THE EFFECTS OF SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING ON STUDENT

ACHIEVEMENT FOR JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

A Record of Study

by

BRADLEY MICHAEL SCHNAUTZ

Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of

Texas A&M University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Chair of Committee, Terah Venzant Chambers

Co-Chair of Committee, Judy Sandlin
Committee Members, Bob Hall
Abelardo Saavedra
Head of Department, Frederick Nafukho

December 2014

Major Subject: Educational Administration

Copyright 2014 Bradley Michael Schnautz

 ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the ISAGE

program, a school-based mentoring program designed to facilitate the achievement of

junior high school students who were deemed “at-risk.” Participants included a total of

72 junior high school students from two separate junior high schools, grades 7 and 8, in

Utopia Independent School District, a suburban school district in the southwestern

United States. The 72 students were either placed in a treatment group (n = 36) using

non-random selection or on a waiting list (i.e., control group) (n = 36). The dependent

variables in this study are: (a) attendance, (b) discipline referrals, (c) report card grade

averages in core courses, (d) TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills)

Mathematics scale scores, and (e) TAKS Reading scale scores. Data analyses included

the use of two-way mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical procedures. The

dependent variable data of students in the treatment group was compared with that of

students in the control group over a consecutive two school-year period.

Results of the study indicated that the ISAGE program showed significant effects

in the number of student’s discipline referrals along with the TAKS Math scale scores.

No significant differences were observed for mentees’ report card grade averages in core

classes, attendance, or TAKS Reading scale scores. These findings provide preliminary

evidence that school-based mentoring programs, such as the ISAGE program, may have

a positive impact on students who are placed “at-risk.” The study concludes with

ii
implications and limitations of the study, along with recommendations for future

research of school-based mentoring programs.

iii
 DEDICATION

To Jenny, Abigail Grace, Mary Faith, Lucy Hope, and William Wayne

Jenny, you have been my mainstay throughout this journey. Thank you for your

patience, for your unconditional love for me, for the sacrifices that you’ve endured, and

for being the most amazing mother to our children. You motivate and challenge me to

be the best leader I can be, you encourage me to be the best father I can be, and inspire

me to be a better person. And you love me for who I am. With all of that being said, I

should be.

Abby, Mary, Lucy, and Will, I love you all so very much. I want to thank you

for understanding that “daddy had to go to work.” I want you to know that each of you

are perfect in God’s way, and that I’m so proud to be your father. I look forward to the

years to come, to watching you grow and excel, watching you utilize your unique talents

and abilities, being there to celebrate your successes, and helping you through the

difficult times. I hope each of you know that no matter what, your very best will always

be enough. I love you the best of all.

The Lord has blessed me immensely, so much than I could ever deserve, by

leading me into education. He has given me so many opportunities to positively impact

lives, while working with such special people. I look forward in continuing to use the

talents He has blessed me with to change as many lives for the better as possible.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following individuals have influenced me throughout my life as a person, educator,

coach, and leader. I appreciate the impact you have made on my life in helping me

realize this accomplishment.

First, I would like to thank my second grade teacher at Bonham Elementary, Mrs.

Anne Sanders. She loved me when I needed to be loved and ensured that my learning

would not suffer. Most importantly, she never allowed me to give anything but my best.

Although I haven’t seen her or spoken to her in over 25 years, I’m forever grateful that

she would afford me so much love. Thank you for believing in me, Mrs. Sanders.

Harry Francis, I’m extremely grateful for the opportunities that you’ve given me

throughout my life. First, you believed in me enough as a player that allowed me to

fulfill a boyhood dream and continue playing the game of baseball in college and into

the professional ranks. Second, you were the key influence in my decision to enter the

education profession. It has been one of the best decisions of my life. Thank you,

Coach, for giving me the ball as a player, and then for allowing me to coach on your

staff, as I entered teaching and coaching.

Dr. Chambers and Dr. Sandlin, thanks so much for taking me on and serving as

my chairs. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with you, as it’s very evident that you

both truly care for your students. Thank you for your continuous insight, in challenging

me to think in a different light to become a stronger educational leader. Dr. Saavedra,

your experiences as a Superintendent of Schools definitely gave me some valuable,

v
practical knowledge throughout your classes. I appreciate you taking the time to ensure

that we received the “real world” aspect of the program. Last, Dr. Hall, it’s been fun

working with you. I appreciate your patience in helping me along the way with “running

the numbers.” We both share the same love, the love for the game of baseball. I

enjoyed our conversations together; I especially cherished those in which we reminisced

about our Little League days in Bryan. Those were definitely great moments. Thank

you for your continued friendship of me, my wife, and all of the Snodgrass Family.

Dr. Todd Stephens, I want to say thank you for your trust, continuous support,

and encouragement in allowing me to develop and grow as an educational leader. I will

be forever grateful for the leadership opportunities that you’ve afforded me,

opportunities that have allowed me to work with amazing people, which includes

students, teachers, support personnel, parents, administrators, etc.

Finally, Jill Balzer, I don’t believe I could have survived this journey without

you. I’m extremely thankful for the friendship that we’ve developed and will maintain

for the rest of our lives. I appreciate our many phone conversations, the laughs we

shared, as well as us helping each other through the frustrations and difficult times of our

journey. You are an amazing leader, and I’m so grateful to call you my friend.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ii

DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... x

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION…. .......................................................................... 1

Background ................................................................................................... 1
School-Based Mentoring ............................................................................... 4
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 6
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................... 9
Research Questions ....................................................................................... 10
Significance of the Study .............................................................................. 11
Delimitations ................................................................................................. 12
Assumptions .................................................................................................. 12
Researcher’s Perspective ............................................................................... 13
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................... 14
Organization of Study ................................................................................... 16

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................. 17

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................. 19

Social and Emotional Development ..................................................... 20
Cognitive Development ........................................................................ 22
Identity Development ........................................................................... 23
Characteristics of Students Placed “At-Risk” ............................................... 26
The History and Definition of Mentoring ..................................................... 34
The Role and Function of Mentoring ............................................................ 35
Types of Mentoring ....................................................................................... 38
Types of Mentoring Programs....................................................................... 40
Effects of Mentoring on Student Achievement of Students Placed “At-Risk” 44
School-Based Mentoring ............................................................................... 49
Teachers as Mentors ...................................................................................... 52
vii
 Page

Summary ....................................................................................................... 53

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY............................................................................ 55

