able to distinguish the structural components that were only based on theory from those that were backed by both theory and empirical evidence.

"*!

* Taken from (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006, p.6)

DuBois was then able to show the correlation between utilizing a greater number of practices, most particularly research-supported practices, and effect size in evaluations of these youth mentoring programs.

results of preliminary gauge cost-benet ratio mentoring programs (A 2004). These include a that benets of partic the Big Brothers Big S gram, derived from nd landmark Public/Privat study (described in a tion of this report; Tier 1995), exceeded costs b narrowest of margins of $1.01 benet for e of cost) when including payer and other costs. The DuBois, Hollow Figure 1. Relationship between utilization of greater numbers of research-supported * Taken from (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006, p.7) practices and effect size in evaluations of youth mentoring programs (DuBois, Hollo- (2002) meta-analysis, way, et al., 2002). Thresholds for small and medium effects are from Lipsey (1990). found wide variation in tiveness of mentoring pr His findings are consistent with the other forms of research in this thesis, delineate practices and setting features that facilitate this was demonstrated, furthermore, that the ma goal. A considerable amount of research has addressed impacts increased systematically in which indicated that that many structural factors promote program high quality each of these concerns. tion with the use of greater numbers of pra Formal mentoring programs. In formal mentoring the investigators included in theory-based a programs, such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, mentoring cally based practice indexes (see Table 1). Th relationships are established by matching youth with included in each index were identied base #+! adult volunteers. In a meta-analysis of over 50 evalua- recommendations in the eld (theory-bas tions of mentoring programs, DuBois, Holloway, et al. ndings of the meta-analysis itself (empirical (2002) found evidence of benets for participating youth As illustrated in Figure 1, when the full comp

mentor/mentee relationships, and, in turn, produce greater outcomes. I focus on three factors that were vital to these outcomes. 1. Training: Almost all program evaluations indicated the need for quality orientation and training prior to a mentors first encounter with his or her participant. Mentors who receive more hours of training had longerlasting matches (Jekielek, Moore & Hair, 2002, p.38). A second BBBS study, which looked into 50 mentor/mentee relationships, used a perceived quality mentor training scale as a training assessment tool. They found two direct associations that linked mentors with higher ratings of their training to positive outcomes. Mentors reported fewer relationship obstacles and greater levels of program-relevant discussions between themselves and their mentees if they had participated in training (Parra, DuBois, Neville & Lilly, 2002, p. 14). The authors explain that training was the most significant structural factor, which improved mentor efficacy beliefs and allowed mentors to gain the confidence and knowledge to overcome difficulties they encountered during their match. 2. Length and duration: The second constant factor among reports relates to the length and frequency of the relationships. It is clear that are progressively fewer effects as the relationship decreases in length. In fact, relationships that experienced premature termination (i.e. those lasting less than six months), proved to have a negative influence on the lives of mentees. (DuBois et. al, 2002, p.160). Nationally, the average length of a BBBS match is one and one-half years.

#"!

3. Ongoing Supervision and Support: When superiors held mentors accountable, they had better attendance, and thus a greater chance to develop their match into a quality relationship. Public/Private Ventures found, even from its earliest reports, that most mentors experienced some level of frustration with the mentoring process. Many mentors noted their discouragement when mentees failed to show up for scheduled meetings, were not interested in the planned activities, or if they were not talking about personal issues (Sipe, 1996, p. 18). Access to professional staff or other mentors helped volunteers overcome these challenging encounters. Many mentoring programs that are under-funded and cannot provide onsite supervision have developed essential structural components such as scheduled meeting times and transportation assistance that compensate for the lack of staff (Sipe, 1996, p. 9). Support also comes in the form of structured activities, the 12th factor in DuBois list of best practices. Although Big Brother Big Sister programs give an extensive amount of freedom in regards to where and what happens during mentor sessions, studies show that it is beneficial to provide mentors and youth with regular, structured opportunities to participate in activities (Parra et al, 2002, p.19).

Relational Factors Contributing to Successful Mentoring I have demonstrated through literature analysis that a strong program infrastructure can help promote quality relationships that ultimately affect the

##!

outcomes of the organization. However, Jean Rhodes, leading mentor research and psychology professor points out that despite these considerable investments in training, supervision and other areas, almost half of mentoring relationships terminate prematurely (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006, p. 13). Therefore, in order for mentors to achieve desired outcomes (such as increased academic performance or decreased truancy), they must first develop an effective relationship. In her non-fiction book Stand By Me: The Risks and Rewards of Mentoring Todays Youth, Rhodes coins the term placeholder mentality: a growing phenomenon where organizations are shifting their main goals from quality of relationships to quantity of matches. With the growing popularity of mentoring, major mentor programs such as Big Brothers Big Sisters are desperate to get children off long waiting lists. In turn they may be overlooking the importance of building value and worth in their current mentor/mentee matches. These programmatically created mentoring relationships require the same nurturing components those occurring in the natural world. In The Handbook of Youth Mentoring, Nakkula and Harris describe five subjective relational experiences that affect the mentoring relationship quality, or MRQ. 1. Relational/Experiential Compatibility: Adults and youth share commonalities, whether it is personality, or simply a shared interest in the youths future. These can exist prior to the relationship or come with time.

#$!

2. Youth Engagement: Mentors and mentees must both feel a desire to participate in the match, and believe that their time is being spent in a productive manner. 3. Precursors to Closeness: The trust, empathy and respect mentors display from the start of the partnership. 4. Closeness: The mentees ability to accept the commitment put forth by the mentor. A mentee must feel connected and have the sense of belonging to a reciprocal network. 5. Approach: (see explanation below) The mentors approach is perhaps the significant feature promoting mentoring relationship quality. A study conducted by Public/Private Ventures closely followed 82 Big Brother Big Sister matches over nine months showed how the mentors approach might stem in two very different directions. Similar to the BBBS impact study, the participants represented a wide range of demographics. This investigation was qualitative, and did not allow for statistical analysis. Rather, it was a log of the descriptive profile of relationships that came to pass under the program irreducibles mentioned in chapter two. Private/Public ventures determined a typology of mentoring that youth would be most reactive towards, and the characteristics that lead a mentoring partnership to thrive or terminate prematurely. The description of the partnerships in the naturally sorted themselves into two categories they named prescriptive and developmental. Practitioners in the mentoring field continue to use these terms to illustrate effective and ineffective mentoring approaches.

#%!

Prescriptive relationships were those where the adult volunteer created his or her own goals for the mentee. The partnership was prescribed, because the adult decided upon critical aspects of the relationship without the youths input including activities, topics of conversation frequency of meetings. Many held too high of expectations for their desired outcomes. They focused the majority of their time on changing or improving specific aspects of their youth. Mentors used techniques such as lecturing, pointing out youths mistakes, and expressing disappointment when goals were not met. There were high levels of tension amongst both parties, and mentees tended to shut themselves off to the prospect of growth. Many described their Mentors as critical and frustrating. As a result, only 32% of partnership with mentees who took a prescriptive approach persisted until the end of the study (Morrow & Styles, 1995, p.57). Public/Private Ventures used the term developmental to describe relationships where adults were receptive to the needs of their youth, and provided a considerable amount of support in a range of aspects relating to their mentees personal life. The partnership is developmental because mentors expectations varied over the course of the partnership, and began to address goals only when they were certain that the connection was strong enough to foster this type of behavior change. Mentees tended to have stronger attachments to their mentors, and described their adults as empathetic and patient. In comparison to only a third of continued prescriptive relationships, 90% of developmental relationships lasted until the end of the study, and many continued after results were published (Marrow & Styles, p.57).

#&!

Looking back at the five MRQ relational experiences described in The Handbook of Youth Mentoring, Nakkula and Harris recommendations for mentoring approach remain consistent with Morrow and Styles developmental mentoring approach. The handbook, published ten years after Public/Private Ventures continues to convey the significance of developmental relationships. Nakkula and Harris use the expression youth-centeredness to describe the developmental approach, but the principle remains the same. Mentors build close personal relationships where mentees feel that they are at the core of the partnership. They contrast this practice with the prescriptive approach they call agenda-centered approach, again with the same principles. Mentors have full control over the direction of the relationship, and mentees pushed to overcome areas where they fall short of the mentors expectations. The actions taken by mentors who used a developmental approach as described by Styles remained consistent with Nakkula and Harris four other relational experiences (this fifth being approach), as described below. 1. Relational/experiential compatibility: Developmental volunteers expressed a sense of meaning from the relationship itself. 2. Youth engagement: Developmental volunteers primary goals were to provide youth with opportunities for relationship building, and to offer activities that youth often did not get to participate in on the basis of their economic or social constraints. They heavily involved their youth in the decision making process. On the other hand, prescriptive mentors tended to set more specific tasks with rewards and penalties, such as completing

#'!

homework or arriving to school on time. Prescriptive mentors most common goal was to improve youths grades. 3. Precursors to closeness: Characteristics of developmental mentors included respect, trust, and appreciation of values. Mentees felt they could express themselves freely. Prescriptive mentors showed clear character contrasts. Mentees felt the relationship had a sense of artificiality, with little respect, trust or appreciation of values. Thus, they were unable to open up and speak freely with their mentors. 4. Closeness: Descriptive volunteers provided emotional support. Their high level of intimacy fostered an environment where mentees were able to gain a greater a sense of self worth. Prescriptive volunteers described themselves as being somewhat of a surrogate parent, and less as an equal to their mentee. They expected change right away and were disappointed when the low level of intimacy prevented mentees from initiating this transformation. It is important to note that many of the best structural practices mentioned in chapter three encourage a mentor to use developmental, youth-centered approaches. Public/Private ventures suggest providing training in areas such as coping with frustrating interactions and active listening. They found that almost half of prescriptive relationships are formed in mentoring sites that offer little to no training. Prescriptive mentors had less of an understanding of program goals, which affected the type of relationship formed. All mentors would benefit from training where they learned how best to act with youth at different developmental

#(!

stages. Developmental mentors were also the volunteers to seek the most ongoing support and supervision.

Conclusions on Mentoring as a Developmental Tool Regardless of socio-economic background or risk status the period of adolescence is a time of social and emotional revolution. In terms of cognitive development, adolescents are transitioning into thinking about possibilities, not just realities. As a child, they have honed their inductive reasoning skills, and can use concrete facts to reach conclusions about their personal experiences. They are just beginning to develop the ability to use deductive reasoning to draw from many sources, test the validity of different hypotheses, and draw their own conclusions. This is the age where a human being is able to base a decision on more than just the facts they see in front of them (Berger & Thompson, 1995, p.551-563). In this way, developmental mentoring can be a corrective experience for adolescents. Many youth who are in need of mentors enter their partnerships with negative views of their reality. In come cases, mentees are discouraged by an unstable household or have resigned to living in permanent conditions of poverty. Others are put off by their low performance in school. Once a strong connection has formed, based on the qualities of mutuality, trust and empathy, a mentor is able to foster an environment where the mentee can see a future of possibilities beyond his or her existing condition.

#)!

A mentor may spend the entirety of their partnership working on raising a math grade. After a year of tutoring, it is likely this grade will improve. Or they may decide to provide drug and alcohol education and work on keeping their mentee drug-free. This relationship has the potential to change that adolescents short-term substance abuse. These short-term solutions are not guaranteed to persist after the mentoring relationship has ended. In contrast, a mentor can encourage positive change and have enduring effects on the life of their youth. Their commitment to developing a positive relationship can lead to more focused conversations that sharpen the youths ability to process thoughts and experiences. In turn, this mentee can apply their newfound skills to many areas of their lives.

Chapter 2: Investigations into School-Based Mentoring Mentoring to Address the Drop-out Crisis When a student drops out of high school, they join the cohort of around one-third of young Americans who fail to graduate on time with their peers (Bridgeland, Dilulio & Morison, 2006, p.3). Whether aware of it or not, the decision to dropout of high school has long lasting, negative consequences. On any given day, more young male dropouts are in prison than at a job (Milliken, 2007, p.xxii). In addition to the immense personal consequences, the high dropout rate takes a significant financial toll on the nation as a whole. The most recent reports from the Alliance from Excellent education predict that unless high

#*!

schools are able to graduate their students at higher rates, the estimated 12 million dropouts of the next decade will cost the United States $1.5 trillion dollars (2011, p.2). Studies have shown that high-school dropouts tend to display certain behavioral and demographic characteristics that characterize them as at-risk for discontinuing their education. The dropout rate is disproportionately high for students from low-income backgrounds, and student who live in single parent homes. The U.S Department of Education noted that the dropout rates are the highest among students who are identified as having some levels of emotional or behavioral disabilities (Christenson & Thurlow, 2004, p.36). It is important to note that these circumstantial and personal traits contributing to the high school dropout rate parallel the risk factors that many national mentoring programs use to identify adolescents in need of adult mentors. In 2006, Civic Enterprises and the Bill and Melinda gates foundation published The Silent Epidemic, a report that provided student perspectives on the United States drop out crisis. Despite personal complexities, there were certain factors that remained consistent amongst subjects. The majority of students featured in the case study were exhibiting behaviors in school that classified them as at-risk for dropping out far before the actual event occurred. This lead the researchers to conclude that dropping may be due to developmental setbacks in earlier grades, which inhibit refined decision-making skills in later life.

$+!

Additionally, they found a variety of behaviors that were caused by external extenuating circumstances and were affecting the students school connectedness. School connectedness is defined as a protective factor that can prevent students from thriving in an academic environment and properly absorbing and retaining information taught in the classroom. Big Brothers Big Sisters measures school connectedness using a three-item School Liking scale and a six-item Connectedness to School scale, that incorporates concepts about trying hard as well as school enjoyment (Herrera, Grossman, Kauh & Feldman, 2007, p.49). School connectedness goes beyond academic achievement. It depends on a students ability to self-initiate connections with their teachers and classmates, as well as a vision for the future that includes graduation and/or plans for college. In spite of the high rate of dropouts, an exceptional statistic emerged from this study. A total of 70% of interviewees claimed they were confident they could have graduated if they had tried (Bridgeland, Dilulio & Morison, 2006, p.5). Most of these students admitted that they were not planning for the future. Rather, it was their desire for short-term gratification (such as making money or being free from academic pressure) that may have clouded their judgment process. Finally, almost all students surveyed longed for a strong relationship with at least one adult in the school who cared about their success and could help with problems outside of class (Bridgeland, et al, 2006, p.5). The evidence surrounding similar traits, which characterize a high school dropout, in conjunction with the urgency of the dropout crisis in the United States indicates a need for supplemental services within the schools- particularly those

$"!

districts struggling with high dropout rates. Many students who may be lost in these large schools are underserved by the standardized curriculum. These are students who would benefit from one-on-one attention from a concerned adult. Volunteers would be familiar with the school, familiar with the students circumstances, and willing to advocate for the needs of todays youth. Schoolbased mentoring programs are one alternative technique that would allow for personalized attention, tackling some of the red-flag behavioral challenges that are leading students to dropout. A mentor cannot force a child to stay in school. Rather, a mentor who forms a strong relationship and utilizes developmental mentoring techniques may aid in cultivating decision-making skills that will allow students to choose to pursue their own education.

