English Writer 13 | - Freelance Writer
Mar 30, 2018 | #1
Throughout the United States, mentoring programs are being used to emphasize the relationship between a caring adult and at risk youth when utilized to help the youth negotiate difficult life situations and tasks. Daloz points out that mentors are involved not only in the provision of care, but in the use of teaching skills as well as the transmission of knowledge. Thus, mentoring is a partnership, and "in the nurture of that partnership lies the mentor's art" (Daloz, p. 244). This section of the paper will review the use of mentoring in programs for at risk youth. The first section reviews the concept of mentoring; the second section concentrates on applications of mentoring in programs for at-risk youth.
Gehrke and Kay suggested that a successful mentoring relationship crossed a wide variety of concerns. At the same time, Gehrke and Kay (1984, p. 21) stated that mentoring relationships are "open, informal, and have a high frequency of interaction." Clawson also suggested that a successful mentoring relationship would focus on both quality and intensity of the relationship and the interactions between the mentor and the mentee. Fagan and Walter believed that in order for the mentoring relationship to be successful, it was important for the mentee to identify with the mentor. In developing a successful relationship, they concluded that mentoring "cannot be forced" (p. 5); instead, it is a relationship that must develop naturally between the parties.
Mentoring can occur at all ages, and in all professions and educational levels. It does not have to be only from adult-to-adult at the professional level, it can be from adult-to-youth at the high school level. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has suggested that by taking an interest in even pre-adolescent children, a good mentoring program can make a difference in the development of the child. Grossman and Garry (1997) stated that mentoring programs for youth were originally based in churches, the community, the courts, colleges, and schools, and focused on helping younger students develop hobbies while older students were helped to develop careers. They suggested that in fact, the movement of mentoring children actually begin in the late 19th century. At that time, there were 'friendly visitors' who helped to serve as role models for children of poor parents.
In 1994, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America was founded by Ernest K. Coulter as an outreach for children who needed socialized, provided with firm guidance, and to connect with adults who could serve as positive role models. The organization still operates today and is the largest child-mentoring organization. Although many people think of Big Brothers and Big Sisters merely as a social organization the program is quite multifaceted and places a great deal of emphasis on academic change. Studies related to Big Brothers and Big Sisters reflect that youth who participate with an active mentor are 45.8% less likely to begin taking drugs, 27.4% less likely to begin alcohol use, 31.7% less likely to hit someone, more likely to trust adults, and 36% less likely to lie to parents. Although participants also report receiving emotional support from peer relationships, it is in the academic arena that the mentoring program shines. Three percent of the participants reflect better grades, 4.3% of the participants reported increased scholastic competence, 52% were less likely to skip school, and 36.7% were less likely to skip even a single class. As Grossman & Garry point out:
......"youth from single-parent families who are at risk for juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, truancy, and dropping out of school are being mentored by legal professionals, members of the military, corporate employees, and other" (pg.5).
The emphasis on education and academic achievement indicate that this is more than just a social organization. Indeed, there is a clear link between the social actions and goals of the organization and the increase in academic achievement of those that are being mentored. The success carries over into mentoring in the classroom.
Bova and Phillips pointed out that the mentor's protégé acquired knowledge in five general areas: communications skills, group skills, technical skills (i.e., skills relating to the subject matters being taught), risk taking, and what it meant to be a professional. These skills were acquired by watching a professional in action and mentoring with them. Hardcastle found that mentors contributed to the lives of those they mentored in four ways: by offering the protégé a new way of looking at themselves, by motivating them to excel professionally, by showing them new ways of doing things and new ways to be, and by offering emotional or spiritual support.
Grossman and Garry stated that:
"Mentoring programs for disadvantaged children and adolescents have received serious attention as a promising approach to enriching children's lives, addressing their need for positive adult contact, and providing one-on-one support and advocacy for those who need it." (pg. 1).
Salinitri pointed out that first year university students who joined mentoring programs and acquired a teacher mentor had higher grade point averages than did students without a mentor. In addition, students with a mentor had a higher level of retention during their first year than did students outside of the mentoring program. Salinitri does, however, point out that when one compares studies involving mentoring, it is critical to understand what the standard of success is that is measured in the study. Some studies use graduation rate as the criteria of study; others use a more vague 'completion' rate as the criteria. In either case, what is being addressed is the "fundamental measurement of an institution's success in meeting student needs."