Overview ....................................................................................................... 55
Research Design ............................................................................................ 55
Research Questions ....................................................................................... 58
Context .......................................................................................................... 59
Participants .................................................................................................... 60
Mentees ................................................................................................ 60
Mentors................................................................................................. 61
Measures ........................................................................................................ 64
Procedures ..................................................................................................... 64
Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 66

CHAPTER IV RESULTS ......................................................................................... 69

Introduction ................................................................................................... 69
Research Question #1 .................................................................................... 71
Research Question #2 .................................................................................... 87
Research Question #3 .................................................................................... 89
Research Question #4 .................................................................................... 91
Research Question #5 .................................................................................... 93
Summary ....................................................................................................... 95

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 97

Research Question #1 .................................................................................... 98

Research Question #2 .................................................................................... 102
Research Question #3 .................................................................................... 104
Research Question #4 .................................................................................... 106
Research Question #5 .................................................................................... 107
Implications ................................................................................................... 109
Limitations .................................................................................................... 111
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................ 113
Summary ....................................................................................................... 116

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 118

APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................... 143

viii
 Page

APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................... 144

APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................... 145

APPENDIX D ........................................................................................................... 149

APPENDIX E ............................................................................................................ 151

APPENDIX F ............................................................................................................ 152

APPENDIX G ........................................................................................................... 153

APPENDIX H ........................................................................................................... 154

APPENDIX I ............................................................................................................. 155

APPENDIX J............................................................................................................. 156

APPENDIX K ........................................................................................................... 157

APPENDIX L ............................................................................................................ 158

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page

1 English/Language Arts Report Card Grade Averages.…………………........ 73

2 English/Language Arts Treatment Group Report Card Grade Averages…… 74

3 English/Language Arts Control Report Card Grade Averages……………… 75

4 Math Report Card Grade Averages…………………………………………. 77

5 Math Treatment Group Report Card Grade Averages………………………. 78

6 Math Control Group Report Card Grade Averages…………………………. 79

7 Science Report Card Grade Averages………………………………………. 81

8 Science Treatment Group Report Card Grade Averages……………………. 82

9 Science Control Group Report Card Grade Averages………………………. 83

10 Social Studies Report Card Grade Averages………………………………... 85

11 Social Studies Treatment Group Report Card Grade Averages…………….. 86

12 Social Studies Control Group Report Card Grade Averages……………….. 87

13 Average Number of Absences………………………………………………. 89

14 Average Number of Discipline Referrals…………………………………… 91

15 Math TAKS Average Scale Scores…………………………………………. 93

16 Reading TAKS Average Scale Scores………………………………………. 95

x
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

1 Distribution of Mentee Demographic Variables……………………………. 61

2 Distribution of Mentor Demographic Variables…………………………….. 63

3 Means and Standard Deviations for English/Language Arts Report Card

Averages for Participants……………………………………………………. 72

4 Means and Standard Deviations for Math Report Card Averages for
Participants………………………………………………………………….. 76

5 Means and Standard Deviations for Science Report Card Averages for
Participants………………………………………………………………….. 80

6 Means and Standard Deviations for Social Studies Report Card Averages for
Participants………………………………………………………………….. 84

7 Means and Standard Deviations for Participants’ Absences………….…….. 88

8 Means and Standard Deviations for Participants’ Discipline Referrals…….. 90

9 Means and Standard Deviations for TAKS Math Participants……………… 92

10 Means and Standard Deviations for TAKS Reading Participants…………... 94

xi
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background

Mentoring can be summarized as the matching of a youth to a nonparental adult

figure who can serve as a role model and provide support for that youth (Anastasia,

Skinner, & Mundhenk, 2012). Lerner (2007) asserted “the presence of adult mentors in

the community is the most important developmental asset associated with positive youth

development” (p. 217). In the United States, approximately 25% of all youth and 50%

of minority youth live in single-parent households (Tierney, Grossman, & Resch, 2000).

Tierney et al. (2000) posited that the increase in single-parent families, combined with

the breakdown of neighborhood socialization, and a growing need for parents, especially

single parents, to work long hours outside the home, has resulted in a rising number of

youth isolated from adults. This separation may lead to a reduction in positive contact

opportunities between youth and adults, a situation that stimulates the escalating interest

and research into mentoring programs (Anastasia et al., 2012).

For the past 15 years in America, mentoring has been a widespread topic of

discussion and has served as a highly accepted social intervention to improve the lives of

disadvantaged youth (Walker, 2007). Mentoring has been implemented in many pieces

of legislation, such as the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to the Juvenile

Delinquency Prevention Block Grant of 2005-2006. In addition, our highest elected

officials realize the importance of the mentoring initiative. In 1997, then President

Clinton, former Presidents Bush and Ford, former First Lady Nancy Reagan, and

1
General Colin Powell teamed up in Philadelphia to celebrate volunteerism and to

recommend five essential “nutrients” as key to supporting disadvantaged youth (Walker,

2007). Mentoring was at the top of the list. In 2003, President George W. Bush

recognized the importance of mentoring and proposed nearly half a billion dollars for

two new mentoring initiatives (Walker, 2007). Finally, in 2008, President-elect Barack

Obama reinforced the need for mentoring in a public service campaign for

ServiceNation.org by highlighting the positive effects a mentor can have on a youth’s

life (Elliott, 2008).

In Mentoring, Policy and Politics, Walker (2007) posed the questions: “How did

mentoring fare so well in these times? Is mentoring now a durable part of American

social policy? If so—is this unalloyed good news?” (p. 3). Walker focused on the

solutions to these questions by taking into account the concept of social policy trends,

explaining that “social policy trends, like trends in any part of life, are not totally

explainable by rational analysis and orderly chains of logic” (p. 4). He further

elaborated on his viewpoint on the sustained popularity of mentoring by asserting five

key points: (a) mentoring makes sense to most people, (b) mentoring fits neatly with

dominant American cultural values, (c) mentoring has results, (d) mentoring has the Big

Brothers Big Sisters Association as its exemplar, and (e) mentoring’s costs are not high.

Although mentoring is not established social policy, Walker (2007) illustrated its

popularity in Congress. Mentoring has benefited from the leadership of many in

Congress, including former Representative Tom Osborne of Nebraska, who, in 2002,

organized the creation and funding of a new federal grant program dedicated exclusively

2
to mentoring. Just two years later, this program was scheduled for a major increase,

along with the inception of the Safe and Stable Family Program, a mentoring program

for children of prisoners, as part of the Bush administration’s proposal to expand the

reach of mentoring. Representative Chaka Fattah and Senators Landrieu, Clinton, and

Specter, among others, have also endorsed mentoring initiatives. Mentoring is now

promoted or permitted in a broad spectrum of federal legislation, over a wide range of

federal departments. Special mentoring initiatives are located in the Justice, Education,

and Health and Human Services departments, such as Transition-to-Success Mentoring

Act and Mentoring in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education

Act (ESEA) (MENTOR, 2013).