The Rise of School-Based Mentoring a. From Community-Based to School-Based Mentoring As described in Chapter One, formal mentoring in America has largely been contextually driven. Organizations continue to improve upon their models in order to address the needs of the contemporary adolescent at risk. This has paved the way for newer trends in the mentoring field. Most recently, this involves a new model where the site of the program is the foundation of the organizations structure, and influences the dynamics of the mentoring relationship. The number of school-based mentoring programs grew with exceptional speed at end of the 20th century. School-based mentoring programs are continuously being founded in the districts throughout the country. The rise in school-based mentoring is

$#!

attributed to two factors. First, the pressure on schools to have their students performing well and graduating on time invites supportive services such as mentoring. Second, there are certain factors that make site-based relationships more practical, feasible, and appealing to a wide range of potential mentors (Portwood & Ayers, 2005, p.337). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was passed at a time of heightened public concern surrounding the state of education in the United States. The directive established stringent expectations surrounding closing the achievement gap. This placed a significant amount of pressure on public schools to show academic progress through annual testing. The act did not come without controversy. Multitudes of teachers, school leaders, parents and public figures argued that the bill was too politically motivated. The focus on test scores seemed to take away from other activities that provide a well-rounded education. Despite the backlash, NCLB managed to bring the dropout crisis to the forefront of social and political discourse. The following year, NCLB authorized the founding of the U.S Department of Educations Student Mentoring Program, now operated by the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. School based mentoring such as the Department of Educations mentoring programs can be classified as an alternative education technique, which seeks to aid students who are not showing progression based on the current system in place. The Urban Institute, in partnership with the U.S Department of labor defines alternative education as activities that fall outside the traditional K-12 school system. Although the term is usually associated with an entirely new

$$!

structure of instruction, it can also include special programs that provide shortterm but therapeutic settings for students with social and emotional problems that create academic and behavioral barriers to learning (Aron, 2006, p.x). Many of the target outcomes for alternative education strategies overlap with widely known goals of formal mentoring programs including achievement motivation, academic self-concept, school engagement, and higher-order thinking skills.

b. Perceived Benefits of the School-Based Mentoring Model School based mentoring is not a tutoring program, and it is not a community-based mentoring program because it does not allow for the same level of unstructured activity that many community organizations enjoy. Through my literature review, four four positive factors unique to the school based setting were identified. These make school-based mentoring an appealing option for those invested in creating and implementing a successful formal mentoring program. 1. Cost-effective and resource driven: From an operational standpoint, a mentoring programs connection to the school implies the convenience of utilizing the location as a meeting point. Moreover, organizations can make use of school facilities and draw on the resources within the building. In these ways, mentoring in schools tends to cost about half as much as those in community settings (Rhodes, 2002, p.112). Public/Private Ventures found that in the average cost to mentor a student

$%!

in school was $567, compared to $1,369 for an adolescent in a community-based program (Herrera, 2000, p. 20). 2. Reaching more mentors: School-based mentoring programs have a higher level of supervision because meetings occur before, during or after school hours. The high level of structure allows for more flexibility with mentor selection. For example, school-based mentors are more likely to allow cross-gender matches and can accept a wider age-range of volunteers. Due to the higher number of female volunteers in the mentoring field, this gives more opportunities for male students to receive the benefits of an adult mentor. School-based mentoring programs also attract volunteers who would not otherwise be able to meet the demands of the community models. The appeals of SBM include a shorter time commitment and less on mentors pressure to fashion activities on their own accord. Compared with community-based programs, school based mentors are more likely to be ethnic minorities and fall into older or younger age groups due to fewer transportation requirements. Mentoring in schools require little to no outside costs on the mentors part. 3. Reaching more mentees: A higher number of volunteers, in turn, lead to more adolescents matched. Because students are usually referred to these organizations through teachers and counselors, school-based programs reach a broader range of youth who may not have had the opportunity to participate in traditional community programs. School-staff

$&!

are able to identify underserved groups of students who would benefit most from mentoring, including those who lack parental support, or who are demonstrating social and behavioral problems. 4. Opportunity to build reciprocal relationship: Mentors are able to capitalize on the adults who are already in the school setting, utilizing teachers and counselors as a resource during their partnership. In turn, mentoring programs provide a cohort of adults who contribute to the school environment. More adults mean more resources. The school draws community members, and the community members utilize the school to aid students at risk. It is school-based organizations hope to reach the optimum number of students early enough to influence their decision to stay in school, rather than tackling the same adolescents in a post-drop-out scenario. Together they establish a system of social support that guides a younger generation.

Despite widespread support and growing prevalence of school-based mentoring programs, it is important to note that many key figures in education and child services are against school-linked services, and prefer community-based over institution-based models for extracurricular supports such as mentoring. Leading mentoring researchers David Dubois suggests in his meta-analytic analysis that school-based mentoring programs may be less effective than those in community settings. Harold Richman and Robert Chaskin are two University of Chicago professors who strongly oppose school-based social services. They are

$'!

co-authors of multiple articles surrounding the future of children and community organizing. Among their work is a publication chronicling their concern for integrated programming that place the school in the position to aid their own curricular agendas. First, they assert that the bureaucracy and rigidity that accompany institutions such as public schools may compel an outside service-based organization to focus on pleasing the establishment rather than the client. The described situation is one that could potentially arise in a mentoring-school partnership. The operational needs of a school center around academic achievement. This may place pressure on the mentoring organization to adjust its model or outcome goals to incorporate aspects (Chaskin & Richman, 1992, p. 110), such as grade improvement or a greater attendance record. Likewise, it may lead volunteers to believe they are providing a tutoring service, rather than mentoring service. The second issue raised centers around the appropriateness of the school as a central place for service delivery; given the unsteady relationship some parents and children have with the institution itself. Richman and Chaskin describe situations where students who need these services the most may have a negative view or bad relationship with their public school. They are less likely to accept help when they are aware of the link between the service and the school (Chaskin & Richman, 1992, p.211). Notwithstanding these apprehensions, school-based mentoring programs are still flourishing, with thousands of students receiving this particular in-school

$(!

service. It is therefore a necessity to analyze the structural and relational factors that make school based mentoring unique, and explore whether or not the programs are producing tangible outcomes.

Characteristics Distinguishing School-Based Mentoring a. Investigations into Three Research Studies School-based mentoring has just recently emerged as a viable subset of the mentoring field and there is a limited research surrounding best practices specific to SBM. This section synthesizes the only three large-scale longitudinal research studies, which give a descriptive account of their school-based mentoring programs, and provide pre and post-matched outcomes. Although there are a number of evaluations that assess the effectiveness of particular school-based mentoring programs, these three studies are a synthesis of multiple mentoring location and styles. They are valuable to the field because of their extensive detailing of the SMB model, and their scientific method. Even with the differences in mentee demographics and program locations, the three studies demonstrated a great deal of similarity regarding program characteristics. Four prominent features of school-based mentoring are the focus of this section including training, supervision and ongoing support, mentor activities, and length and duration. Following this description, the program outcomes for each study are reported. In all three programs, the majority of volunteer mentors received some level of pre-match training, although some did not participate in any orientation before beginning their mentor meetings. One

$)!

feature that distinguishes SBM from community models is the high level of professional supervision that can be provided teachers, administrators, and counselors, and other school staff. An effective program must have clear and consistent communication between all participating parties including the organization, school, the mentor and oftentimes the parents of mentees. Big Brothers Big Sisters: As this thesis continues to follow the expansion and transformation of Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America, the most in-depth report comes from Public/Private Ventures Making a Difference In Schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact Study. Mentoring expert Jean Grossman, who pioneered Making A Difference: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters in 2007 (referenced in Chapter One) also spearheaded this study. P/PV analyzed 1,139 students raging from ages nine to sixteen from ten different BBBS programs across the nation. BBBS selected ten agencies working with 72 schools for the study, and had been operating for an average of five years (Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, & Feldman, 2007, p.20). Similar to P/PVs community-based mentoring report, the demographics of the study are fairly representative of the BBBS national statistics. The percentage of male and female mentees is fairly equal, and around two thirds are of ethnic or racial minority. All mentees possessed one or more qualities that classified them as at risk, including low economic status, experiencing stressful life events, poor academic performance, evidence of negative school behaviors and attitudes, and unhealthy relationships with teachers, parents and peers. In regards to volunteers, almost three quarters of mentors were female. Around 17%

$*!

were between 19-24 years old, and most mentors were enrolled in either high school or college (Herrera et al, 2007, p. 29). Many were recruited from partnerships formed with business and schools in the surrounding area. Upwards of 80% of volunteers claimed to have experience working with adolescents, and felt very or extremely confident in their mentoring abilities. To date, this is the only SBM study to utilize a randomized treatment group who received mentoring and a control group placed on a waitlist. Data was collected from volunteers, mentors and teachers/school staff prior to the match. Quantitative data and qualitative interviews were performed during two followups. These occurred in the spring of the first school and 15 months after the start of the baseline. In terms of training, 71% of BBBS mentors received training that lasted only one hour; this indicates that 29% of mentors received absolutely no prematch support (Herrera, et al, 2011, p.25). Mentors who went through training described the content of their sessions as reviewing program rules, match expectations, communication skills practices and relationship building. BBBS took special care to analyze the mentors perception of training and its effect on the mentoring relationship. They found that mentors who had more pre-match training expressed a higher level of confidence when interacting with their mentees, and were more motivated to continue their relationship into the following year. In regards to length and duration, mentor matches typically met one time per week for 45 minutes to one-hour sessions. The duration of the mentoring

%+!

partnership lasted an average of 4.6 months (Herrera et al, 2007, p. 35). Big Brothers Big Sisters views supervision as crucial to running an effective schoolbased mentoring program, and requires that program staff check in with volunteers and youth or youths parents once a month for the duration of the partnership. In spite of this, their ideals did not necessarily evolve into practice. Only 84% of BBBS programs had a school staff member connected with the mentoring program to offer support. Although every site had a BBBS support staff member, only 39% of mentors reported frequently contacting their liaison, and 24% admitted they had never used BBBS staff for assistance (Herrera et al, 2007, p.26). In BBBS, mentor-reported staff support was associated with enhancements in closeness with youth and positive emotional engagement (Herrera, 2004, p.15) Mentor/mentee activities were required to remain within the borders of the school grounds. Often times, program staff suggested themes, games, or topics of conversation if the mentor was at a lost for activities. Although matches were typically allowed to choose how they spent their time together, they were required to follow stricter guidelines outlined in the mentoring model. There were a few cases of BBBS schools where the program staff dictated the course of each meeting. Mentors reported a variety of activities including sports, creative projects, indoor games, homework assistance and conversations about the youths behavior, future and family. In BBBS, mentors considered grade improvements one of their high priority areas. Although most volunteers expressed their primary goal was to promote a companionship and self-esteem among their mentees, 27%

%"!

of mentors reported spending a lot or most of their time with tutoring and homework help (Herrera et al, 2007, p. 37). Mentees participating in the Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based impact study demonstrated small improvements in teacher-reported outcomes. These include better quality of class work, number of assignment completed, less school infractions, and less unexcused absences from school. However, they did not show improvements in school connectedness. There were no improvements in areas such as including academic self-esteem, college plans, self-reported grades, or the quality of relationships with their teachers (Herrera et al, 2007, p.12). In addition, there seemed to be no impact on out-of-school issues such as self-worth, engagement in pro-social behaviors, assertiveness, and relationships with peers and parents. It is important to note that any recorded improvement, no matter how small, eroded by the second follow-up, which happened during the second school year after most matches had terminated. U.S Department of Educations Student Mentoring Program: The second study used in this analysis is the U.S Department of Educations (DOE) Student Mentoring program. Funded by a completive federal grant authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, researchers performed a randomized control study of 255 mentoring programs across the country and a total of 2,573 students. The mentoring organizations were mainly non-profit/community-based organizations or faith-based organizations hired to implement their mentoring program within public school districts. These organizations had an average of six

%#!

years of experience with school-based programs. (U.S Department of Education, 2009, p.xvi). Students were referred to the mentoring program by school staff. Similar to BBBS, the gender ratio was equal and 41% of were of racial and ethnic minority. These scholars also exhibited at-risk characteristics, most specifically struggles with academic performance or exhibiting delinquent behaviors (U.S Department of Education, 2009, p.xvii). Approximately 20% of mentors were of high school age, and 23% were in college. 76% of mentors reported having some or a lot of contact with adolescents. The Department of Education evaluators measured a total of 17 outcomes in relating to interpersonal relationships, personal responsibility, academic achievement and engagements, and high-risk or delinquent behavior. They utilized both self-reported data and student records as a baseline for comparing outcomes during two checkups. These occurred in the fall of the school year and at the end of the school year (U.S Department of Education, 2009, p.xx). In terms of training 96% of DOE mentors received pre-match orientation. Those who did spent an average 3.4 hours of training (U.S Department of Education, 2009, p.31). This was the highest percentage and length of training amongst all three studies. In the DOEs mentoring program, matches met one time per week for one-hour sessions. The average length of the partnership was 5.8 months. 43% of mentors reported working on academics most of the time or almost always. The majority of mentors also mentioned less frequent conservations regarding students relationships with peers, parents and teachers,

%$!

as well as risk behavior. DOEs mentoring program set out requirements for ongoing support, and strongly encouraged utilization of the system set in place. Specifically, only half of the DOE volunteers reported that program staff supervised their meetings, and only half revealed having access to program staff, social workers or counselors. Compared to BBBS, the U.S Department of Educations study had an even worse turnout of reported outcomes. When assessing the overall program impact, researchers averaged separately derived-site level impacts. When the mentoring programs were assessed as a whole, they found no statistically significant impact relative to the control group on any of the six outcomes or outlined in their mentoring model. These goals were interpersonal relationships, personal responsibility, community involvement, academic achievement, school engagement, and lowering high-risk delinquent behavior. The precisions of the impact estimates were improved when controlling for baseline characteristics of students including age, gender, school lunch eligibility status, race/ethnicity and family structure. Only when they stratified mentees into many subgroups were they able to calculate minimal improvements that applied to certain ages, genders, or specific conditions of the program. For example, the impact on truancy was positive and statistically significant for students below age 12, but not for students aged 12 and older (U.S Department of Education, 2009, p.53). However, even after controlling for multiple comparisons, students did not show difference in academic achievement or school engagement compared to students in the control group.