Salinitri's suggests that there are a number of conditions that cause students an inability to meet academic standards: the inability to adapt to the environment, both socially and academically, changes in personal situations, lack of goals, lack of motivation, other more 'pressing' concerns such as family obligations or money differences, or even just a difference in what the student wants, compared to what the institution can provide. Although the Salinitri study addressed issues of first-year university students, the conditions that cause first year university students to be unable to adapt closely mirror those conditions that face at-risk students who are still in secondary school. As Salinitri points out, "These factors translate into a need for increased academic and personal counseling programs to improve student retention, particularly for low-achieving students." (pg. 854).
Salinitri suggests that students who are lower achievement and were accepted into university on a 'step up' basis are particularly at a disadvantage. They are not prepared for the level of educational work required; have poor study habits, work alone, don't ask for help or know how to ask for help. They have the many of the same types of disadvantages as do at-risk students in the lower educational levels. They simply do not know how to "seek and acquire tools for success," (Salinitri, 2005, pg. 854). A good mentoring program can help students acquire these tools.
Sparger suggested that reflection on the learning process must be part of the learning and mentoring process. Ideally, the mentor would be part of the learning team that created the academic environment for the students. However, Sparger pointed out that not everyone necessarily appreciates the mentoring process. The mentoring process can artificially push teachers into believing that they are "surrogate parent and social worker" (Viadero, 2004, p. 41). In addition, scores in an educational program can drop once mentoring is introduced. This drop may represent a normal result of the retention of students of lower educational achievement, students who would normally drop out. Instead, with an effective mentoring program, students may be retained, yet not be of adequate educational level. The net result may be a drop in achievement scores that does not reflect the actual increase in achievement by students who otherwise would have dropped out.
Strike (2004) suggests that to be successful, school systems are based on a system of 4 C's: cohesion, coherence, contact, and care. The concept of contact pertains to the formal and informal structures of school that synthesize care. Taken together, care and contact comprise either a close relationship between staff and students, or a successful mentoring program. The Department of Education suggests that mentoring is a factor in the development of successful small learning communities. Tom Vander Ark of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been quoted as stating that learning is essentially about constructing relationships. These relationships allow the students to connect with teachers and thus with the subjects they teach.
Check & Connect, a program devoted to retaining high school students, was originally developed to help middle schools in urban areas, most specifically with students in the middle school levels who had learning and behavioral issues. The goal was to promote student engagement and to reduce the rate of attrition and prevent dropouts. The most effective way to accomplish this, it was suggested, was to institute an intensive program characterized by the assignment of a monitor to work with students who were having issues. The monitor was, in effect, a mentor. The monitor served as both a mentor and case manager in the small learning community. One of the main advantages of this particular program was the ability to follow students across jurisdictional lines; the service followed the student rather than the program site.
The success of Check & Connect, however, particularly when it crossed jurisdictional lines and claimed success for students who may have gone to another district, raises an interesting question: How accurate are the statistics? It seems likely that in the case of cross-jurisdictional moves, students may be counted once per jurisdiction, or they may 'fall through the cracks' and not be counted at all. The next section addresses this issue.
Tyler and Lofstrom have stated that "close mentoring and monitoring of students appear to be critical components of successful programs" (pg. 77) of programs of dropout prevention. However, Tyler and Lofstrom also point out that one of the difficulties of calculating dropout rates is the ongoing controversy over what constitutes graduation, and what constitutes dropping out. In some states, for instance, entering the GED program is considered dropping out; in others, individuals who complete the GED program are considered to have graduated. Other measures that may skew the calculation of graduation or drop out rates may be by inclusion or exclusion of prison inmates in educational programs, immigrants who may or may not have graduated in their home areas, and members of the armed services.
Fischer and Kmec point out another difficulty with the tracking of dropout or mentoring statistics of at-risk youth: the socioeconomic information used to calculate the rates of improvement of at-risk youth may have led to an inaccurate portrayal of some youth as at risk. Since economic information is self-reported, dishonesty or mistaken reporting can result in inaccurate information reported in studies and governmental statistics.
Campbell and Campbell suggest that much of the reported information may be inaccurate. They assert that many of the existing studies have fatal weaknesses. They state that many studies rely on self reported data; most of the studies are based on a single time point rather than a longitudinal basis; the data is subjective; and there is no evidence of reliability or validity. They state that there is a problem with many of the statistical analyses. Finally, they point out that even though the point of mentoring programs is to retain academic successes of at-risk students, the outcome measures are not generally included in the reports. Thus, it is impossible to determine if the mentoring programs truly have worked, or if the measures of success (or failure) are simply based on the wrong outcome measures.