Mentoring is a flexible approach to youth development in which youth often

identified as being “at-risk” for poor outcomes (e.g., low income, living in single-parent

homes) are paired with unrelated adult volunteers in the hope that a nurturing and

encouraging relationship will cultivate that serves to alleviate these risk conditions

(Liang, Spencer, West, & Rappaport, 2013). Mentoring is being effectively delivered in

a variety of settings (e.g., in communities, schools) with youth and has shown to

promote gains in emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes, including among

higher risk youth (Bouffard & Bergseth, 2008; DuBois, Portillo, Rhodes, Silverthorn, &

Valentine, 2011). The extent of the benefits of mentoring, however, is moderate and

remains virtually unaffected over the last decade even as the understanding of the

determinants of higher quality mentoring relationships has drastically increased

3
(DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; DuBois et al., 2011; Rhodes & DuBois,

2006).

School-Based Mentoring

School-based mentoring is often administered by established mentoring charities

like Big Brothers Big Sisters that recruit and screen community volunteers, pairing them

with youth (Wood & Mayo-Wilson, 2012). Other school-based programs may be

organized by schools or by social workers. School-based mentoring accounts for a large

part of new mentoring schemes (Jekielek, Moore, Hair, & Scarupa, 2002) and may have

distinct advantages and benefits over other community-based programs. By comparison,

organization and procedures may be simplified; some meetings can take place on school

grounds, which is believed to be a safer environment. Teachers may strategically select

youth who are likely to benefit from mentoring, and teachers can check that meetings

occur and the program’s objectives are being accomplished along with the needs of the

mentees. Mentors may be novice or experienced teachers or older adolescents serving as

mentors to youth in the same school (Wood & Mayo-Wilson, 2012). Adolescence is

characterized by increased significance of peer relationships, and several studies identify

harmful effects of ‘‘deviant’’ peer relationships that undermine prosocial behavior at

school and in communities (Dodge, Dishion, & Lansford, 2006a, 2006b). Strong mentor

relationships with adults or older students may replace or negate negative influences

(Wood & Mayo-Wilson, 2012).

Recently, three relatively wide-ranging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of

the effectiveness of school based mentoring programs have been completed (Bernstein,

4
Dun Rappaport, Olsho, Hunt, & Levin, 2009; Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, Feldman, &

McMaken, 2007; Karcher, 2008). The primary reports of these studies reached differing

conclusions regarding the effectiveness of school-based mentoring as assessed at the end

of one school year of participation. Herrera et al. (2007) concluded, based on an

assessment of the Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA) school-based

mentoring program, that “impacts measured after one school year of involvement in the

BBBSA school-based mentoring program showed that ‘Littles’ (youth assigned to

receive mentors) improved in a range of school-related areas, including their academic

attitudes, performance and behaviors” (p. 67). An evaluation of school-based mentoring

provided within Communities In Schools of San Antonio’s (CIS-SA) program

determined that “school-based mentoring as typically implemented within a multi-

component program may be of limited value for students in general and most helpful to

elementary school boys and high school girls” (Karcher, 2008, p.112). Finally, revealed

in an evaluation of programs financed through the U.S. Department of Education’s

Student Mentoring Program was that the programs analyzed “did not lead to statistically

significant impacts on students in any of the three outcome domains [prosocial behavior,

problem behavior, and academic achievement]” (Bernstein et al., 2009, p. xx).

In light of these results, numerous youth mentoring organizations began

partnering with school districts across the United States to provide mentoring to youth in

schools (Herrera et al., 2007). School-based programs developed during a period when

increasing agreement was present that schools should be centers for a wide range of

social, psychological and health services (Dryfoos, 1990). Furthermore, the No Child

5
Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 began to promote increased pressure on schools to

produce improved academic outcomes as demonstrated through standardized test scores,

diminishing the enthusiasm of schools for investing in programs not recognized to be

aligned with this goal (Portwood & Ayers, 2005). Thus, the surge of school-based

mentoring has been somewhat dependent on its perceived promise to improve academic

achievement (Wheeler, DuBois, & Keller, 2010).

Statement of the Problem

An increased emphasis on improving and refining educational standards and

practices has occurred over the last 15 years. The NCLB Act and increased state

graduation requirements in the core subject areas are requiring that schools require

rigorous curriculum standards for all students (Hardman & Dawson, 2008). In addition,

schools that do not improve their test scores annually by the standards set by adequate

yearly progress (AYP) will face consequences such as losing federal funding or possibly

be restructured by the federal government as well (Weaver, 2004). Furthermore, the

revised Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) signed by

President George W. Bush in 2004 introduced the concept of “Response to

Intervention,” or RTI, which serves as a means of providing early intervention to all

children for “at-risk” of failing school (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

Despite the increased demands and mandates for educating all students, many

secondary schools are struggling to identify and provide research-based interventions for

students “at-risk” of dropping out (Coffman, 2009). Research on the implementation of

RTI and effective targeted group interventions in secondary settings is extremely limited

6
(Bohanon-Edmondson, Flannery, Eber & Sugai, 2004; Windram, Scierka, & Silberglitt,

2007). Preliminary tracking and monitoring is recommended for students who are

deemed “at-risk”; however, some students will enter high school on the verge of

dropping out and in need of targeted interventions to reconnect them to the educational

environment (Coffman, 2009; Kennelly & Monrad, 2007). Students who struggle with

behavioral or academic performance at the secondary levels are more “at-risk” for

dropping out of school (Coffman, 2009; Croninger & Lee, 2001; Thompson & Kelly-

Vance, 2001). These students often have a history of inadequate academic performance,

poor attendance, and behavior problems (Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001).