%%!

Communities in Schools Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment (SMILE): The third report is the Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment (SMILE): A randomized evaluation of the Effectiveness of School-Based Mentoring. The program was run through Communities in Schools (CIS), an umbrella youth development federation that operates many organizations addressing the dropout epidemic. They work to foster cooperative relationships between schools and their surrounding communities. This intervention differs from BBBS and the DOEs mentoring programs because the 516 mentees were predominantly Latino, and came from 19 schools in the San Antonio area. The treatment and controls groups differed slightly in that mentees were assigned to either a set of supportive school services (control), or supportive services plus school-based mentoring (treatment). Communities in Schools mentors received only one hour of training prior to matching. Although additional evening training was offered, only a small percentage of volunteers chose to participate (Karcher, 2008, p.103). Ongoing training occurred very infrequently. Mentor matches met one time a week for approximately one hour. The average partnership lasted three months. Researchers collected data in the form of surveys in September at the start of the program. They performed only one follow up analysis eight months later in April and May. Many unique measures were utilized. The Hemingway Measure of Adolescent Connectedness assesses an adolescents caring and involvement in specific relationships. Other measures included a self-esteem questionnaire, a

%&!

perceived social support scale, a social skills rating system, the Childrens hope scale, and a perceived mattering survey (Karcher, 2008, p.4-5). The Communities in Schools programs established twenty-one desired effects of mentoring, and saw significant improvements in only four areas. The other seventeen factors that showed no improvement. The chart below illustrates the mentees areas that showed improvement compared to those which showed no progress. COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS
Program Goals Which Showed Significant Improvement * Connectedness to peers * Global self-esteem * Self-in-the-present * Perceived support from friends Program Goals Which Showed No Significant Improvement * Self-esteem * Self-in-the-future * Self-control * Peer relations * School relations * Family relations * Social skills * Assertiveness * Cooperation * Support from family * Mattering * Hope * Math * Reading * Connectedness to * Connectedness to school * Connectedness to teachers culturally different peers ** adapted from Karcher, 2008, Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment

Similar to the DOEs study, when Communities in Schools stratified mentees into small groups, they found additional small benefits. On the other hand, they also discovered certain negative correlations. For example, boys being mentored in high school in high school did not show any positive effects of school based mentoring, and declined in their level of school-connectedness. In fact, many older male students quit the program before its designated termination.

b. Discussion

%'!

The outcomes demonstrated in all three large-scale studies is concerning to the field of mentoring, which is continuing to grow despite the existence of these reports. It appears that youth involved in school based mentoring are receiving occasional benefits, but they are limited, short-lasting and may not be attributed to the mentoring partnership at all. The factors that do show calculated improvement are related most closely to short-term improvements in scholastic competence. This type of progress least related to youth development and does not have a lasting impact the future of participants. Perhaps the most controversial feature that sets SBM apart from its CBM counterparts is the restrictions set on length and duration of the mentoring relationship. As stated in Chapter One, the average CBM partnership lasts one and a half years. The mentoring community promotes the 12-month minimum standard duration, first established in Jean Rhodes Stand By Me (Rhodes, 2002, p.60). In fact, she asserts that youth are involved in short lived mentoring partnerships, or whose partnerships terminated earlier than the designated duration had negative effects. Compared to control groups, these mentees displayed reactions such as lower feelings of self-worth and perceived scholastic competence. The average length and duration of the mentoring programs found in the three research reports is expressed in the chart below.

%(!

School-Based Mentoring Factors Regarding Length and Duration

SBM Program Average number of meetings per week 1x/week 1x/week 1x/week Average time per meeting 1 hour 1 hour 45min-1hour Average duration of relationship 3 months 5.8 months 4.6 months

Communities in School Department of Education Big Brothers Big Sisters

The duration of the mentoring relationships do not extend anywhere near the recommended length of 12 months. This is mainly attributed to the restriction that accompany having to abide by the school calendar. All three mentoring programs expressed concern regarding the amount of time it takes in the beginning of the year to recruit volunteers and match participants. This breaches into the already constricted length of the calendar year. The research also supports many of the concerns illustrated by skeptics of school based mentoring. Analysis of all three studies indicates a clear trend regarding a higher level of engagement in academic activities as compared to community mentoring. Although most mentors did not outwardly express academic improvement as one of their main goals, in practice, mentors tended to spend a significant amount of time working on academics. Rather than adhering to an established set of best practices, the outcomes demonstrate that school-based mentoring programs are likely being shaped by the needs of the schools. A mentors approach may also be fueled by and shaped to fit the nature of the academic environment. It appears that that the failure of these mentoring programs to produces greater outcomes does not rest entirely on the volunteers and their relationship ! %)!

with their mentees. One positive aspect that these reports highlight is SBMs ability to recruit a larger and more diverse group of volunteers. BBBS stated that about half of the SBM mentors reported they would not have considered CBM at the time they initially became involved in their SBM program (Herrera et al, 2007, p.29). Both BBBS and the U.S Department of Educations mentors and mentees expressed that their general relationships with their counterparts were positive. 94% of US DOE mentor reported enjoying the time they spent with their students most of the time or almost always. Likewise, over 80% of mentees stated that they could trust their mentor, that their mentor listens, and their mentor has good ideas about how to solve problems (U.S Department of Education, 2009, p.46). The question that arises is whether the relationship quality is necessarily associated with outcomes. BBBS found that relationship quality was associated with match length (Herrera et al, 2007, p.57), however the difference in outcomes between those who felt very close with their mentor compared with those who did not have as strong of relationships was not statistically significant. This indicates that there are gaps in the structure of the mentoring programs and the relationship approach that are preventing close relationships from moving to a point where they are achieving tangible outcomes. In fact, the Communities in Schools report acknowledged in their results section that they did not provide many of the best practices supported by DuBois meta-analytic analysis (Karcher, 2008, p.13). They suggested emphasizing the quality of the program over the quantity of

%*!

participants by incorporating more of these programmatic assets including wellstructured meetings and ongoing training. Due to the extensive nature of the 1995 Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters and the 2007 Big Brothers Big Sisters School-Based Mentoring Impact Study, it is important to compare the two analyses. Although the studies were conducted over ten years apart, they adhere to similar research methodology. Both reports, in conjunction with Public/Private Ventures use a survey instrument called the Program Outcomes Evaluations (POE), a method that has been in place for around15 years. POE categorizes outcomes into socio-emotional competency, educational success and avoidance/reduction of risky behaviors. After analysis, BBBS SBM youth improved only in school-related outcomes while CBM beneficiaries were affected by a wider range of outcomes such as decreased truancy and improved parent relationships. In regards to relationship status, despite fairly high levels of closeness reported by youth [in both studies], [SBM] volunteers reported feeling less close to their Littles than CBM volunteers involved in earlier studies (Herrera et al, 2007, p.11). However, they note that the difference was slight, and may not be directly associated with greater program outcomes. The greatest difference in research methods was that SBM included a six-month follow-up to test the durability of the noted changes. This was important because none of the SBM outcomes were sustained into the following year. This leaves the question open to whether CBM outcomes also had a lasting effect on the mentees.

&+!

In 2006, after conducting the research necessary to publish the SBM impact study, Dr. Jean Rhodes created the Youth Outcomes Survey (YOS). This is a new attempt at program analysis that takes into account larger organizational efforts to outline targeted outcomes. The survey would also be administered twice during the relationship instead of once. Additionally, it would allow BBBS to compare their effects to other national program evaluations. In the past six years, BBBS has worked hard to replace POE in support of this more rigorous technique. It is their hope that the increasingly accurate data will encourage funders, policymakers and community partners to continue their support for formal mentoring. The YOS categories of outcomes of similar, but within these subsets are new measures such as presence of special adult and educational expectations. It will be interesting to see the differences in reported outcomes of both CBM and SBM under the stringency of the Youth Outcome Survey.

Chapter 3: Addressing the Gaps in School-Based Mentoring Structural Recommendations for Strengthening the Mentoring Model a. Improved Training, Supervision and Support As demonstrated in Chapter Two, large-scale research studies regarding the new field of school based mentoring have produced inadequate outcomes. Despite evidence of limited success, mentoring organizations are carrying on with their programs, and continuing to implement their model in schools across the United States. It is imperative to look into the structure of the school based

&"!

mentoring model, and find solutions that address the structural and relational factors preventing mentoring partnerships from greater, more tangible outcomes. In order to improve school-based mentoring programs, organizations must take into account the methods that have proven successful for community-based programs and adapt them to the school setting. Mentoring organizations that seek out a school as the foundation of their program must make a conscious effort to integrate these best practices into their model. This will certainly come with a set of new challenges. Many of the factors that make CBM successful are possible because of the flexibility given to mentors to determine the course of their relationship. However, it is quite possible to bring these best practices into the realm of SBM. Organizations must adjust the community approaches that have proven to work, while continuing to adhere to the structure and the restrictions one encounters in school-based mentoring. This chapter investigates various structural factors that are preventing mentors from creating high quality relationships, which promote long-term growth, and ultimately produce greater statistical outcomes. I focus on four crucial components including training, supervision, match activities, and length/duration of mentor match. As established in Chapter One, each of these factors are heavily researched in the community setting, and have specific qualities that contribute to their success. These are areas that appear to be poorly integrated into the school-based mentoring model, and require modifications. First, it is important to look at how the community-based and school-based mentors are matched with mentees, and whether the characteristics of the match

&#!

and the volunteers perceptions of their mentors risk status affects their ability to help produce outcomes. Big Brother Big Sisters gives little guidance in their program irreducibles that mandate matching criteria. They recommend agencies make matches based on the volunteers ability to help meet the needs of the specific youth. The organization does not imply making matches on the basis of age, gender or race. The 1995 Impact Study mentions that in making matches, all the agencies included in the research did take certain practical factors such as gender and location into consideration. Volunteers were surveyed regarding their preference of age, race, and the types of activities they expected to participate in with their youth. Mentees and parents were also asked about their interests in specific match activities. Although they explain the process for indicating match preferences, they did not provide specific statistics surrounding the demographics of actual matches. In the 2007 School-Based Mentoring Impact Study, the authors compared some of the differences between matching styles of community-based and schoolbased agencies. The first major divergence between the two divisions of mentoring is that the average CBM volunteer is older than the average schoolbased mentor. Similar to BBBS, 18% of the U.S DOE mentors were 18 or younger and 23% were college-age (U.S Department of Education, 2009, p.xix). Second, while community-based mentors and their mentees are typically required to be of the same gender, school-based mentoring provides the necessary supervision to allow for cross-gender matches. Because more females than males volunteer to mentor, the ability for cross-gender matches allows for school-based

&$!

programs to serve more male students (Herrera et al, 2007, p.31). The potential disadvantage of younger age volunteers, or the advantages of same-sex matches were not investigated in these reports. Most experts in the field appear in agreement in regards to the irrelevancy of race or gender in the formation of a meaningful partnership. BBBS reported that youth in cross-gender and cross-race matches had the same levels of relationship closeness as well as the same average duration as matches that shared gender or race (Herrera, 2007, p.31). While homogenous matches may be more familiar and foster a certain level of trust at the onset of the relationship, it is not a predictor of the nature of the partnership. In DuBois meta-analytic review of structural program features, he found no correlation between the use of matching techniques and effect size (DuBois et al, 2002, p.178). What experts have found to be more important than demographics, and more important than shared interests or commonality between mentor and mentee, is the level of perceived self-efficacy of the volunteers. One of the only matchsurveys utilized in the mentoring field has nothing to do with race, gender, or other socio-cultural preferences. The Match Characteristics Questionnaire, completed only by adults is meant to assess a volunteers level of internal, external and relational/experiential perspectives that will allow them to thrive in a mentoring environment. What researchers found was a positive correlation between mentors reports of strong self-efficacy and the mentees feelings that they mattered in the early stages of the relationship (Nakkula & Harris, 2005, p.109).

&%!

Because many up to 50% of partnerships in both community and school settings terminate early in the match (Karcher, Nakkula & Harris, 2005, p.94), it is important to analyze the impact that a mentees risk status has on their mentors perceptions of the mentoring relationship. Mentor experts Karcher, Nakkula and Harris found that volunteers who did not feel they were making achievements right away, or mentors who primarily sought out self-enhancement or selffulfillment as indicators of success tended to perceive the relationship itself as less strong, positive or effective. Those volunteers who had the most self-efficacy and motivation to tend to and nurture a lasting relationship had better perceptions of the mentor match, regardless or in spite of a youths risk status and disposition (Karcher et al, 2005, p. 107). With this in mind, it is important to provide training that promotes self-efficacy, and have the proper monitoring system in place to support and promote the mentors motivation to persist and to prosper in a mentor match. Mentoring programs must re-evaluate the system that is set in place to train and support their volunteer matches in order to promote self-efficacy, and impart a greater understanding of the developmental mentoring appraoch. Although there is a general consensus regarding the necessity of pre-match training for volunteers, the quality, content, and length vary tremendously amongst both community and school-based mentoring programs. According to research in both community and school-based mentoring programs, volunteers who attended less than two hours of training did not feel as close to their mentees, spent less time as a match, and were more likely to terminate their relationship

&&!

early than mentors who received more than two hours of training (National Mentoring Partnership, 2009, p.10). As mentioned in Chapter Two, only 71% of Big Brothers Big Sister mentors received training. Those who were trained reported gaining information regarding match activities and expectations, how to build a strong relationship, and effective communication skills. Training very infrequently covered topics regarding constructive types of mentoring styles (i.e. developmental vs. prescriptive) or youth development. It is important to ensure that every volunteer undergoes a thorough mentor-training program that encompasses these missing aspects. Chapter Three will elaborate upon effective youth development tools and training methods that may improve mentors relationships, and the mentees long-term development. Trained staff members provide ongoing supervision and support. They offer professional advice and are able to address concerns that may be preventing proper mentor/mentee relationship development. They monitor the progress of the mentoring relationship by assuring its consistency and quality. As DuBois demonstrated in his meta-analytic synthesis of community-based mentoring programs, the 23% of mentors who received ongoing support amongst 55 studies positively correlated to bettor mentee outcomes (DuBois et al, 2002, p.32). He attributes this lack of training to both financial obstacles and the excessive demands placed on volunteers to commit time outside of their mentor/mentee relationship. To address this setback, school-based mentoring programs must leave room in their budget and time in their schedule for a reliable on-site staff member who can provide supervision for mentors.