A brief review of mentoring was provided, and information was gathered on the status of mentoring in the classroom. Mentoring in conjunction with learning communities was briefly discussed. Finally, the limitations of existing studies were reviewed.
References
Bova, B.. & Phillips, R. (1984). Mentoring as a learning experience for adults. Journal of Teacher Education. May-June, 1984, 35(3), 16-19.
Check & Connect (2010) Check & Connect: A model for promoting students' engagement with school. Regents of the University of Minnesota.
Clawson, J. (1980). Mentoring in managerial careers, in C.B. Derr (Ed). Work, family, and the career, 144-185. New York: Praeger.
Cotton, K. (2001) New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Daloz, L. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Department of Education (2010) Smaller learning communities program. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Fagan, M. & Walter, G. (1982). Mentoring among teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 76(2), 112-118.
Fischer, M., & Kmec, J. (2004) Neighborhood socioeconomic conditions as moderator of family resource transmission: High school completion among at-risk youth. Sociological Perspectives 47(4) 507-527
Gehrke, N.. & Kay, R. (1984). The socialization of beginning teachers through mentor-protégé relationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 21-14.
Grossman, J., and Garry, E. (1997) Mentoring - A proven delinquency prevention strategy. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Hardcastle, B. (1988). Spiritual connections: Protégés reflections on significant mentorships. Theory into Practice, 27, 201-208.
Keating, L., Tomishima, M., Foster, S., & Alessandr, M. (2002). The effects of a mentoring program on at-risk youth. Adolescence, 37.
McNeely, S., & Mertz, N. (1993) The center school: An alternative for the dropout. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans LA, November 10-12, 1993.
Salinitri, G. (2005) The effects of formal mentoring on the retention rates for first-year, low achieving students. Canadian Journal Of Education 28(4): 853-873.
Sparger, T. (2005) An investigation of implementations of smaller learning communities in Florida high schools. Unpublished dissertation, Spring 2005, Doctor of Education, University of Central Florida.
Strike, K. (2004) Community, the missing element of school reform: Why schools should be more like congregations than banks. American Journal of Education 110.
Tyler, J., & Lofstrom, M. (2009) Finishing high school: Alternative pathways and dropout recovery. Journal Issue: America's High Schools 19(1) pp. 77-103.
Viadero, D. (2004, June). Personal touches. Education Week 23 (40), 39-41.
A Brief Review of Mentoring
Gehrke and Kay suggested that a successful mentoring relationship crossed a wide variety of concerns. At the same time, Gehrke and Kay (1984, p. 21) stated that mentoring relationships are "open, informal, and have a high frequency of interaction." Clawson also suggested that a successful mentoring relationship would focus on both quality and intensity of the relationship and the interactions between the mentor and the mentee. Fagan and Walter believed that in order for the mentoring relationship to be successful, it was important for the mentee to identify with the mentor. In developing a successful relationship, they concluded that mentoring "cannot be forced" (p. 5); instead, it is a relationship that must develop naturally between the parties.Mentoring can occur at all ages, and in all professions and educational levels. It does not have to be only from adult-to-adult at the professional level, it can be from adult-to-youth at the high school level. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention has suggested that by taking an interest in even pre-adolescent children, a good mentoring program can make a difference in the development of the child. Grossman and Garry (1997) stated that mentoring programs for youth were originally based in churches, the community, the courts, colleges, and schools, and focused on helping younger students develop hobbies while older students were helped to develop careers. They suggested that in fact, the movement of mentoring children actually begin in the late 19th century. At that time, there were 'friendly visitors' who helped to serve as role models for children of poor parents.
In 1994, Big Brothers and Big Sisters of America was founded by Ernest K. Coulter as an outreach for children who needed socialized, provided with firm guidance, and to connect with adults who could serve as positive role models. The organization still operates today and is the largest child-mentoring organization. Although many people think of Big Brothers and Big Sisters merely as a social organization the program is quite multifaceted and places a great deal of emphasis on academic change. Studies related to Big Brothers and Big Sisters reflect that youth who participate with an active mentor are 45.8% less likely to begin taking drugs, 27.4% less likely to begin alcohol use, 31.7% less likely to hit someone, more likely to trust adults, and 36% less likely to lie to parents. Although participants also report receiving emotional support from peer relationships, it is in the academic arena that the mentoring program shines. Three percent of the participants reflect better grades, 4.3% of the participants reported increased scholastic competence, 52% were less likely to skip school, and 36.7% were less likely to skip even a single class. As Grossman & Garry point out:
......"youth from single-parent families who are at risk for juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, truancy, and dropping out of school are being mentored by legal professionals, members of the military, corporate employees, and other" (pg.5).