In 2012, the United States Census Bureau reported that approximately 2.5 million

students age 16 to 24 were not enrolled in high school and had not earned a high school

diploma or alternative credentials such as a General Equivalency Diploma (Child Trends

Data Bank, 2013). These status dropouts accounted for 6.6% of the 38.8 million

individuals that fell into this age category. An array of reasons have been shown to

increase a student’s risk of dropping out, including high rates of absenteeism, low levels

of school engagement, low parental education, work or household responsibilities,

problematic or noncompliant behavior, mobility during the ninth grade year, and

attending a school with lower achievement scores (Balfanz & Legters, 2004; Christie,

Jovliette, & Nelson, 2007; Rumberger, 2004; Suh & Suh, 2007). Dropping out from

high school is linked to negative employment and life outcomes. Youth who drop out of

high school are unlikely to possess the minimum skills and credentials necessary to

function in today’s increasingly complex society and technology dependent workplace.

7
The completion of high school is typically a requirement for accessing postsecondary

education, and is a minimum requirement for most jobs (Laird, Lew, Debell, &

Chapman, 2006). A high school diploma is correlated with higher incomes and

occupational status and young adults with low education and skill levels are more likely

to live in poverty and to receive government assistance (Chen & Kaplan, 2003; Dubow,

Huesmann, Boxer, Pukkinen, Kokko, 2006; Fogg, Harrington, & Khatiwada, 2009;

Miller, Mulvey, & Martin, 1995). Furthermore, MacLeod (1987) asserted that if

students with “at-risk” factors do not have appropriate intervention strategies or some

type of assistance from social services, many of them perceive that the value of a high

school diploma is not worth the effort needed for success in school. Dropping out is a

disengagement process that occurs over many years as a result of repeated difficulties in

school (Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr, 2004). However, a sense of belonging

and connectedness helps create a strong foundation to facilitate student engagement in

academic activities (Catalano, Haggerty, Oesterle, Fleming & Hawkins, 2004; McNeely,

Nonnemaker, & Blum, 2002; Payne, 1996). An established sense of belonging comes

about as the result of positive relationships and connections a student makes with peers

and adults within the school environment.

In recent years, heightened awareness has transpired in fostering the resilience

and competence of children. One of the most consistent findings in the literature is that

positive, supportive relationships with adults are associated with beneficial outcomes for

children. According to Masten and Reed (2002), “the best documented asset of resilient

children is a strong bond to a competent and caring adult, which need not be a parent”

8
(p. 78). Furthermore, relationships between teachers and students early in elementary

school have long-term effects on students’ academic and behavioral outcomes,

particularly for negative aspects of these relationships (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). Similar

results have been documented for middle school students and their teachers. For this age

group, relationships between students and teachers have been associated with students’

motivation, achievement, feelings of belonging, and affect in school (Roeser, Eccles, &

Sameroff, 1998; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996). In addition, middle school students’

perceptions of support and caring from teachers have been linked to students’ current

interest in class and school, which in turn, were significant predictors of GPA the

following year (Wentzel, 1998).

Presently, schools are forced to increase their load of responsibilities and duties,

which far exceed the basic academic requirements. Today’s educators must provide

non-academic services to fully serve its students. Staff members wear many hats to

build the necessary skills and confidence in students to help them succeed. As

educators, we strive to accomplish these contemporary demands with school based

mentoring programs. According to Wheeler, Keller, and DuBois (2010), mentoring has

become one of the most popular interventions to improve the lives of “at-risk” youth.

This proposed study will examine a targeted school-based mentoring program at junior

high schools in Utopia Independent School District.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study will be to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISAGE

(Incentives for Students Achieving Great Expectations) school-based mentoring program

9
for junior high school students in Grades 7 and 8 in Utopia Independent School District

(ISD). Used in this study will be current junior high school teachers whom function

within the constraints of the traditional junior high school schedule on “at-risk” junior

high school students. The study aims to add to the body of research on school-based

mentoring programs at the junior high school level and extend the research on

interventions in secondary school settings.

Research Questions

In this investigation, the following research questions will be addressed:

1. What is the difference in report card grade averages in core classes

(i.e., English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies) between

students who participated in the school-based mentoring program and

students who were in the control group during the 2010-2011 school year

from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

2. What is the difference in attendance between students who participated

in the school-based mentoring program and students who were in the

control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-

2010 school year?

3. What is the difference in discipline referrals between students who

participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who

were in the control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of

the 2009-2010 school year?

10
 4. What is the difference in the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge

and Skills) Mathematics scale scores between students who participated

in the school-based mentoring program and students who were in the

control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-

2010 school year?

5. What is the difference in the TAKS Reading scale scores between

students who participated in the school-based mentoring program and

students who were in the control group during the 2010-2011 school year

from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

Significance of the Study

“At-risk” youth and educators could both benefit from the results from this study.

Currently, “at-risk” youth being mentored may be involved with mentoring programs in

which the mentoring procedures are not based on the best research practices.

Consequently, they may receive mentoring that is not as beneficial as it could be if

supported by empirical research. In this study, through an analysis of the benefits

received for the school-based mentoring participants, valuable information will be made

available for educational practitioners that could allow them to develop and design an

effective program that will better meet the needs of its participants. In addition, results

from this study could assist mentors in the school-based mentoring process for “at-risk”

youth to understand the most effective methods to perform their mentoring tasks and

responsibilities.

11
Delimitations

The ISAGE mentoring program was selected for this study because it

demonstrates a well-organized school-based mentoring program that targets “at-risk”

youth in grades 7-8 in a suburban district in Texas. The program was also selected at the

junior high level because those grades are critical to the success of “at-risk” students in

high school. In The Silent Epidemic, 45% of young people surveyed, age 16-25, stated

that they started high school poorly prepared, due to falling behind in elementary and

middle school and could not make up the necessary ground (Bridgeland, Dilulio, &

Morison, 2006). Furthermore, junior high school students who have been engaged in a

mentoring relationship for 6 months or longer were selected as participants because the

longer the mentor/mentee relationship, the greater the possibility of positive outcomes

becomes (Deutsch & Spencer, 2009; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002). Finally, school-based

mentoring was utilized because it is the fastest growing type of mentoring today

(Jekielek et al., 2002).

Assumptions

The researcher assumes that mentees will accurately and honestly report the

correct data on the appropriate instruments throughout the full duration of the mentoring

relationship. The researcher also assumes that students will be able to participate in the

mentoring program with full fidelity, contributing a solid, genuine effort to the

mentoring relationship throughout the entire duration of the mentoring program.