&'!

Although the school setting more conducive than community-based mentoring for face-to-face interaction between mentors and program staff, many volunteers are not taking advantage of this service. As mentioned in Chapter Two, a great deal of SBM volunteers are drawn to the organization based on the shorter per-week time commitment. They are discouraged from pursuing additional training. In many community-based settings, support is offered over the phone or via email in order to be most convenient for volunteers with busy schedule. It may be beneficial to mirror the communication options offered to community mentors, rather than requiring in person meetings to discuss relationship progress. Regardless of the form of contact, school-based volunteer mentors must be aware of the commitment to training and support necessary to make a true impact in the lives of their mentees. The minimum requirement for ongoing supervision must outlined in the organizations guidelines or expectations manual, and agreed upon by volunteers before starting the matching process. This allows mentors to understand the realistic time commitment to obligations that fall outside of individual mentor meetings.

b. Improved Length and Duration The most important setback preventing mentoring outcomes is undeniably the limitations of the length and duration of the mentoring match. Not only must mentor meetings conform to the school day, but also they are restricted to fit in between holidays and the summer. The mentoring community utilizes the 12-month-standard, as established in mentor expert Jean Rhodes Stand By Me.

&(!

Consequently, the length and frequency of school-based mentor matches fall far below the average of their community-based counterparts. Rhodes views inconsistencies, early termination, and short term relationships as a drawback to the mentoring field- one that can touch on vulnerabilities in youth in ways that other, less personal youth programs do not (Rhodes, 2002, p.58). She uses other programs to describe those which focus on short-term problem solving rather than relationship development and social and emotional learning. Rhodes and Dubois were able to prove in their meta-analytic review those short-lived mentoring partnerships, or whose partnerships ended earlier than the designated duration indeed had negative effects on the mentees themselves. She describes instances where youth have had negative experiences with parent and peer relationships and enter a mentoring program with fears of rejection. School-based matches could be detrimental if there is not sufficient time for a close bond to form between the mentor and mentee. Both Big Brother Big Sisters studies and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation Study reported that despite its short duration, the majority of both school-based mentors and mentees did indeed feel close to their partner. However, researchers are in agreement that relationships in community-based programs were much stronger. After taking in the statistics from all three studies, the short length and duration characterizing school-based mentoring appears to be the structural factor most indicative of these weaker relationships. Given the research regarding the negative impact of time constraints in the school-based setting, I propose four organizational improvements that would

&)!

allow for longer mentoring partnerships, and promote higher quality relationships. These include matches coinciding with the beginning of the school year, maintain communication and face-to face contact during out of school periods, utilizing a multi-year cross-school mentoring model, and implementing strong closure procedures to prepare for match termination. 1. Mentor matches should commence with the start of the school year: BBBS and the DOEs impact evaluations revealed a very slow start up time for mentor matches at the beginning to the school year. The DOE averaged 81 days between the start of the school year and the first mentor/mentee meeting (U.S Department of Education, 2009 p.50). If matches coincided with the start of the calendar year, mentors would have the optimum amount of time to meet with their mentees during the school year. In addition, mentors would have an opportunity to address academic and social anxieties that may arise from starting a new school. In order to achieve this goal, scholars must be recommended and recruited in the year prior to the start of the program (i.e. in May of 2012 for an August 2012 start date). Volunteer mentors must be recruited in the summer months. This format also means that the matching process would take place prior to the start of the school year. Matching would require collaboration between the school staff who recommends youth for the program, and organizational staff who know the strengths and weaknesses of each volunteer. School and program staff should make use of demographic and personality surveys administered to both mentors and mentees upon recruitment.

&*!

2. Mentor programs should make use of the summer months and holidays: Neither Big Brother Big Sisters, nor the U.S DOE or Communities in Schools allowed for direct contact during the summer. In fact, Big Brother Big Sisters actively prevents face-to-face contact in unsupervised settings. However, some programs permitted writing or phone calls, based on the mentees desire and at the mentors discretion. 41% of matches communicated at least once during the summer. Of these, one half of the mentors felt it contributed to the commitment and closeness of the relationship in the following year (Herrera, et al, 2007, p.69). However, research showed that mentors must communicate at least two times a week over the summer and holidays in order to contribute to the matchs continuity. This evidence indicates that mentors must be able commit to participating in no less than a full year mentor partnership with their student. This meets national recommended minimum for effective relationship building and greater mentee outcomes. A one-year commitment would require various forms of communication during school holidays such as winter and spring breaks, as well as contact during the summer. Letter writing and calling must be a built-in requirement for the summer months. Organizations should also work out a system for monthly or bi-monthly supervised face-to-face meetings. These could include opening the school during summer hours to facilitate meeting spaces, or hosting group events such as picnics or sports games. One concern with contact outside of the school setting is that mentors may be apprehensive of breaching a desired level of privacy. Organizations must work

'+!

with mentors to prevent uncomfortable or excessive encounters outside of the school setting. These may involve giving out a work number or address instead revealing a cell phone number or location of the mentors home. 3. Mentor programs should utilize a multi-year model: Not only is it critical for mentors to commit to a full 12 month period of mentoring, but it may also enhance the quality of the mentoring partnership and produce greater outcomes if the mentor relationship continued over multiple years. It would be vastly advantageous to carry on mentoring as an adolescent changes schools, either from elementary to middle or middle to high school. There are many reasons why the multi year model makes sense in the school-based setting. First, it was confirmed in Chapter Two that any of the minute improvements in mentoring outcomes during the school year were entirely lost in the second year. After surveying students the, research concluded that scholars did not retain any of the positive impacts of mentoring when entering the next grade. Second, developmental psychologists from across the country studying the intricacies of adolescent education agree that grade level and school transitions have a negative impact on school connectedness. They found that across all ages and genders students in transition displayed decreases in self-esteem, academic efficacy and achievement, and increases in social and behavioral truancy. Urban youth in lower socioeconomic brackets had particularly high correlations between school transitions and the aforementioned effects (Seidman, LaRue, Aber, Lawrence, Mitchel, Feinman, 1994, p.507). The changeover between grades

'"!

levels, and in particular, between schools are a time filled with new peers, new staff, and new expectations. Given the loss of outcomes over summer and the following grade year, and the evidence surrounding the critical nature of school transitions, schoolbased mentoring organizations should implement a multi-year model. Mentors can make long-term impacts by providing the extra support students may need to make these transitions. This will involve a larger commitment on the mentors part, and strong communication between school staff within a district. This means the same mentoring organization should provide services within two (or three) school levels of the same district, in order to provide consistency among locations and with staff. 4. Mentor programs should develop proper closure protocol: Because school-based mentoring matches have more of a defined length and duration, organizations must prepare mentors with suggestions to appropriately end relationships. All mentoring partnerships must terminate eventually, and it is crucial that proper closure steps be taken, assuring students that their time was well spent. Any actions towards the conclusion of the mentor/mentee partnership should aim to closing the relationship on the most positive note possible. These policies should be a requirement, and outlined within the organizations guidelines or expectations manual. Mentees should be informed of the matchs closure in advance, leaving enough time to address any issues or concerns they may have been holding back. Mentees and parents should have access to mentors contact information, and

'#!

should be encouraged to continue communication when problems arise, or to report their accomplishments. In addition, the program should honor the transformations the mentor and mentee have experienced throughout the duration of their time together. It is important to affirm the mentees progress through some form of public acknowledgement that his or her time was well spent. This can be in the form of a certificate of completion, or as big as a final celebration hosted by the organization. It is also crucial to plan for proper data collection by retrieving extensive post-match interview information from both parties. These answers will be used to conduct research analyses and improve upon the programming for future years. Not only is interviewing important for the organizations growth and development, but it allows both parties to privately reflect upon their experience, and acknowledge the strides they have made throughout the duration of the program.

Relational Recommendations for Strengthening Mentoring Practice After amending some of the structural aspects of mentoring organizations, it is equally important to look at relationship building. In this section I explore how sponsoring organization are helping form mentors and mentees form relationships. Community-based and school-based programs alike have proved that mentors are only able to reap the benefits of the mentoring process after a

'$!

strong relationship has developed between the adult and adolescent (Herrera, 2004 p.3). In order for school-based mentors to form the ideal relationships that are close, long lasting, and promote sustainable behavior change, they must utilize the developmental approach, as described in Chapter One. Prescriptive relationships are those where mentees work to solve the short-term problems they see affecting their mentee in his or her current state. These may include mediating conflicts with parents and peers, helping with bad grades in school, or lending a hand to physical setbacks such as lack of food, shelter or transportation. Developmental techniques encourage expanding upon a mentees long-term skills and facilitating a better, well-rounded decision-making process. The aptitudes acquired throughout developmental relationship produce longer lasting, sustainable changes in the lives of youth. My research shows that the developmental approach is two fold. First, it requires that the majority of effort in the beginning of the partnership be put towards establishing a strong connection with the youth. Then, rather than solving short-term problems for their mentees, mentors use some form of educative process to promote behavior change. Mentors encourage their mentors to make their own, well thought out choices. A strong relationship in itself may provide benefits relating to development without any additional conscious process. However, many mentors, as strong as their efforts may be, fail to foster a relationship that gives mentees the will to work on changing their status quo. In these cases, it is likely that mentees will not make great strides in growth or

'%!

development. The ideal mentoring partnership is one that is both accommodating (relationship building) and challenging (developmental). Mentoring varies greatly in regards to location, contexts and operations. Consequently many models of mentoring have been created over the years that convey unique goals and program outcomes. I have come across a mentoring model that incorporates these ideals by emphasizing a strong relationship and promoting positive youth development. In 2002, Professor Jean Rhodes generated a conceptual model of youth mentoring after years of research experience specifically in the mentoring field. First published in her book Stand by Me, her framework is based solid proof that mentoring partnerships may strengthen or modify the social-emotional, cognitive and identity development of participants once a strong positive relationship has formed. These advancements, in turn, produce the positive outcomes that organizations use to measure their success. This model is applicable to many different relationships and programmatic contexts, and it is my recommendation that school-based mentoring organizations take Rhodes framework into account in each facet of their work: when establishing their goals, when creating the pre-match training curriculum for volunteers, and when providing ongoing support for mentors. The illustration below is a simplified chart based on Rhodes model.

'&!

** model first published in Stand By Me (Rhodes, 2002, p. 36) ** model was modified in Chapter 3, A Model of Youth Mentoring, in Handbook of Youth Mentoring (DuBois, 2005, p.32)

Rhodes describes mentoring relationship (figure 1) as the activeingredient that keeps youth from terminating partnerships, and engaged long enough to facilitate further stages of the model. Rhodes was the first to endorse the 12-month minimum match duration. In the second segment (figure 2), the model recognizes that although that the needs of youth are at the crux of partnership. However, a good relationship is reciprocal: one where the adult and youth are offering their mutuality, trust, and empathy. In this sense, a good

''!

relationship parallels successful natural relationships that occur in the real world - outside of a structured setting. Rhodes supports the relational research described in Chapter One, including the Mentor Relationship Quality scale and Nakkula and Harris five subjective relational experiences (relational/experiential compatibility, youth engagement, precursors to closeness, closeness, and approach). Rhodes categorizes mentees growth into three pathways that uniquely contribute to constructive adolescent development. Social and emotional, cognitive, and identity development are factors that have previously been described as essential components of public education. Organizations, such as the Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional learning (CASEL) promote educational policies and practices that bring these concepts to school staff and into the classroom. Rhodes recognizes effective mentors as having the ability to promote growth in these same areas. Mentors, like teachers, can role model prosocial behavior, and actively engage youth through processes that promote development. Mentors can affect the social and emotional learning (figure 3) of their mentee by challenging their negative views of themselves, their parents and peers, and the world around them. Youth develop the skills to manage emotions, appreciate the perspectives of others, and handle interpersonal situations effectively (Weissberg, 2004, p.95). Rhodes suggests that mentoring can also affect cognitive thinking (figure 4) and accelerate adolescent development through conversations that promote information processing, abstract and

'(!

relativistic thinking, and self-monitoring. By modeling positive attitudes, behaviors and personality traits, mentors may foster identity development (figure 5), mentees begin to emulate the qualities they would like to see in themselves. Then, with the support of an adult who encourages identity exploration, a mentee can see their possible selves, and can begin cultivate a personality unique to their own. Although each mode of development can flourish on their own, they may also appear as a product of one another. For example, growth in cognitive thinking may allow for better management of emotions, which, in turn, may lead to reconciliation between a mentee and their parents, teachers, or friends. Or, the cultivation of social and emotional skills leads a scholar to make their own choices to improve grades, connections, and goals for the future. These positive outcomes (figure 6) are measurable and can be analyzed from an investigative standpoint. Rhodes make certain to include both moderators (figure 7) and mediators (figure 8) as outside factors that can influence the strength of a mentoring relationship, or may affect a mentors ability to develop even under the most supportive environments.

Lawrence Kohlbergs moral education as school-based Mentoring tool Jean Rhodes conceptual model is an asset to understanding the mentoring process, but is based on the assumption that mentors are able to challenge the behaviors of youth in ways that promote development and produce outcomes.

')!