The emphasis on education and academic achievement indicate that this is more than just a social organization. Indeed, there is a clear link between the social actions and goals of the organization and the increase in academic achievement of those that are being mentored. The success carries over into mentoring in the classroom.
Mentoring in the Classroom
Bova and Phillips pointed out that the mentor's protégé acquired knowledge in five general areas: communications skills, group skills, technical skills (i.e., skills relating to the subject matters being taught), risk taking, and what it meant to be a professional. These skills were acquired by watching a professional in action and mentoring with them. Hardcastle found that mentors contributed to the lives of those they mentored in four ways: by offering the protégé a new way of looking at themselves, by motivating them to excel professionally, by showing them new ways of doing things and new ways to be, and by offering emotional or spiritual support.
Grossman and Garry stated that:
"Mentoring programs for disadvantaged children and adolescents have received serious attention as a promising approach to enriching children's lives, addressing their need for positive adult contact, and providing one-on-one support and advocacy for those who need it." (pg. 1).
Salinitri pointed out that first year university students who joined mentoring programs and acquired a teacher mentor had higher grade point averages than did students without a mentor. In addition, students with a mentor had a higher level of retention during their first year than did students outside of the mentoring program. Salinitri does, however, point out that when one compares studies involving mentoring, it is critical to understand what the standard of success is that is measured in the study. Some studies use graduation rate as the criteria of study; others use a more vague 'completion' rate as the criteria. In either case, what is being addressed is the "fundamental measurement of an institution's success in meeting student needs."
Salinitri's suggests that there are a number of conditions that cause students an inability to meet academic standards: the inability to adapt to the environment, both socially and academically, changes in personal situations, lack of goals, lack of motivation, other more 'pressing' concerns such as family obligations or money differences, or even just a difference in what the student wants, compared to what the institution can provide. Although the Salinitri study addressed issues of first-year university students, the conditions that cause first year university students to be unable to adapt closely mirror those conditions that face at-risk students who are still in secondary school. As Salinitri points out, "These factors translate into a need for increased academic and personal counseling programs to improve student retention, particularly for low-achieving students." (pg. 854).
Salinitri suggests that students who are lower achievement and were accepted into university on a 'step up' basis are particularly at a disadvantage. They are not prepared for the level of educational work required; have poor study habits, work alone, don't ask for help or know how to ask for help. They have the many of the same types of disadvantages as do at-risk students in the lower educational levels. They simply do not know how to "seek and acquire tools for success," (Salinitri, 2005, pg. 854). A good mentoring program can help students acquire these tools.
Sparger suggested that reflection on the learning process must be part of the learning and mentoring process. Ideally, the mentor would be part of the learning team that created the academic environment for the students. However, Sparger pointed out that not everyone necessarily appreciates the mentoring process. The mentoring process can artificially push teachers into believing that they are "surrogate parent and social worker" (Viadero, 2004, p. 41). In addition, scores in an educational program can drop once mentoring is introduced. This drop may represent a normal result of the retention of students of lower educational achievement, students who would normally drop out. Instead, with an effective mentoring program, students may be retained, yet not be of adequate educational level. The net result may be a drop in achievement scores that does not reflect the actual increase in achievement by students who otherwise would have dropped out.
Mentoring in Conjunction with Learning Communities
Strike (2004) suggests that to be successful, school systems are based on a system of 4 C's: cohesion, coherence, contact, and care. The concept of contact pertains to the formal and informal structures of school that synthesize care. Taken together, care and contact comprise either a close relationship between staff and students, or a successful mentoring program. The Department of Education suggests that mentoring is a factor in the development of successful small learning communities. Tom Vander Ark of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been quoted as stating that learning is essentially about constructing relationships. These relationships allow the students to connect with teachers and thus with the subjects they teach.
Check & Connect, a program devoted to retaining high school students, was originally developed to help middle schools in urban areas, most specifically with students in the middle school levels who had learning and behavioral issues. The goal was to promote student engagement and to reduce the rate of attrition and prevent dropouts. The most effective way to accomplish this, it was suggested, was to institute an intensive program characterized by the assignment of a monitor to work with students who were having issues. The monitor was, in effect, a mentor. The monitor served as both a mentor and case manager in the small learning community. One of the main advantages of this particular program was the ability to follow students across jurisdictional lines; the service followed the student rather than the program site.