12
Researcher’s Perspective

I was the principal for two years at one of the junior high schools used in this

study, including the 2010-2011 school year. Prior to this experience, I served as a

teacher and athletic coach for six years at the high school level and served as a high

school assistant principal for two years. I have always been intrigued by the social and

emotional needs of the students that I have taught or coached, especially students who

were placed “at-risk.” I have witnessed and experienced the impact that a positive

relationship between a student and teacher can have on both parties. In my opinion,

there is nothing more rewarding than a former student returning and thanking me for

impacting their life, for motivating them to be more than just “average.” I believe that

mentoring is a highly effective method of intervention that can most definitely help a

student stay on the path towards success.

In today’s society, there are many students who need someone to believe in them

and show that they care. Without encouragement and support, students can easily get

lost in school and put things such as sports, social standing, etc. ahead of their studies.

Students today need positive role models who can explain the importance of getting a

quality education, as this drive for an education is not something that many students

intrinsically possess, particularly the “at-risk” youth.

On a personal note, I am extremely fortunate that I had some very influential

educators in my own life that singled me out and became mentors to me. I can vividly

remember conversations and moments that I had with two influential teachers that

significantly impacted my life during some difficult trials in my childhood. My second

13
grade teacher, Mrs. Sanders, and my 7th grade teacher/coach, Coach Holder, both

provided inspiration and motivation for me to continue to aspire to be the best that I

could be in school and in life. I will be forever grateful to those two individuals for

believing in me when I did not necessarily believe in myself. They pushed me to

succeed and taught me the importance of a quality education at an impressionable time

in my life.

As a principal, this study is important to me because I want to see the first hand

benefits that a positive mentoring relationship might have on student achievement. I

believe in the power of mentoring, as I have realized the emotional and psychological

positive effects it has on youth. I am curious, however, to see the benefits on the student

achievement side. In addition, the results may give educational practitioners further

information on school-based mentoring programs and possible further ideas and

strategies for intervention plans for struggling learners.

Definition of Terms

• “At-Risk” Youth

Students who are deemed by educational practitioners to be in danger of failing

in school and becoming academically disadvantaged in comparison with their

peers. They may be labeled “at-risk” on the basis of such information as test

scores, attendance, and discipline records. Students “at-risk” have a higher than

average probability of dropping out of school (Ravitch, 2007). This is the way

Utopia ISD has categorized these students as well.

14
• ISAGE

The name of the school based mentoring program in Utopia Independent School

District, which stands for Incentives for Students Achieving Great Expectations.

• Mentee

One who receives guidance or coaching from a more experienced person

(Ravitch, 2007).

• Mentor

A trusted counselor or guide who tutors or coaches a newcomer or novice

(Ravitch, 2007).

• NCLB

No Child Left Behind, federal legislation that provides funding for “at-risk”

students (Title I), professional development for staff (Title II) and English

language learners (Title III). NCLB main components are the requirements of

standardized testing for accountability and the employment of highly qualified

teacher (Ravitch, 2007).

• School-Based Mentoring Program

This term refers to the Utopia ISD ISAGE mentoring program, which is focused

towards assisting students deemed “at-risk” who are in need of academic and

social support.

• TAKS

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (Grades 7-8)

15
Organization of Study

This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter I introduced the

background on the importance of mentoring and its increased popularity throughout the

country over the years. In addition, the possible benefits that youth may receive from

participating in school-based mentoring programs are also discussed. Furthermore, the

statement of the problem, purpose of study, research hypotheses, and significance of the

study were presented. At the conclusion of the chapter, delimitations, limitations,

assumptions, researcher’s perspectives, and definition of terms were provided.

Chapter II provides a review of literature related to mentoring that begins with a

conceptual framework and continues with a discussion on the characteristics of “at-risk”

youth. The history and definition of mentoring is then highlighted, along with the role

and function of mentoring. In addition, the chapter focuses on the types of mentoring

and mentoring programs. The chapter continues with a discussion of the effects that

mentoring has on student achievement of “at-risk” students. The chapter concludes by

focusing on school-based mentoring, specifically touching on the implementation

procedures and best practices of effective school-based mentoring programs.

Chapter III outlines the methodology for this study. This chapter includes the

context of the study, the human subjects, data instruments, data collection procedures,

and data analysis. Chapter IV will present the results of this study. Finally, Chapter V

will provide a discussion of the study and implications for future research.

16
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

While the idea of mentoring is familiar to most, in recent years awareness has

heightened on programs designed to facilitate both formal and informal mentoring

relationships, with practitioners, researchers, and policymakers looking to mentoring as a

hopeful form of intervention for children and youth (Portwood, Ayers, Kinnison, Waris,

& Wise, 2005). Popular national initiatives, such as America’s Promise, along with the

adoption of federal legislation promoting mentoring, including the No Child Left Behind

Act of 2001 and Title IV-B of the Social Security Act, which provides for the Mentoring

Children of Prisoners Program, reveal the prevalent belief that the presence of a mentor

in the life of a youth not only supports healthy growth and development, but also serves

as a protective barrier against many of the dangers that they face (Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1998). These initiatives can be attributed to recent

studies illustrating the benefits of mentoring on social and academic needs, along with

the dire need of supportive relationships with an adult for young people to promote their

development (Tierney, 1995). In addition, researchers have shown that mentoring

introduces them to new relationships and opportunities, and helps in the development of

problem-solving and decision-making skills that will allow them to be successful in

school, work, and everyday life (Flaxman & Ascher, 1992).

Mentoring programs currently number well into the thousands and benefit with

financial support from government agencies, businesses, and charitable organizations

(DuBois & Karcher, 2005). Unfortunately, an insignificant amount of evaluation

17
research exists to support the effectiveness of mentoring programs (Royse, 1998),

particularly those based in schools. The research on mentoring programs that is

available is focused predominantly on “at-risk” students at the high-school and college

levels (Dappen & Isernhagen, 2005; Jekielek, Moore, Hair, & Scarupa, 2002; Manza,

2001; Mecca, 2001; McCluskey, Noller, Lamoureux, & McCluskey, 2004). However,

very little research exists on school-based mentoring programs for “at-risk” junior high

school students. Portwood et al. (2005) asserted that schools constitute the clear locale

in which to promote youth mentoring. Due to the many benefits linked to mentoring in

the school environment, which includes an inexpensive approach and convenience to

both the mentors and mentees, school-based mentoring programs have increased. The

lack of existing research involving school based mentoring programs, along with the

ideal setting of a school for identifying and serving “at-risk” youth, justifies the need for

this study. Built upon the existing research literature, the purpose of this chapter is to

acknowledge the growing numbers of “at-risk” youth and the dire effects that “at-risk”

school dropouts have on our nation. In addition, the literature highlights the effects of

mentoring on student achievement, which includes improvement in academic

performance, behavior and attendance in school.