Although this progression could occur from a caring, rounded relationship alone, by in large, the transformation requires a conscious process on the part of the mentor to work and re-work the social, emotional and cognitive abilities of the mentee during the course of their partnership. Typically, this involves engaging in conversations that push the boundaries of the mentees existing knowledge and skill set. When American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987) devised the six stages of moral development, he did not set out to change the face of education. What first began as a theoretical pyramid that described a childs progression in thought processing and moral decision-making, was eventually applied to the teachers approach in a public school classroom. Many educators use Kohlbergs techniques to encourage students solve tough ethical dilemmas. Thus, they are promoting their students personal advancement into higher stages of moral thinking, and their ability to make educated moral decisions in their daily life (Murray, 2008, p.3). Employing moral education methods requires a certain type of environment that promotes obedience, active listening and participation. This is why Kohlberg first tested his theories with young scholars enrolled in school. However, these conversation techniques should, in no way, be limited to a classroom setting. One of the benefits to school-based mentoring its the ability to provide a constant location and safe circumstances under which relationships can develop. Research shows that youth who characterized their mentors as being

'*!

highly supportive but who provided few opportunities for structured activities derived the fewest benefits from the partnership (Rhodes, 2002, p.91). Moral education does not imply that mentors are taking on a prescriptive mentoring style. On the contrary Kohlbergs modes of moral conversation would only add to the developmental approach. Regardless of levels of their school connectedness, a scholar spends up to eight hours surrounded by the learning environment, and are influenced by their surroundings. If mentors receive careful training and ongoing support, they would be able to utilize the school for more than just its locale and resources. Incorporating moral education and developmental learning into SBM would be paving a new style unique to this subset of the mentoring field. Lawrence Kohlberg studied psychology at the University of Chicago in the 1950s, where he became particularly interested in Swiss psychologists Jean Piagets work on child development. Widely accepted at the time, Piagets twostage theory asserted that younger children base moral judgments on consequences, and older children base moral judgments on intentions. The transition from young to old was seen as somewhat of an immediate switch that occurred around the age of ten or eleven. Kohlberg began searching for more complex patterns that contributed to a childs thought process. He was particularly interested in the course of action an adolescent takes to make challenging moral decisions. In 1958, he collected a team to perform a hallmark study that validated his theories regarding moral stage progression. The interview-based experiment was

(+!

first administered 72 boys from both middle and lower class families in Chicago, ages 10-16. The moral situation presented to participants was coined the Heinz Dilemma, and is still used in many research settings when studying the human reaction to ethical dilemmas. It was a story about a dying woman who could not afford a life-saving drug at the asking price. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist refused to lower the price for the sake of the womans condition. The womans husband, desperate for salvation, stole the drug for his wife (Kohlberg, 1978, p.40). Kohlberg observed the way scholars reasoned through the dilemma and came to conclusions about the husband. After analyzing hundreds of responses from this example and other similar scenarios, Kohlberg devised a formal framework that described six stages of moral thinking. He included the experiments and the framework in his thesis, The Development of Modes of Thinking and Choices in Years 10 to 16. Now known as Kohlbergs six stages of moral development, the levels chronicle children and adolescents transition into higher levels of reasoning and decision-making. Kohlbergs work was a revolution. In the 1950s, behaviorism was psychologys newest, most accepted theory. First introduced by Ivan Pavlov and promoted in the United States by John B. Watson, behaviorism asserted that all forms of learning were acquired through conditioning. The phrases moral thinking was not part of a behaviorists professional vocabulary. Despite his youngness, Kohlbergs theories became increasingly popular. In fact, Kohlbergs doctoral dissertation is one of the most cited unpublished works ever to enter the field of psychology (Haggbloom, 2002, p.145).

("!

Kohlbergs theory is marked by six stages, grouped into three levels. The preconvention phase is when a child possesses the most inflexible, egocentric perspective. A child functioning at the conventional level is characterized by their loyalties to groups they feel connected to. The final, post conventional level is a state that most individuals are still working towards through their adult life. It is a set of prevailing values that surpass the society or individuals standards. Lawrence Kohlbergs Six Stages of Moral Development Level
I. Preconventional:

Stage

1. Punishment and obedience orientation: Youth assume that authority has a fixed set of rules they must unquestionably Focus on individuals own follow. A person in this stage might use phrases such as it is welfare against the law or it is bad to steal 2. Instrumental relativist orientation: Youth recognizes that different individuals have different viewpoints, and opinions are relative. Risk is something a person simply wants to avoid. In addition, they understand the philosophy of returning favors. II. Conventional: 3. Interpersonal concordance: Youth become aware of the shared expectations that take over individual interests. A Focus on maintaining person may use phrases such as but they are a good expectations of social rules man/woman. Being good takes work, and requires having positive attributes that help maintain relationships. 4. Law and order orientation: Youth can now elaborate upon why it is bad to steal. Upholding positive moral virtues enhancing society as a whole. Obeying the law is a necessary component of protecting everyone in the community. III. Postconventional: 5. Social-contract orientation: Those in stage 5 begin to think about society in a theoretical way, considering what virtues a Focus on autonomous moral society should uphold in order to maintain function. They principle recognize their duties outside of any group or family unit, promote the value of intrinsic rights, and understand due process of law. 6. Universal ethical principle orientation: Now, the democratic process may produce outcomes that are intuitively just. They consider the prospect of civil disobedience when an individuals rights are at stake. ** Table compiled from (Berger & Thompson, 1995, p.489), (Crain, 1985, p.118), and (Kohlberg, 1978)

Using the stages of moral development, Kohlberg devised certain developmental learning techniques as a new form of moral education that teachers

(#!

can utilize in the classroom. Kohlberg offered an alternative approach to two moral education methods teacher were using at the time to promote behavior change amongst their students (Scharf, 1978, p.27). The indoctrination and values clarification approaches lacked universality and left students with little to build upon. 1. Indoctrination Method: Although the indoctrination method has been in place since the start of public education, it was first critically analyzed in the 19th century. Schools had been defining morality in terms of conventional moral virtues. Consequently, many teachers who practiced indoctrination created an environment similar to that of Sunday school in church. They made use of moral rules that resembled the golden rules and Ten Commandments. Professor Peter Scharf, noted criminologist and colleague of Lawrence Kohlberg used the term environmental input to describe these methods. Through inculcation, repetition and reinforcement, teachers were driving scholars to think, and therefore act in a moral fashion. Kohlbergs leading criticism was is that indoctrination assumes societal values are unchanging and consistent among all cultures and societies. Adolescents coping with an ever-changing environment were seeking adults to validate their challenges, and were often turned off by such direct commands. 2. Values Clarification Method: The second theory is based around the personal nature of values. It sets out to help students realize individual moral values on their own terms. Values clarification uses activities that

($!

present the students with numerous options, and encourage making choices freely from the many alternatives. Kohlberg noted that in values clarification methods, students were able to justify clearly immoral behavior. A teacher is unable to penalize a student who steals from a peer during class if the student validates his actions based on his own system of values, which clearly differ from his teacher. The students deduction is ultimately his or her own. This process left educators with little to no opportunity to model and encourage higher levels of moral behavior.

Kohlberg tackles the setbacks he discovered in previous moral education methods by introducing a theory of developmental learning. This technique has its roots in Socratic dialogue. Socrates, the ancient Greek philosopher was also a teacher. He encouraged his students to examine many angles of one issue before coming to conclusion. However, he made sure that his presence and his knowledge guided the discussion towards that which was virtuous, and ultimately, that which true. Developmental learning invites educators to be an integral part of the collaborative - to play an active role in the moral growth of their scholars. Discussions are tailored to the student based on his or her place on a well-defined scale of moral ways of thinking. It is developmental in the sense that discussions are structured to drive students to higher stages of reasoning. In 1969, Kohlbergs student Moshe Blatt conducted a study to determine if developmental-centered classroom discussion using purely hypothetical dilemmas

(%!

would move students to higher levels of moral reasoning. The trial lasted 12weeks, and was implemented in all three levels of education: elementary, junior high and high schools. Compared to the control group of scholars who were not exposed to developmental learning techniques and showed no improvement, Blatt confirmed that in this short period of time, the experimental group advanced an average of one-third of a developmental stage (Kohlberg, 1978). By presenting logic at higher stages, young students were able to internalize a higher level of behavioral norms. Moral conversations promoted an acute awareness of a scholars internal value system. With regards to Kohlberg and Blatts experiments, there were developmental scientists who did not see a connection between moral development exercises and concrete moral action. Kohlbergs primary critic Edwin Fenton, professor of history at Carnegie Mellon University questioned the students ability to transfer their newfound moral reasoning into a context that fits the demands of their daily life. Kohlberg and his graduate partner Richard Krebs acknowledged this setback, and conducted a study to determine whether there was a correlation between higher levels of moral development and a lower desire to cheat in school (one form of moral action). The pair discovered that 15% of students who showed higher levels of principled thinking still cheated in the classroom. This figure was significantly less than the 55% of students who functioned at conventional stages and cheated, and 70% of students at pre-conventional stages and cheated (Kohlberg, 1975, p.49). However, the 15% stuck out as a figure that could not be

(&!

overlooked. Kohlberg concluded that although moral judgment is the single most important factor that contributes to moral behavior, it must be accompanied by personal factors that lead to a motivation for behavior change. Integrating Developmental Learning Techniques Into the Mentoring Model Although students may progress through Lawrence Kohlbergs stages of moral development of their own accord, many at-risk students are thinking and behaving at stages well below their potential. One reason for this may be the lack of adequate social interaction with adults who are reasoning at higher stages. The BBBS School-Based impact study examined different circumstances that lead a member of the school-staff to recommend scholars for mentoring. They found that many were in need of a role model. Within six months of the pre-match survey, 3% of scholars were living in single parent homes, and 26% of parents were separated. The progression into higher stages of moral thinking is not a natural consequence of maturing through adolescence. Rather, it is a product of socialization. Instead of directly instructing ways of thinking, mentors can pose moral dilemmas and contribute their own thoughts about these problems into the greater pool of opinions. These social experiences stimulate youths mental processes. Moral discussion broadens a youths viewpoints to accept positions outside of their zone of comfortable thinking. Socializing agents such as mentors fall within the Zone of Proximal Development, or ZPD. ZPD is a learning theory developed by Russian

('!

psychologist Lev Vygostsky in the early 1900s to describe the learning a child can do with the help of capable adults- notions and impressions they could work out on their own terms. Kohlbergs studies demonstrated that, knowledge changes through an interactional dialogue between a child and his or her world (Scharf, 1978, p.28). Through meaningful conversation, mentors can be supportive facilitators in expanding their youths mental and emotional capacity to develop morality. Due to the intimate nature of the mentor/mentee relationship, mentors may have an even larger advantage than teachers to utilize developmental learning techniques. The growing size of the United State public school classroom coupled with an increasing pressure to perform through standardized testing leaves teachers with less time to develop ties close enough to encourage behavior change. Even if they implement moral discussion in their classroom, they might not be able to provide the individualized attention to make sure each student follows through into moral action. Critics of moral development described this lack of moral action as their primary apprehension with the theory. Mentors have this follow-through capacity. A mentor is invested in the success of one student only. Mentors role model good decision-making skills by drawing from personal experience. They are also able to provide the emotional support necessary to transition to higher stages of moral development, and to move from moral thought to moral action. A mentor who can construct meaningful conversation surrounding values, and role model the constructive thought process may produce greater mentoring

((!

outcomes. Even more so, these developments will intrinsically promote a mentees long-term decision-making skills. As mentees move up stages of moral development, their aptitude for identifying alternative strategies, working through pros and cons and reaching healthy conclusions matures. Mentors encourage their mentees to see new perspectives. Through conversation, mentees become actively involved in the choices that effect their present, and even begin envision their future self. Scholars with newfound esteem have the capacity to make choices to improve their relationships, to avoid harmful environments, to connect with their peers, and delay gratification. Mentees can make their own choice to pursue their education and reap the benefits of a graduates status. In order to integrate Lawrence Kohlbergs theories into the school-based mentoring model, organizations must incorporate moral development into their goals, training, and ongoing support. 1. Goals: Within the outline of their program goals, organizations must make clear their intentions to train mentors in adolescent development, and to encourage mentors to utilize developmental learning techniques within conversations with mentees. The formality of this gesture is necessary on two parts. It the organization acknowledging the proven benefits of moral education, as well as the solidifying the organizations personal beliefs that these concepts have a place in the school-based mentoring setting. 2. Training: SBM organizations must then re-think and re-structure their training models to accommodate these new goals. A mentor first

()!

needs basic instruction in adolescent development and moral development. They must be able to assess, at a fundamental level, what stage their mentee is functioning at during the start of the match. Second, mentees must understand the essentials of moral education and developmental learning, as well as their application to the mentoring context. In addition to providing strategies for building a strong reciprocal mentoring relationship, mentors must be coached in conversation techniques that allow their youth to generate their own judgments and reason at higher stages of moral development. Appendices A, B and C are three sample pages that should be added to a mentor training manual to accompany a section regarding developmental mentoring approaches and moral conversation techniques. Appendix A gives a brief explanation of three stages of adolescent development. Mentors are able to view the chart and match the developmental characteristics (labeled A-C) with the stage of development (labeled #1-3). It is important to have the basic knowledge surrounding these developmental traits because it helps a mentor understand the strengths and weakness of their mentees. Mentors will know the limitations of conversation topics and will be able to tailor their approach to the developmental characteristics displayed during match sessions. This chart is adapted from the Sedra Spanos article on Adolescent Devleopment written for the Youth Upstate Center of Excellence.

(*!

Appendix B shows a similar chart relating to Lawrence Kohlbergs stages of adolescent development, where mentees can browse through the characteristics and loosely identify what stage their mentee is reasoning. The information in the chart is supplied from W.C Crains Theories of Development and Kathleen Stassen Bergers The Developing Person Through the Childhood and Adolescence. Appendix C is a frequently asked questions page that should accompany a full section illustrating the importance of developmental learning. 3. Ongoing Support and Supervision: Knowledgeable, wellqualified staff must monitor mentors creation and implementation of moral conversation. With a delicate strategy such as moral development, there is potential for mentors to be confused or frustrated by the process. Even worse, a mentor could misinterpret the method, and may inappropriately or improperly making use of their role in the learning process. Appendix D is a worksheet to help new mentors identify their mentees stage of adolescent and moral development, as well as strategies for building conversation around a mentees individual needs. The worksheet is filled out with an example of one mentors experience with his mentee. The sample moral dilemma is adapted from teacher and author Charis Denisons website which provides examples of daily dilemmas for the classroom.