The success of Check & Connect, however, particularly when it crossed jurisdictional lines and claimed success for students who may have gone to another district, raises an interesting question: How accurate are the statistics? It seems likely that in the case of cross-jurisdictional moves, students may be counted once per jurisdiction, or they may 'fall through the cracks' and not be counted at all. The next section addresses this issue.
Limitations of the Data
Tyler and Lofstrom have stated that "close mentoring and monitoring of students appear to be critical components of successful programs" (pg. 77) of programs of dropout prevention. However, Tyler and Lofstrom also point out that one of the difficulties of calculating dropout rates is the ongoing controversy over what constitutes graduation, and what constitutes dropping out. In some states, for instance, entering the GED program is considered dropping out; in others, individuals who complete the GED program are considered to have graduated. Other measures that may skew the calculation of graduation or drop out rates may be by inclusion or exclusion of prison inmates in educational programs, immigrants who may or may not have graduated in their home areas, and members of the armed services.
Fischer and Kmec point out another difficulty with the tracking of dropout or mentoring statistics of at-risk youth: the socioeconomic information used to calculate the rates of improvement of at-risk youth may have led to an inaccurate portrayal of some youth as at risk. Since economic information is self-reported, dishonesty or mistaken reporting can result in inaccurate information reported in studies and governmental statistics.
Campbell and Campbell suggest that much of the reported information may be inaccurate. They assert that many of the existing studies have fatal weaknesses. They state that many studies rely on self reported data; most of the studies are based on a single time point rather than a longitudinal basis; the data is subjective; and there is no evidence of reliability or validity. They state that there is a problem with many of the statistical analyses. Finally, they point out that even though the point of mentoring programs is to retain academic successes of at-risk students, the outcome measures are not generally included in the reports. Thus, it is impossible to determine if the mentoring programs truly have worked, or if the measures of success (or failure) are simply based on the wrong outcome measures.
Summary
A brief review of mentoring was provided, and information was gathered on the status of mentoring in the classroom. Mentoring in conjunction with learning communities was briefly discussed. Finally, the limitations of existing studies were reviewed.
References
Bova, B.. & Phillips, R. (1984). Mentoring as a learning experience for adults. Journal of Teacher Education. May-June, 1984, 35(3), 16-19.
Check & Connect (2010) Check & Connect: A model for promoting students' engagement with school. Regents of the University of Minnesota.
Clawson, J. (1980). Mentoring in managerial careers, in C.B. Derr (Ed). Work, family, and the career, 144-185. New York: Praeger.
Cotton, K. (2001) New small learning communities: Findings from recent literature. Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Daloz, L. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Department of Education (2010) Smaller learning communities program. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Fagan, M. & Walter, G. (1982). Mentoring among teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 76(2), 112-118.
Fischer, M., & Kmec, J. (2004) Neighborhood socioeconomic conditions as moderator of family resource transmission: High school completion among at-risk youth. Sociological Perspectives 47(4) 507-527
Gehrke, N.. & Kay, R. (1984). The socialization of beginning teachers through mentor-protégé relationships. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(3), 21-14.
Grossman, J., and Garry, E. (1997) Mentoring - A proven delinquency prevention strategy. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Hardcastle, B. (1988). Spiritual connections: Protégés reflections on significant mentorships. Theory into Practice, 27, 201-208.
Keating, L., Tomishima, M., Foster, S., & Alessandr, M. (2002). The effects of a mentoring program on at-risk youth. Adolescence, 37.
McNeely, S., & Mertz, N. (1993) The center school: An alternative for the dropout. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans LA, November 10-12, 1993.
Salinitri, G. (2005) The effects of formal mentoring on the retention rates for first-year, low achieving students. Canadian Journal Of Education 28(4): 853-873.
Sparger, T. (2005) An investigation of implementations of smaller learning communities in Florida high schools. Unpublished dissertation, Spring 2005, Doctor of Education, University of Central Florida.
Strike, K. (2004) Community, the missing element of school reform: Why schools should be more like congregations than banks. American Journal of Education 110.
Tyler, J., & Lofstrom, M. (2009) Finishing high school: Alternative pathways and dropout recovery. Journal Issue: America's High Schools 19(1) pp. 77-103.
Viadero, D. (2004, June). Personal touches. Education Week 23 (40), 39-41.