This chapter is divided into seven main sections. First, a conceptual framework

will give an illustration of a conceptual model and lay the foundation for youth

mentoring, discussing social and emotional development, cognitive development, and

identity development of youth. Second, the characteristics of “at-risk” students will be

described, which will include defining these students and elaborating on the adverse

18
effects that “at-risk” dropouts have on society as a whole. Mentoring will then be

discussed in terms of its historical definition along with its role and function. Next,

formal and informal mentoring will be explained, as well as examples of mentoring

programs, which will give valuable information on the different types of mentoring

programs utilized. This will be followed by a discussion on the effects of mentoring on

student achievement for “at-risk” students. Last, school-based mentoring will be

described, highlighting the benefits of such programs along with development and

implementation ideas for effective programs.

Conceptual Framework

The model of youth mentoring processes is based upon the conceptual model

proposed by Rhodes (2002). In this model, Rhodes (2002) concluded that mentors can

influence their protégés’ development in three important ways: (1) by improving social

skills and emotional well-being; (2) by developing cognitive skills through dialogue and

listening; (3) identity development.

According to DuBois and Karcher (2005), the purpose of Rhodes’ model is to

conclude that the dynamics through which mentoring relationships can foster positive

youth development are unlikely to form without a strong, interpersonal connection built

upon mutuality, trust, and empathy. Furthermore, Rhodes, Spencer, Keller, Liang, and

Noam (2006) posited that a meaningful connection can only occur if the mentee is

willing to share his or her feelings and self-perceptions and is an actively engaged in the

relationship. Dworkin, Larson, and Hansen (2003) conveyed this process in terms of

both motivation and concentration, in which the youth is “involved in actively

19
constructing personal change” (p. 17). However, engagement does not happen

instantaneously. DuBois and Karcher (2005) expressed that the successful mentoring of

youth is most often predicated by “a series of small wins that emerge sporadically over

time” (p. 32). However, this does not mean that the relationship will be void of

mundane moments, which might include boredom, humor, and even frustration. DuBois

and Karcher (2005) believed that these moments can strengthen the connection during

moments of vulnerability or share triumph in moments of accomplishment. To sum it

up, Herrera, Sipe, and McClanahan (2000) concluded that “at the crux of the mentoring

relationship is the bond that forms between the youth and mentor” (p. 72).

Social and Emotional Development. Rhodes (2002, 2005) asserted that

mentoring relationships may promote the social and emotional well-being of youth in the

following methods: (a) provide opportunities for fun and relief from daily stresses; (b)

corrective emotional experiences that initiate improvement in youth’s other social

relationships; (c) assistance with emotional regulation. Rhodes et al. (2006) suggested

that the social and recreational interactions within the mentoring relationship may

provide the youth with enjoyable experiences, especially those who face disadvantaged

and challenging circumstances. Recent research on social support highlights

involvement in jointly pleasurable social activities as an individual aspect of supportive

relationships that has been referred to as companionship (Sarason & Sarason, 2001).

Rook (1995) further stated that companionship is sparked by the longing to share in

“purely enjoyable interaction, such as the pleasure of sharing in leisure activities, trading

life stories, and humorous anecdotes, and engaging in playful spontaneous activities” (p.

20
440). The supportive mentoring relationships can help eliminate any negative

perceptions or stigmas that the youth may initially possess.

The foundation for expecting that positive relationships can modify youths’

perceptions of other relationships is derived largely from attachment theory (Bowlby,

1988). According to attachment theorists, youth create cognitive representations of

relationships through their early experiences with primary care givers (Bretherton,

1985). These experienced-based expectations, or working models, are believed to be

incorporated into the personality structure and to influence behavior in interpersonal

relationships throughout and beyond childhood (Ainsworth, 1989; Bowlby, 1988).

Working models are flexible in that they allow for opportunities for modification in

response to changing life circumstances, particularly the opportunities to engage in

different patterns of interaction presented by new relationships (Belsky & Cassidy, 1994;

Bretherton, 1985).

In certain situations, mentors may function as a secondary attachment figure,

providing a solid foundation from which youth can make key social and cognitive gains

(Rhodes et al., 2006). Pianta (1999) asserted that mentors may allow youth to better

understand, express, and regulate both their positive and negative emotions by serving as

a sounding board and offering a model of effective adult communication. Similarly,

Rutter (1990) suggested that youth may become more likely to solicit emotional support

to deal with stressful situations or chronic adversity, thereby buffering the effects of

negative adversity. In addition, Cowan (1996) postulated that the ability to control

affective experiences, both alone and in relationships with others, is increasingly thought

21
to be an extension of a strong attachment relationship and a key component of healthy

social and emotional development. DuBois and Karcher (2005) affirmed that mentoring

relationships may alleviate the obstacles in everyday interactions for youth by promoting

improved communication and emotional regulation. Similarly, other researchers have

shown a correlation between mentoring relationships and improvements in perceptions

by youth from peer relationships (Rhodes, Haight, & Briggs, 1999) and from important

adults in their social networks (Dubois, Neville, Parra, & Pugh-Lilley, 2002).

Cognitive Development. According to Rhodes (2002), mentoring relationships

may influence the cognitive development processes of youth through several

mechanisms, including being introduced to new opportunities for learning, establishment

of scholarly challenge and guidance, and advancement of academic success. This

viewpoint is further supported by developmental theorists as they suggest that social

interactions are a critical factor in expediting these cognitive changes (DuBois &

Karcher, 2005). Regardless of the interaction, which may range from a trip to the library

to enrolling in a course together, a mentor can approach these activities with the purpose

of utilizing teachable moments (Rhodes et al., 2006).

The degree of scholarly focus and support provided by the mentor is believed to

play a significant role in facilitating the cognitive progress of the youth (Rhodes et al.,

2006). Vygotsky (1978) described a zone of proximal development in which learning

takes place: the range between what a youth can accomplish when problem solving on

their own and what he or she can achieve when working under adult supervision or with

more capable peers. When a youth’s interactions with a mentor take place within this

22
zone, the intellectual capabilities of the youth may progress and improve. Similarly,

Rogoff (1990) described that within this framework, learning occurs in in a cooperative

manner, with children appropriating from shared activities with more sophisticated

thinkers. For example, caring adults may empower youth’s authentic thoughts and ideas

to emerge. Mentors may give the mentee a motivation to broaden their intellectual

capability by assisting them in extending their thoughts.