)+!

Conclusion Throughout the thesis, the field of formal mentoring is explored through an extensive literature review of articles, reports, and scientific studies. Conclusions were made regarding the best practices for both structural and relational factors. The significance of the developmental mentoring approach is demonstrated to have a stronger effect over other, less valuable mentoring means. Then, investigative methods were used to explore characteristics that make school-based mentoring unique. With the knowledge gained throughout the literature review, recommendations were made to adjust certain structural and relational components of the school-based mentoring model. Lawrence Kohlbergs moral development and developmental learning was cited as one example of a technique that organizations should endorse and mentors could use to promote greater outcomes and long-lasting decision making skills. Although what I discovered was significant, I encountered certain limitations throughout my research and reporting. My worksheets and proposals are still in their beginning stages, and leave room for growth if pursued at a future date. They require a more critical eye from both social scientists and mentoring program directors or researchers. If there were more time, I would have performed my own observations and interviews with mentors and mentees, to see whether these types of developmental mentoring were occurring on their own without training. This would help in the ongoing support of the mentor matches because the staff would be able to point out what mentors are doing that is effective, and could encourage building upon their existing intuitive strategies.

)"!

The research and proposals within this thesis have opened up a host of new questions. Would the new training, supervision, and length/duration requirements would negatively affect volunteer recruitment? Who will handle communication during out-of-school hours in a multi-year model? Will mentors really be responsive to developmental learning? How basic must the explanations of adolescent and moral development be in the mentor-training manual to get the concepts across to a range of volunteers? My writing leaves room for further research. If school-based programs alter their training, supervision and support, length, or duration, they should do a comparative analysis that determines whether or not these adjustments were beneficial. It is important to test out developmental learning conversations in a highly controlled environment. Results must be compared with mentors who did not utilize these techniques. Then, the data should be further stratified by age, gender, and other factors that may help determine the most appropriate demographic with which to implement developmental learning. Most specifically, comparing the effects across age levels will help program organizers tailor their methods to fit more appropriately into the stage of adolescent development.

)#!

Bibliography * Sources are in listed in the part where they are first used or referenced Part 1 Barker, D.B, & Macguire, C.P. (2005). Mentoring in historical perspective. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (p. 1429). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Berger, K. S., & Thompson, R. A. (1995). The developing person through childhood and adolescence (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Worth Publishers. DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 157-197. Elkind, D. (1984). All grown up and no place to go: Teenagers in crisis. Reading, MA: Wesley Publishing Company. Homer, (1909). The Odyssey of Homer; translated by S.H. Butcher and A. Lang. (Vol. 22,). New York, NY: P.F Collier & Son. Jekielek, S., Moore, K.A., & Hair, E.C. (2002). Edna McConnel Clark foundation mentoring programs and youth development: A synthesis. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Morrow, K.V., & Styles, M.B. (1995). Building relationships with youth in program settings: A study of big brothers/big sisters. Public/Private Ventures. Nakkula, M.J., & Harris, J.T. (2005). Assessment of mentoring relationships. In D.L. Dubois & M.J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (p.100117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. National Mentoring Partnership. (2010). Invest in the future of Americas children: Support funding for mentoring. Alexandria, Va. Retrieved from http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_1282.pdf North, D., Sherk, J., & Strother, J. (2011). Starting a mentoring program. Folsom, CA: EMT Associates, Inc. Retrieved from http://emt.org/userfiles/StartMentWeb.pdf Parra, G. R., DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., & Aelece, O. P. (2002). Mentoring relationships for youth: Investigations of a process-oriented model. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(4), 367-388.

)$!

Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: the risks and rewards of mentoring todays youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rhodes, J. & DuBois, D. (2006). Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring Movement. Social Policy Report, 20(3), 3-20. Sipe, C.L. (1996) Mentoring: A synthesis of P/PVs Research:1988-1995. Public/Private Ventures Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995). Making A Difference: An impact study of big brothers big sisters. Public/Private Ventures. Part II Aron, L.Y. (2006). An overview of alternative education. Washington, DC: US Department of Labors Urban Institute. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011). The high cost of high school dropouts: what the nation pays for inadequate high schools. Washington, DC; retrevied from http://www.all4ed.org/ Bridgeland, J., Dilulio, J., & Morison, K. (2006). The silent epidemic: Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington DC: Civic Enterprises. Chaskin, R. J., & Richman, H. A. (1992). Concerns about school-linked services: Institution-based versus community-based models. The Future of Children, 2(1), 107-117. Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). School dropouts: Prevention, considerations, interventions, and challenges. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 36-39. Herrera, C. (2004). School based mentoring: A closer look. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., & McMaken, J. (2011). Mentoring in schools: An impact study of big brothers big sisters school-based mentoring. Child Development, 82(1), 346-361. Herrera, C., Grossman, J.B., Kauh, T.J, & Feldman, A.F. (2007). Making a difference in schools: The big brothers big sisters school-based mentoring impact study. New York, NY: Public/Private Ventures.

)%!

U.S Department of Education. (2009). Impact evaluation of the U.S. Department of Educations student mentoring program (NCEE 2009-4047 ed.). Washington, DC: Education Publications Center. Karcher, M. J. (2008). The study of mentoring in the learning environment (SMILE): a randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of school-based mentoring. Prevention Science, 9(2), 99-113. Milliken, B. (2007). The last dropout: Stop the epidemic!. Hay House, Inc. Portwood, S. G., & Ayers, P. M. (2005). Schools. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (337-347). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Scharf, P. (1978). Indoctrination, values clarification, and developmental moral education as educational responses to conflict and change in contemporary society. In P Scharf (Ed.), Readings in moral education (p.18-35). Oak Grove, Minneapolis: Winston Press. Part III Crain, W. C. (1985). Kohlbergs Stages of Moral Development. In W.C Crain (Ed.), Theories of development: concepts and applications (Vol. 2, p. 118136). Prentice-Hall. Denison, C. (2006). The daily dilemma. In Resources for character education. Retrieved from http://www.goodcharacter.com/dilemma/dilemma25.html Fenton, E. (1978). Moral education: The research findings. In P. Scharf (Ed.), Readings in moral education (p. 52-61). Oak Grove, Minneapolis: Winston Press. Haggbloom, S. J. (2002). The 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 139-152. Karcher, M.J., Nakkula, M.J., Harris, J. (2005). Developmental mentoring match characteristics: Correspondence between mentors and mentees assessments of relationship quality. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 26(2), 93-110. Kohlberg, L. (1975). Moral education for a society in moral transition. Educational Leadership, 33(1), 46-54. Kohlberg, L. (1978) The cognitive-developmental approach to moral education. In P. Scharf (Ed.), Readings in Moral Education (p.36-51). Oak Grove, Minneapolis: Winston Press.

)&!

Murray, E. (2008). Moral development and moral education: An overview. Office for Studies in Social and Moral Development in Education. Chicago: The University of Illinois at Chicago. National Mentoring Partnership. (2009). Elements of effective practice for mentoring (3 ed.). Alexandria, VA. Retrieved from http://www.mentoring.org/program_resources Spano, S. (2004) Research Facts and Findings. Ithaca, NY: ACT for Youth Upstate Center of Excellence. Retreived from http://www.actforyouth.net/ Weissberg, R. P. (2004). What works in school-based social and emotional learning programs for positive youth development. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 86-97.

List of Appendices A. B. C. D. E. Stages of Adolescent Development Lawrence Kohlbergs Stages of Moral Development FAQs: Kohlbergs Moral Develoment and Developmental Learning Sample Stage Identification and Conversation Builders In-Depth Literature Review Table

Page 83 84 85 88 94

)'!

STAGES OF A DOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT

Every teenager is an individual with his or her own personality. They grow and change at their own rate. Keep in mind that the ages marked for each stage is only a guideline- your mentee may be functioning at higher stages in some areas and lower stages in others. Character -istics Milestones of Adolescent Development (and approximate age range) # 1. Early # 2. Middle # 3. Late Adolescence Adolescence Adolescence (10-14) (15-16) (17-21)
- Testing the rules and limits - Moodiness, rudeness - More likely to express feeling through actions rather than words - Tends to return to childish behavior in times of stress - Conflicts with family due to emerging independence - Need for privacy - Feeling invincible - May engage in risky behaviors - Friends mean everything to them, loss of friendship can cause serious depression - Better ability to control impulses - Able to set goals - Examining inner experiences (writing in a diary, self reflection) - Choosing role models - Very concerned about appearance and body - Begin to develop value system - Growth in abstract thought - More intellectual interests - Can understand cause-effect relationships - Able to delay gratification - Expresses ideas in words - More developed sense of humor - Able to make independent decisions and to compromise - Greater concern for others - Greater emotional stability - Realizes own limitations - Able to think through ideas - Thoughts about ones role in life - Self reliance, personal dignity, pride in ones work - More comfortable with body image

A. Social and Emotional Development

B. Identity Development

C. Cognitive Development

- Identifies better with same sex - Able to identify some of their own faults - Beginning to show concern for their body and physical changes - Peer group influences personal interests and styles - Mostly interested in the present and near future - Reacts emotionally rather than logically under stress

- More defined work hobbits - More concern for the future - More philosophic and idealistic - Able to relate to adults

)(!

LAWRENCE KOHLBERGS STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

! Kohlbergs stages are a sequence of levels that show the maturity of adolescents when thinking critically and making decisions. STAGE
1. Punishment and Obedience Orientation: Might Makes Right

MENTEES AT THIS STAGE

- Nave and Egocentric - Do what they are told to gain rewards or to avoid punishment - Understands there are physical consequences to actions - Does not relate to others - Cannot see two points of view - Does what is in his/her best interest, looks out for their own needs (what is in it for me) - Looking to make deals, equal exchanges and agreements (I scratch your back, you scratch mine) - Concerned with what is fair, but not real justice - Will have good behavior to win praise, if it pleases others - Living up to what is expected of you by the people you are closest to including peers and family - Being good in your role as a son/daughter, friend, etc. - If you are considerate, nice and kind, you will make people happy - Able to put themselves in other peoples shoes - Feel that it is important to contribute to society - Everyone must obey the laws, because they contribute to a better society - If laws are broken, one should be punished for their actions - Greater respect for authority - Understand that everyone has different opinions - Recognize that different points of view make it difficult for everyone to follow the same rules - There are some universal rights that everyone must follow such as life and liberty, regardless of the country or place you live in. - Make decisions based on the pros outweighing the cons - Following self-chosen ethical principles - A personal commitment to the equality of all human beings. Life is sacred - Personal values may be different than the legal principles set out by the government

2. Instrumental relativist orientation: Look out for number one 3. Interpersonal Concordance Good boy, good girl

4. Law and Order Orientation The good citizen

5. Social-Contract Orientation The philosopher

6. Universal Ethical Principal Orientation Individual conscience

))!

FAQs KOHLBERGS MORAL DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENTAL LEARNING

Why do we use the stages of moral development? Once you assess the stage of adolescent development and stage of moral development that your mentee is currently functioning at, you have the opportunity to play a part in moving your mentee to higher levels. Why are the levels important? Adolescents who are at higher stages on Kohlbergs scale tend to have the capability of reasoning more logically although they may not make the same choices as you, they will get closer and closer to assessing a situation the same way you lay out a moral dilemma. What if my mentee is at a really low adolescent or moral development stage for their age? This is ok! It is very possible for adolescents to be physically mature but not morally mature. In fact, Kohlberg found that many adults are still at low stages as well. For example, most prisoners are still reasoning at the pre- conventional phase (stage one or two) because they are not able to understand law and order. I dont think I am at stage 6 yet. Does anyone ever get to stage 6? Not many- each stage builds on the other, so you have to go through one to get to two, etc. Lawrence Kohlberg names people like Gandhi, Jesus and Martin Luther King Jr., big important figures in history who reason at a stage six. He believes that most people make it to stage four in their lifetimes. What will these conversations do for my mentee? Youth socialize with adults who think at higher stages have an opportunity to participate in back and forth dialogue that promotes reasoning. This is where you come in! Mentees are gaining cognitive (thinking) and decision-making skills that they can apply to many different settings and situations. Am I forcing children to think in a certain way? Quite the opposite by bringing dilemmas into mentoring conversations, rather than then telling them answer, you are ! )*!

helping your mentor think critically and come up with their own judgments. A mentee should never make behavior choices because they feel anxious or guilty about the wrong decision. This is a supportive process. If you feel comfortable, you are encouraged to give your opinions and bring in personal experiences that reassure your mentee. This helps them feel a greater connection to the issues at hand. What if their beliefs (or their parents beliefs) are not the same as mine? You are not imposing any arbitrary personal beliefs on your mentee. The values found at the highest levels of Kohlbergs stages of moral development are universal principles of justice they are the same virtures that found U.S constitution, and do not apply to any particular subculture or religion. Even though you should simplify your and conversations to match your mentees level of adolescent development, you should be able to identify with their stories and reasoning. What will happen when our mentoring sessions end? Even after the school years end or your mentoring partnership ends, we hope that the skills practiced in the mentoring setting can be applied to situations in the larger society. A mentee will be able to better reason through dilemmas that arise in their day-to-day lives. Even after using the worksheets in the Mentor Training Manuel, I am still having problems coming up with conversations and stories. First, make sure your story has a focus that it is genuine and applicable to the life of your mentee. Every dilemma has a conflict that causes the main character to make a choice, or perform an action. The dilemma must end with a should question- what should you do in this situation? What if they dont get my point? Make sure you prepare your stories ahead of time! Maybe practice in front of trusted friends or family members, keeping the details of your mentoring relationship confidential. Mentees will want to know every detail about the character (or themselves) before talking it out or making a decision. A lack of clarity can prevent a mentee from being fully engages. Make sure they really understand the scenario before moving forward.

*+!

What do I do if my mentee is turned off when I bring up these techniques? Moral discussion takes trial and error. Some adolescents do not feel comfortable when they are the center of the hypothetical situation, while others do not want to sit through a story about someone else. First try and figure out a format that best engages your mentee. In particular, if they mention that they feel like they are in school, or they are being forced to do homework you can try bringing media such as movies or a songs into play. Should I change my approach based on my mentees age? It might be a good idea to adjust your techniques based on your mentees age, or stage of adolescent development. It is important to learn the past experiences and level of maturity of your mentee before you move forward with developmental conversations. For younger ages, it might be helpful to read the scenario out loud, or even act it out with different voices. Ask your mentee to summarize the dilemma what is the issue and why is it a problem. Together, you can role-play the solution. If your mentee is older or more mature, they may be able to summarize the details and state the main point without much support. It might be helpful to have them write down their thoughts. What if my mentee gets frustrated, or cannot come up with answers? Always make sure that you are giving words of encouragement. Tell them how impressed you are that they are coming up with good points, and how well they are listening to all the sides. Provide the comfort and confirmation when they need it, and the challenge when they are doing well. Remember, youre first and foremost role as a mentor is to be a source of support.

*"!

Sample Stage Identification and Conversation Builders

* Fill out worksheet to the best of your abilities. This exercise is to help you determine the social, emotional and cognitive (thinking) abilities of your mentor, and to help you get meaningful conversations started. Mentor Name: Ken Weisberg Mentee Name: Calvin Jones Age: 15 Based on your first three meetings and the mentee survey, name positive three positive personality traits that describe your mentor: 1. Strong willed - He likes to get things done on his own without asking for help 2. Candid He is humorous, dynamic and imaginative 3. Loyal He is eager to please and support the people in his life that he cares about Based on your first three meetings and the mentee survey, name positive harmful personality traits that describe your mentor: 1. Impatient and careless 2. Not detail oriented Calvin tends to jump to conclusions. He only sees the big picture and cannot break down a situation into its parts 3. Blames others I dont think Calvin ever takes responsibility for his actions Describe your mentees home life (living situation, economic background, culture) Calvin lives at home with his mother, his grandmother (fathers mother), and two brothers. They live in a two-bedroom apartment in Desaix. Calvins family is on federal subsidized rent, food stamps and Medicaid. Calvins parents are married, and his father is serving his third year in prison. As of now, I do not know what his sentence was, but Calvin said that he has two ! *#!

months until his probation. It tends to be a sensitive subject, and we havent spent enough time together to ask too many questions. Currently, Calvins mother is unemployed, but I am not sure and his grandmother babysits for two families in the neighborhood. His younger brother is in 4th grade, and his older brother works part time at an auto-repair shop and part time as a cook in a hotel. It appears that he contributes his wages to the rent and living expenses of the whole family. Calvins parents were both born in Ethel, Louisiana and moved to New Orleans when his oldest brother was born. Calvins mother and grandmother are members of the Baptist church, while Calvin says he does not identify with any religion, like his brother. Describe your mentees school connectedness and academic performance Calvin is in 8th grade, his last year in middle school, and will be attending high school next year. He likes what he succeeds in, and doesnt like what he struggles with. This shows in his grades. He is good at math, and will make an effort in his homework and studying for tests. On the other hand, he struggles in the rest of his subjects, and has a very passive attitude about improving his grades in these areas. Calvins homeroom teacher told me that he has a fairly attendance record, but the school staff has noted his lack of participation and motivation within the classroom. Calvin has mentioned his lack of concern about whether or not he graduates and does not plan on attending college. He says he doesnt care what he does after college as long as he is making lots of money. Describe your mentees personal relationships (at home with family and at school with peers) Calvins family just moved into a new apartment, and he was forced to change school districts halfway through last year. Making friends is very important to him, and he spends a lot of

*$!

time talking about the group of guys he hangs out with in class. Although he is the newest member of this crew, he said he would do anything for his best friends. Calvin told me that he does not really care for his mother and he hates his grandmother. It seems to me that his mother takes a very passive role in his upbringing, while his grandmother is the one who pays more attention to what is going on in his life. He says he hates his grandmother because she forces him to do things like things like go to class, and keeps him from hanging out with his friends outside of school. Calvin has shown a fierce devotion to both of his brothers, especially his older brother who he seems to look up to. Calvin is proud that he gets to hang out with his brothers older friends at the auto shop. Based on your knowledge so far, what milestone of Adolescent Development does your mentee display for each of the three characteristics: social and emotional, identity, and cognitive development? ** Use the Stages of Adolescent Development chart A-C and #13 to match characteristics with milestones. Provide examples when you can. A. Social and Emotional: In between #1 and #2 Early Adolescence and Middle Adolescence Why? Calvin still thinks that he is invincible and nothing can harm him. He loves his skateboard and always shows up to our meetings with cuts and bruises on his knees and elbows. He has problems expressing his feelings, and his actions are reckless. He does not think through his decisions before making them. He cannot control his impulses. He is eager for social acceptance, and when he has problems with his friends, he gets very upset. I know that they have been giving him a hard time about his jeans (I guess they are the wrong brand?), and he takes this very harshly. B. Identity: In between #1 and #2 Early Adolescence and Middle Adolescence ! *%!

Why? Calvin is not yet at Middle Adolescence because he does not have goals for the future. He is able to recognize his weaknesses in certain academic subjects, but cannot talk about any personal faults. He only identifies with his same sex. He describes his older brother as someone he loves and as someone who he tries to imitate. It seems that his brother is a role model. C. Cognitive: #1 Early adolescence

Why? Calvin reacts emotionally rather than rationally, and cannot think in abstract terms. When he is mad at his grandmother or teachers, he verbally and physically lashes out. Although he has shown an interest in math, he is very disconnected to academics, and does not show interests in many hobbies. I wouldnt even consider skateboarding a hobby. He got one after the rest of his friends bought them. Based on your knowledge so far, what stage of moral development if your mentee reasoning at? * Use Lawrence Kohlbergs stages of moral development. Provide examples when you can I think Calvin is still in stage one, but is showing some signs of moving to stage two. He cannot see two points of view for situations he only knows what is best for him. However, if he can make a deal with someone else and get something in return, he is willing to do things for others. He is nice to his grandmother only when she cooks what he wants and does not force him to do household chores. Identify one main conflict your mentee is experiencing in his personal life. This is a dilemma you think you could bring up in conversation. Calvin was referred to the mentoring program because of his truant behavior in and out of the school setting. His principle

*&!

reported that his friends are bullies during lunch and recess, and he has been caught taking lunches (even thought Calvin has free lunches through school). This summer, Calvin and friend were caught trashing a local park, and he had to participate in 30 hours of community service. I think Calvin has a problem giving into his instincts, and cannot see a bigger picture. In each of these situations, did not own up to the crime, and lied about his involvement. When I bring up the incidents, he says yea, I wanted the food, so what? Calvin has mentioned being very low on cash, and wanting to buy things that other kids in school have like an IPod and a better skateboard. I am concerned about his ability to steal without thinking about the consequences.

Create a conversation that could you bring up that addresses these concerns. This story should allow you and your mentee to work out a solution together. Depending on the age and maturity of the mentee, you can use their name in the story, use a personal experience, or make up a fictional tale that has real-life qualities and meaning. I have a personal story that happened to me a few weeks ago where I had to make a difficult decision whether or not to take something that was not mine. After work, I started walking to the streetcar to head home. As I passed the last row of stores before crossing the street, I saw something stick out of the ATM machine. I got closer, and saw that it was cash. I looked around and there was nobody. No cars, no one walking nearby. Someone must have used the machine and forgotten to take the money. I counted the money- it was $60! I started thinking about everything I could buy with the extra cash like a birthday present for my wife, or a new watch. What are some questions you can work with through this story? What about activities or points to emphasize that will help mentees move to higher stages of moral reasoning? ! *'!

QUESTIONS: - Would it be different if you saw the person who left the money, or you knew the person? - Would it be different if you were with your friends? How so? - Does it really count if you do something like this once? - Even though I am only one person, what would happen if every single person did what I was about to do? - If you take the money, are you a thief? - Was there ever a moment in your life where you had to make a choice like this? HIGHER STAGE ACTIVITIES AND POINTS OF EMPHASIS: - Have Calvin ask me any details about the story he still wants to know - Make a pro-con list of what would happen if I took the money and what would happen if I didnt take the money - One of Kohlbergs stage three characteristics is living up to what is expected of you by those most important in your life. From what I know of Calvins brother, he is a high school graduate, a hard worker, and he cares a lot about Calvins future. I think it will be useful to work on transferring Calvins desire to meet the expectations of his friends to a desire to meet the expectations held by his brother. - Youth at stage three are able to put themselves in other peoples shoes. Maybe we can do a role-playing exercise where Calvin is at the ATM machine and I am his brother who just called him on his cell phone to see what he was up to.

*(!

In-Depth Literature Review Table

Table 1: Articles and Books on Community-Based Mentoring
REPORT Summary Selected impacts on adolescent behavior change and school based mentoring
- mentoring is contextually driven - mentoring is not a cure-all - traditional community models have given way to alternative models (site based), reflect a response to changes in lives of youth and society shifts - mentor/mentee commitment of one year, adhering to the national standard for developing a close relationship - proper closure procedures are critical to avoiding negative outcomes - including developmental learning into pre-match training - mentoring as a corrective experience for youth with unsatisfactory relationships -age my affect nature of relationship - strong program practices produce stronger positive effects

Baker, D; Maguire, C (2005) Mentoring in a Historical Perspective *Handbook of youth mentoring MENTOR: National Mentoring Partnership (2009) Elements of Effective Practice for Mentoring

- historical stages of mentoring in America (emergence, establishment, divergence, focus) - 1963 community mental health, community psychology - mentoring is a natural impulse -mentoring should be structured around research-based knowledge

- provides six evidence based standards for practice : recruitment, screening, training, matching, monitoring and support, and closure - for each standard, benchmarks are advanced along with research-based justifications - operational standards for mentoring programs - program design and planning, management and evaluation

Rhodes, J (2005) A Model of Youth Mentoring *handbook of youth mentoring

Rhodes, J (2008) Improving Youth Mentoring Interventions through research based practice Rhodes, J (2002) Stand by Me: The Risks and Rewards of Mentoring Todays Youth

- mentoring can promote positive outcomes for youth through process social-emotional, cognitive, and identity development - model assumes that effects can only be accomplished when mentor/mentee forge strong connection - emotion coaching, model and teach strategies for managing emotions - social interaction plays a role in facilitating cognitive changes - mentoring varies on a multitude of dimensions which complicates global assessments of effectiveness - reviews differentially highlight potential iatrogenic effects, set different inclusion standards

- More structured programs, in which there were clear expectations, a focus on instrumental goals, and ongoing support to volunteers yielded notably strongest effects. - strongest contributing factor to measure relationship is joint decision making - adolescents can incorporate what they learn from conversations into their existing base of knowledge and competence - meaningful relationships is important to developmental outcomes

- summarizes a decade of research regarding what makes mentoring most effective - found the three most important roles of a mentor: enhancing social skills, improving cognitive skills through dialogue and serving as an advocate

Rhodes, J; Dubois, D (2009)

-review scientific knowledge on what is known about relationships and their interface with organizations and institutions

*)!

Understanding and Facilitating the Youth Mentoring Movement

(2009) U.S Department of Education Mentoring Resource Center Fact Sheet No.30

- factors contributing to relationships: empathy, authenticity, enjoying each others company - similarity in ethnic or racial backgrounds of the mentor and youth is not a significant factor - outcomes most favorable when youth reported experiencing structure and support, more than simply good friends - relationship between utilization of greater numbers of research-supported practices and effect size - cannot succumb to fundamental attribution error based on what is familiar and emotionally gratifying -research must assume a more central role in the fields further development and growth - the role of evidence based program practices in the youth mentoring field - debate over what youth outcomes should we measure - EBP provides a framework by which a professional can make an educated decision - effectiveness of both qualitative research vs. experimentally-designed evaluation

- youth centered approach (developmental) is better than those driven by interests or expectations of mentor (prescriptive) - importance of consistency and duration - mentor must develop linkages with youths social network - school based programs have developed a placeholder mentality

- mentoring should always use EBP to drive programmatic decisions - using universal standards - mentoring relationships should be associated with targeted outcomes beyond their match in order to be deemed successful

Table 2: Articles and Books on School-Based Mentoring

ARTICLE
Chaskin, R.J; Richman, H.A (1992) Concerns about school-linked services: Institutionbased versus community based models

Summary of findings
- define a school linked service; where the school is the primary site for the provision of social and health services, or where the school controls or dominates the planning and governance of such services - shows concern about linking any model of childrens services primarily or exclusively to any single institution - the purpose is to better serve the needs of a target popoluation, in this case, school-age children and their families

Selected Impacts on School-Based Mentoring Programs

- school linked services grow to reflect, primarily, the operational desieres and needs of the school. -raises questions about the suitability of the school as the central context for service provision when school may not be a place students and parents turn to for help

Elkind, D (1984) All Grown up and no place to go: teenagers in crisis

- teens are unplaced - Erik Erikson, teens must construct personal identity, undertaken during these years when teens have the mental abilities required - best way of growing is differentiation and higher order integration (as opposed to substitution) - failure of schools to provide students with protected place to form identity - stress and the patchwork self, examples of type A,B, and C stress in teens
- describes factors that constitute school based programs: operating on school campus, meeting for the duration of the school year, youth referred by teachers/counselors/school staff, - describes benefits and drawback of school based mentoring model - importance of formal mentor training

- lack of mature parenting - teens must test their value system against adults who have strong values - encouraging growth by integration

Jucovy, L; Garringer, M (2007) The ABCs of SchoolBased Mentoring

- school based programs are often incorrectly perceived as a tutoring service - must have strong program goals and training must reflect this - the primary intervention mentoring provides is the relationship itself

Milliken, B

-characterizes those at risk for high school

- using the school as the

**!

(2007) The Last Dropout

Pianta, R; Walsh, P (1996) High-Risk Children in Schools

Portwood, S.G; Ayers, P.M (2005) Schools *Handbook of youth mentoring

dropout, connected to crime rates - communities in schools program, community component that meets the nonacademic needs of children - PART 1: defining risk, risk status as a grouplevel descriptor

delivery point

- must use developmental psychology a framework for the education of young children - mentoring as secondary prevention
- shows that it should be both developmental (cognitive and social-emotional) and based on social learning theory - school connectedness is a key outcome variable; serves as a protective factor for adverse behaviors.