In addition to the scaffolding provided by the mentor, the relational qualities of

the mentoring relationship may also contribute to the youth’s cognitive abilities (Rhodes

et al., 2006). Meaningful conversations throughout the mentoring relationship could

serve as a catalyst in the growth of the mentee’s cognitive skill set. Research from the

educational literature accentuates the social nature of learning, illustrating that positive

perceptions of teacher-student relationships are directly related to increases in

motivation academic proficiency and achievement, school value, level of engagement,

and behavioral adjustment (Goodenow, 1992; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Midgley,

Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Reddy, Rhodes, & Mulhall, 2003; Roeser & Eccles, 1998;

Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). Therefore, it is plausible that a mentor in a relationship built

upon trust could authenticate and support the youth’s existing intellectual interests or

inspire curiosity and influence learning in new areas (Rhodes et al., 2006).

Identity Development. As stated previously, mentoring relationships may

contribute to youths’ positive identity development by shifting youth’s conceptions of

both their current and their future identity (Rhodes et al., 2006). Freud (1914) explained

an identification process in which individuals incorporate the attitudes, behaviors, and

23
values they desire to pattern themselves after (as cited in Rhodes et al., 2006, p. 695).

Similarly, Kohut (1984) postulated that youths connect themselves to an idealized parent

“imago” whose qualities they internalize into their own personalities. Furthermore,

Markus and Nurius (1986) have referred to possible selves - individuals’ ideas of what

they could turn out to be, what they would aspire to become, and what they fear

becoming. Rhodes et al. (2006) asserted that such possibilities, which often emerge as

youths evaluate the adults they are acquainted with, can influence current decisions and

behavior. Indeed, many economically disadvantaged youths have limited contact with

positive role models outside the immediate family and believe that their opportunities for

success are constrained (Blechman, 1992).

Even among youths of middle class background, adult careers and vocations can

be viewed as far-fetched and impossible (Larson, 2000). In addition, other youths have

unrealistic expectations and little to no information on the level of education that is

required for their career choice. Thus, the idea of possible selves is similar to

Levinson’s (1978) notion of the imagined self, which becomes refined over time and

helps youths control the transition into early adulthood. As they relate with their

mentors, youths may discover that their initial internalizations begin to modify, causing

shifts in their sense of identity and social roles (Rhodes et al., 2006).

This process is evocative of what Cooley (1902) has described as the “looking

glass self” - wherein important people in youths’ lives become social mirrors into which

the young people look to construct opinions of themselves. The opinions that the youth

sees reflected back at them then become assimilated into their sense of self (DuBois &

24
Karcher, 2005). Additionally, Mead (1934) described how individuals can integrate the

“reflected appraisal” of others’ views of them—imagining how they are perceived by

important people in their lives. For example, Harter (1988) contended that youths’

determination of overall self-worth is centered not only on their self-evaluation of their

ability in activities they believe to be important, but also on their perception of

acceptance, support, and regard from others they value. As the mentor’s perceived

positive assessment becomes internalized into the mentee’s sense of self, it may

transform the manner in which the youth believes that parents, friends, teachers, and

others view him or her (DuBois & Karcher, 2005).

Generally speaking, mentoring relationships may initiate the development of

both social and cultural capital for youth by facilitating their use of community resources

and by introducing them to educational or occupational opportunities (Dubas & Snider,

1993; McLaughlin, 2000). Participation in such new opportunities can also enable

identity development by providing experiences on which youth can pull from to create

their sense of self (Youniss & Yates, 1997). Actually, Waterman (1984) has suggested

that such experiences provide opportunities for discovering unique talents and abilities

and are thus a major source through which identity is shaped. In the same way, youths’

participation in prosocial activities and settings could expose them to more socially

desirable or high-achieving peer groups with whom they can then identify (DuBois &

Karcher, 2005).

25
Characteristics of Students Placed “At-Risk”

It is becoming increasingly clear that the number students placed “at-risk” is

growing and the long-term effects on society as a whole are both vast and daunting. In

1983, the U.S. Department of Education published A Nation at Risk, which revealed

severe crises with the educational system in America, illustrating a 60% graduation rate

and elevated levels of illiteracy (National Commission on Excellence, 1983; US

Department of Education, 2008). This publication sparked a thorough analysis of “at-

risk” students into the next decade.

According to the U.S. Department of Education (1999), there are approximately

6.3 million children in America’s schools classified as “at-risk” due to a multitude of

components that encompass race, ethnicity, poverty, language, substance abuse, lack of

motivation, among other factors. Janosz, Le Blanc, Boulerice, and Tremblay (2008)

defined “at-risk” students as individuals who display behavioral, attitudinal, or academic

problems that lead to school dropout. In addition, characterized “at-risk” students are

characterized as students who demonstrate poor grades and assessment scores, discipline

issues in class, and persistent absenteeism (Fouad & Keeley, 1992; McLaughlin &

Vachta, 1992; Rojewski, Wicklein, & Schell, 1995; Taylor, 2005. In addition, Suhyun,

Jingyo, and Houston (2007) declared that the term, “at-risk”, focuses on aspects of a

student’s background and environment that may lead to a higher risk of their educational

failure.

Presently, young people are considered “at-risk” if they receive insufficient or

unsuitable educational experiences in the school, family, or community, along with

26
facing the additional concerns of unexpected social and psychological pathways toward

the failure of not graduating from high school (Pagani, Vitaro, Tremblay, McDuff, Japel,

& Larose, 2008). Scott (2005) further explained that a significant number of “at-risk”

students struggle with developing relationships with others. Relationships are critical for

student success since all learning occurs in the framework of human relationships

(Cohen, 2003). Wehlage and Smith (1992) contended that the educator-student

relationship to be crucial in engaging students and promoting student achievement.

Additionally, Murray and Greenberg (2000) established that students who reported

positive or average relations with educators also reported positive or average perceptions

of the educational environment and schools in general.