- despite shortage of sound evidence on effectiveness, SBM is growing. - advantages; SBM benefits from structure and resources of school, more supervision by professionals, flexible with mentor selection, network of other people involved, less cost, - disadvantages; may constrain how a relationship forms. Short time may not be sufficient, may only be effective for younger students, setting constrains intensity and scope - develop reciprocal relationship between school and mentoring program - most research on SBM has severe lacks in data collection, no comparison group

Table 3: Articles and Books on Moral Devleopment and Developmental Learning

ARTICLE
Elkind (1981) Children and Adolescents, interpretive essays on Jean Piaget Fenton, E (1978) Moral Education; the research findings Moral Education Fraenkel, J.R (1978) The Kohlberg bandwagon: some reservations Moral education Kohlberg, L (1975) Moral Education for a society in Moral Transition Educational Leadership

Summary of findings
- conservation theory; coping with change, personal security based upon parental consistency - egocentrism changes as stages change - -at-risk youth is not a monolithic group, but can be better understood when acknowledging what they can process at their age 11 generalizations - a stage is an organized system of thought - stages are natural steps in ethical development. - moral education projects that have worked in the past. limited cognitive capacity and children who come from environments where people are functioning at low stages prevent development - only 10% of Americans reason at the postconventional level - following rules, resistance to temptation - unrealistic demands on classroom teachers whose students are all at different levels -intellectual and emotional development are interdependent - Education is to aid development through moral levels by supplying conditions for movement from stage to stage, not through indoctrination (Dewey) - three conditions for moral discussion - what the hidden curriculum should be

Selected impacts on mentoring programs

- Mentors must provide social support that many students are not receiving at home. - Understanding cognitive structure at age levels is a powerful analytic tool in education. - mentoring needs declage - why we need to - moral judgment is necessary but not sufficient for moral action

- one on one mentoring can focus on the development stages of one student and can tailor their program accordingly - moral discussion is only one portion of the conditions stimulating moral growth, must take in the broader environment

"++!

Kohlberg, L (1978) The CognitiveDevelopmental approach to moral education Moral Education Kohlberg, L (1978) Foreword Moral education Mary Elizabeth Murray (2008) Moral Development and Education: An Overview Power, Higgins & Kohlberg (1991) Laurence Kohlbergs approach to moral education Scharf, P (1978) Indoctrination, values clarification, and developmental moral education as Educational Responses to conflict and change in contemporary society Moral education Stassen Berger, K; Thomson, R.A (?) Part IV: The School years The Developing Person

- moral judgment not correlated with IQ - many examples of moral judgment vs. moral action - principles are distinguished from rules - why character indoctrination and values clarification are not the best methods - table of moral stages - Blatt effect; finding that students move up to the next stage through verbal discussion of purely hypothetical dilemmas - concept of a just community. Schools are changing because society is changing. - Overview of Piagets view of moral development; interpersonal interactions, relative social relationship with adults - Kohlbergs six stages of moral development - Goal of moral education is to develop to the next stage of moral reasoning as a sequence of qualitative changes - introduces equilibration - six stages of moral judgment are age related but not age dependent - Decalage, spreading of a cognitive operation across a broad range of activities - mentoring is based on two assumptions: intrinsic worth as well as capacities that are consistent and expansive have more worth than behaviors limited in scope or subject - indoctrination: apply to the conventions of particular societies rather than applying to all societies. Used in the past - educators assume that moral values can be taught directly through inculcation, modeling, repetition and reinforcement -values clarification: open ended, students explore values in order to become more aware of inner values - assumption that the moral norms of society have ben broken down, and that the moral pluralism of todays society forces individuals to define their own value commitments - developmental learning: universal ethical principles COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT - cognitive competence, social comparison, observational studies PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT - step by step acquisition of new cognitive abilities, learned helplessness - aggression - steps of social problem solving - juvenile delinquents, family structure as determinant of success, poverty, neighborhood and residence - psychosocial domain - more risk factors = higher stress (rutter 1979)

- moral judgment change is long term and never lost - additional factors (SEL) are needed to move up stages

- due to central lack of significance, mentors would be able to apply theory to real life situations that legally, teachers cannot - Program must emphasize cooperative decision making and problem solving. - Teachers may be at a setback to developing moral education and stuck in traditional character education practices Mentors must expose to moral reasoning one stage above their own. Mentors must focus on long term, quality behavior change.

DL is the best choice - knowledge changes through interactional dialogue between child and world -Kohlbergs stages are a good evaluation point, and a way to base a curriculum around. They are applicable to any society, subculture or historical age; best practices - allows students to come up with the answer themselves - moral learning takes place through internalization of societal behavior norms - a child with a sense of inferiority in middle childhood is likely to continue problems unless adults change how child attributes success/failure -must have people who model good behavior - putting moral thinking into moral behavior - unreliable adults -developing coping competencies

"+"!

Table 5: Summary of Research studies STUDY Purpose, dates, location, context

- approach the dropout problem from the prospective of the students themselves - in depth picture of why they dropped out of high school and what would have helped them complete their education - The number of BBBS schoolbased matches grew from 27,000 in 1999 to 90,000 in 2002, an increase of 233 percent. This compares with an 8.7 percent increase in community-based matchesfrom 92,000 to 100,000 during the same period. - demonstrates to create one of association of scale early the first large home environment, experimental quality of early evaluation of care giving, SBM, whichSES, has ,IQ, behaviorfor the potential problems, the mentoring field academic to benefit youth achievement, peer during a elations, and developmental parent period involvement when they dropping are in need out of is a developmental relational and process that begins academic support before elementary - to highlight school problems and areas -latino youth are still in need of the fastest growing improving population and - growing pressure also one of student the to improve most at-risk ethnic performance, groups schoolsfor are looking outside for academically enriching programs

Methods and data

- four focus groups of 467 ethnically and racially diverse 16-24 year olds who did not complete highs school

Findings

Bridgeland, J; Dilulio, J; Morison, K.B (2006) The Silent Epidemic; perspectives of high school dropouts

- 70 percent were confident they could have graduated if they had tried - low parental involvement - must Ensure that students have a strong relationship with at least one adult in the school - the decision is personal, reflects unique life circumstances - did not think of their future when deciding to drop out but wanted freedom or money right then

Herrera, C (2004) School-Based mentoring: A closer look

- surveyed youth and teachers and beginning and end of 1999-2000 school year in BBBS of Delaware, BBBS of Green County in Tulsa, BBBS of North Florida - youth received some benefits but were limited and based on length of relationship

- none of the programs allowed summer contact between mentors - school staff instead of parents usually refer youth to SBM programs, referring needy students who lack parents support, reaching underserved groups of youth who have academic, social or behavioral problems - mentor-reported BBBS support was positively associated with mentors reports of relationship with youth -agency support for SBM programs is essential in creting long lasting mentoring relationships

Jimerson, Herrera, S et al (2000) Grossman, Kauh, A prospective McMaken longitudinal study (2011) of high school dropouts Mentoring in examining multiple Schools: An predictors across Impact Study of development Big Brothers Big Sisters SchoolBased Mentoring

children and - 177 1,139 9-16 year familys (orginal old students in 10 sample of 267), cities nationwide classified inassigned terms of randomly high school or to treatment graduation status control group - followed over 1.5 years - selected agencies based on specific criteria - hypothesized that SBM improves students social skills, helps a teacher focus on -516 youthpredominately (reciprocal Latino students, 19 relationship) schools - outcome measures: Intent-to-treat main school-related effects were tested performance and using hierarchical attitudes, problem behaviors, social and personal wellbeing -"+#! no impacts on school connectedness, academic self

Karcher, M (2008) The Study of Mentoring in the Learning Environment

Dropouts (n ! 43). - end of the first school year, relative Traditional (n ! 100). to the control students group, mentored youth early experiences may affect self performed better academically, more esteem sense of agency positiveand perceptions of their thatmay own directly influence performance academic abilities,school were more likely to and decisions to stay in school report having a special adult in their lay foundations for behavioral control lives and relationships with limitations teachers and - highlights important of pees that model furtheras propel along pathway program it is currently towards dropping out implemented. success in impacts schools calls upon - ,academic did not persist into numerous for self-regulation the secondcapacities school year after about half that begin to beended formed in the early of the matches years - no evidence at either assessment that SBM had effects on youths classroom effort, problem behaviors, or other small positive main effects selfindicators of their social and on personal reported connectedness to peers, self well- being including relationships esteem andand social support from friends with peers adults and global selfbut not grades and social skills esteem agency and schools could - the many continuing matches hadhave not supported the a mentors in period, ways that interacted for 4-month during the summer and beginning of the school year. This relationship disruption impeded whatever progress the match had made in the 1st year of their meetings - attrition among study participants over the course of the study such that

Tierney, J, Grossman, J.B, Resch, N.L (1995) Making a difference: National an impact study of big Mentoring brothers big sisters Partnerships Public Policy Council (2000) Mentoring SchoolAge Children: Relationship Development in Community-Based and School-Based Programs

Seidman, Allen, Aber, Mitchell, Feiman (1994) The impact of school transitions in early adolescence on the self-system and perceived social context of poor urban youth

- The first large underachievement and drop-out scale evaluation of -effects 8 BBBSof sites multithat component6% of comprised programs mentoring partnerships - Funded by the compare those U.S. Department who participated in of Education, BBBS to those Office of who did not Educational Research and Improvement -Outline range of mentoring programs that exist on a national levelgoals, structure, infrastructure, general characteristics of volunteers and youth served - Investigated how emphases research of whether SBM differ from school transition is traditional,with associated community-based changes in school model and peer and contexts examine impact on school implications transitions on for the programming, self system, on operations peer and school and interactions micro system between mentors transactions and and youth. changes in selfsystem as function of transitionassociated changes in perceive peer and school Microsystems

U.S. Department of Education Tierney, J, (2009) Grossman, Impact Evalluation J.B, Resch, of the U.S N.L (1995) Department of Making a Educations difference: Student Mentoring an impact study of big Program brothers big sisters

- Authorized under the No Child Left - The first Behind Act large of scale evaluation 2002, Section 4130 of 8 competitive BBBS sites that comprised federal grant 6% of mentoring program managed partnerships by the Office of - compare Safe and Drug those who participated Free Schools in BBBS addresses to those lack of who did not supportive adults

Young, C; Lovel, L (2002) Breaking the cycle of behavioral failure with mentoring; a tertiary intervention

- red zone mentoring - school was not set up to handle this many students with behavioral issues - cycle of failure

- Randomized linear modeling control trial, 10-16 year olds - 60% boys, half minority, almost all lived with one - Surveyed 722 parents mentoring programs - six broad areas that Simple random was hypothesized to sampling, structured be affected by telephone interview mentoring: described mentors, antisocial activities; mentees, training academic and support; performance, assessed level of attitudes closenessand behaviors; - Program data on relationships with number of youth and family; relationships mentors, costs, with friends; selflength of concept; and social commitment, etc and cultural were gathered from enrichment. program staff - Information from interviews used to develop examined program effects variables of normative school - Small number transition of 508of programs early adolescents for site visits mixed -LISREL and poor demographics, regression black, white, analyses Latino **Mentoring 3 eastern urban youth outcomes was not in cities the data scope drawn of the from study Adolescent Pathways Project (APP), a longitudinal study of youth in schools in Baltimore, Washington DC and New York city with high concentrations of poor children - 32 selected school based mentoring - Randomized programs, 2,573 control trial, students took10-16 part in year the evaluation olds over - 60% one year boys, half minority, used a fixed almost effects all lived with model to examine one parents subgroup - six broad areas differences and that was hypothesized parsimonious model to be affected for testing site-level by mentoring: characteristics and antisocial activities; impacts academic performance, compare data to attitudes andstudy pilot school behaviors; - 82 students, 18 in relationships with special ed, 6% of family;population relationships school with friends; self"+$! and social concept; and cultural enrichment.

- 46% have might less likely facilitated to initiate stronger drug use, program 27% less impacts. likely to Did initiate not alcohol, provide 1/3 DuBois less likely best to hit practices someone that achieved the Relationship best resultsquality with parents was better volunteer screening weeds - SBM developed as part of out twoadults who are unlikely to keep their time concurrent trendsthe national school commitment reform movement and a rapidly Mentor training that includes expanding mentoring field. communication and limit-setting skills, - SBM report relationships with youth tips and that on arerelationship-building similar in quality to those recommendations on the best observed among mentors in Matching procedures that take into community-based programs. account the preferences of and the youth, - Despite their operational their family and the volunteer, and that programmatic differences, 8/9 factors use professional case manager that a identified as important, are to analyze are best important for both community-based Intensive supervision and support of SBM: engaging in social and academic each match by a case manager activities, amount of time spentwho has frequent with the together, contact how decisions are made parent/guardian, volunteer in and youth, about activities, similarity mentor and provides assistance when and youth interests, prematch requested as difficulties arise.age of postmatchor training and support, the mentee. - declines good choices in self-esteem, for investment classby programs that preparation, grades have common the following across priorities: race ethnicity and gender Serving supports youth hypothesis with school-related that transition needs, particularly during adolescencethose increases in elementary school; disengagement from school Attracting Developmental volunteers mismatch able to hypothesismake only limited is adolescence commitments an inopportune of time timeand to resources; leave consistencies such as friends or Attracting teachers. It comes older adults, at a time youth when and minorities youth are trying as volunteer to develop mentors; an identity and Keeping program costs low. - Lack of flexibility presents a limitation of the SB model - Many school-based staff believe that being place-based may benefit SB programs by attracting mentors who would not typically mentor - the program decides how the match spends its time value of academic activities in - students were at risk of educational relationship formation failure, dropping out of school, or - 46% less likely involvement in criminal to initiate or delinquent drug use, 27% less likely activities, or who to lack initiate strong alcohol, positive 1/3 less likely role models to hit someone - Relationship quality overwhelming majority with of students parents was and better had positive feelings about mentors volunteer their mentoring screening relationships weeds out adults who Students are unlikely in the treatment to keep their group time did commitment not report statistically significant Mentor training differences in interpersonal that includes communication relationships, personal and limit-setting responsibility, skills, tips community and on relationship-building involvement and at the end recommendations of the spring school onterm the best relative to Matching students in procedures the control that group take into account the preferences of the mentoring program based on youth, building their family and the volunteer, and that resiliency use a professional case - model of resiliency in manager schools, to analyze are & best Henderson Milstein (2003) Intensive supervision supportin of 24 of 28 students hadand reductions each match by a case manager who has office discipline referrals frequent contact with the earned 12 of 28 students NEVER parent/guardian, volunteer and youth, another office discipline referral during and test provides assistance when the phase. requested or as difficulties arise.