The National Center for Education Statistics (1992) conducted The National

Education Longitudinal Study of 1988(NELS:88), which began in the Spring of 1988

and continued into 1990, and examined the characteristics of 25,000 eighth grade

students from approximately 1,000 schools who were “at-risk” of school failure. The

results of the study disclosed that the following groups of students were more likely to

have insufficient academic skills in the eighth-grade and to have dropped out of school

between their eighth to tenth grade years:

• Students from single-parent families, students who were over-age for

their peer group, or students who had frequently changed schools;

• Eighth-grade students whose parents were not actively involved in the

student’s school, students whose parents never talked to them about

27
 school-related matters, or students whose parents held low expectations

for their child’s future educational attainment;

• Students who repeated an earlier grade, students who had histories of

poor grades in mathematics and English, or students who did little

homework;

• Eighth-graders who often came to school unprepared for classwork,

students who frequently cut class, or students who were otherwise

frequently tardy or absent from school;

• Eighth-graders who teachers thought were passive, frequently disruptive,

inattentive, or students who teachers thought were underachievers; and

• Students from urban schools or from schools with large minority

populations. (p. vi)

The dropout issue continues to inflate and plague our nation as our government

leaders seek solutions. During an interview, Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan,

stated, “In this country, we have a 25% dropout rate. That’s 1.2 million students leaving

our schools for the streets every single year. That is economically unsustainable, and

that is morally unacceptable” (Amanpour & Duncan, 2010, p. 4). Speaking at the

America’s Promise Alliance Grad Nation event, President Barack Obama pledged $900

million to improve the performance of low performing schools across the nation. In his

speech, the President stated,

This is a problem we cannot afford to accept and we cannot afford to ignore. The

stakes are too high - for our children, for our economy, and for our country. It's

28
 time for all of us to come together - parents, students, principals and teachers,

business leaders and elected officials from across the political spectrum - to end

America's dropout crisis” (The White House, 2010).

The Dropout Prevention Act of 2004 identified specific factors that cause

dropouts such as low grade point averages and standardized test scores, disciplinary

issues, grade retention, low socioeconomic status, poor attendance, and mobility (Sparks,

Johnson, & Akos, 2010). Moreover, Vang (2005) supported these findings by

identifying the five aspects of “at-risk” students according to educators. Stated in the

first factor was that an “at-risk” student is one who has failed two or more courses in a

semester. In the second factor, an “at-risk” student is two or more years older than

his/her fellow students. Next, an “at-risk” student has received one or more school

suspensions. Also, an “at-risk” student has been absent for more than 20% of his/her

classes. Last, an “at-risk” student has moved three or more times in a school year. In

The Silent Epidemic, an executive summary of a report conducted by Civics Enterprises,

35% of dropouts pointed out that their academic failures was a critical reason for leaving

school, whereas 43% stated that continual absenteeism contributed to their decision to

drop out (Bridgeland, Dilulio, & Morison, 2006).

Ethnicity and socioeconomic status play a major role in determining the

propensity for a student to be classified as “at-risk”. Although the national graduation

rate is 68% or higher, the rate for children of color in low socioeconomic areas is much

lower (Swanson, 2004). In addition, students that are raised in poverty are more likely

to be retained, suspended, and expelled from school (Wood, 2003). In 2001, Orfield,

29
Losen, Wald, & Swanson (2004) determined nationally that only 50% of Black students,

53% of Hispanic students, and 51% of Native American students graduated from high

school, with each group being under a 50% rate for male students. In 2009, according to

the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessment, 49% of

fourth grade students who were eligible for free or reduced lunch read below the Basic

level, compared with only 21% of fourth graders not eligible for free or reduced lunch;

in fourth grade, 53% of Black students and 52% of Hispanic students read below the

Basic level, compared with 23% of White fourth grade students (National Center for

Education Statistics, 2010). According to data from the federal, state, and local levels,

60% of all federal inmates were dropouts, approximately 75% of all state prison inmates

were dropouts, and 70% of all jail inmates were dropouts (Harlow, 2003). Based on a

2001 study conducted by the Justice Policy Institute, 791,600 African Americans, age 17

or older, were in prison, compared to 603,032 enrolled in college (Moore & Ratchford,

2007). Given this information, it is evident that steps must be taken to prevent “at-risk”

students of color from becoming a dropout statistic.

As socioeconomic status and ethnicity has a direct correlation with “at-risk”

students and dropouts, researchers have documented that dropouts have an adverse effect

on our nation’s economy. America’s Promise Alliance acknowledged that dropouts can

become a heavy burden to society with lost wages, taxes, and productivity over their

lifetime (Hu, 2008). According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2001), approximately

68% of men and 45% of women enter the workforce lacking a high school diploma.

Weis, Farrar, and Petrie (1989) stated, “It has been estimated that the nation loses about

30
$77 billion dollars annually because of dropouts - $3 billion in crime prevention, $3

billion in welfare and unemployment, and $71 billion in lost tax revenue” (p. 32). It is

estimated that the Class of 2009 will cost the nation $335 billion due to their dropout

numbers (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2009). Additionally, it is predicted that if

minority graduation rates increased to the levels of Caucasian students in the U.S. by

2020, then the national economy would see a potential boost of up to $310 billion

(Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006).

Johnson (2008) asserted that teachers may be familiar with students placed “at-

risk”, but may be blind to the definition and implications of these students that prevents

teachers from enabling them to achieve at a high level in the classroom. In spite of this,

Scott (2005) insisted that teachers are the essential ingredient to student achievement.

He purported that when a positive environment is created by teachers for “at-risk”

students, school becomes a desired place, instead of a place in which students try to

avoid. Scott declared, “We must all be mindful that students will not remember

everything we teach them, but they will always remember how we treated them” (p. 42).

According to Swadener and Lubeck (1995), the construct “at-risk” has been

referred to as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (Tyack, 1989), due to the definition of the

term, its deficit model assumptions, and the potential for racism and classism. Fine

asserts that “the term ‘students at-risk’ suggests that a small group of students are

educationally and economically vulnerable; they are to be isolated and fixed” (p. 16).

The inherent racism and classism in such a deficit-laden label is problematic.

31
Commenting on the fact that children labeled “at-risk” frequently are children of color

from low socioeconomic situations, Winborne (1991) states,

The distinctions must sharpen when one considers a term as detrimental as “at-

risk.” One cannot suppose that all those from a certain background run the risk

of failure; often, thankfully, the failures do not occur. Many successes occur

within traditional schools where students come from diverse cultural, ethnic, and

racial backgrounds and are poor (p. 253).

As Winborne (1991) asserts, the term “at-risk,” which appears often in education

and social science literature, is derived from the field of medicine and refers to the threat

of disease or injury. During the past decade, educational practitioners and researchers

created this conceptual paradigm for clarifying educational problems. They defined

those conditions that tend to affect children in adverse ways and decrease success in

traditional school settings as producing risks, and gradually, educators developed a set of

characteristics that place children “at-risk” for school failure.

Classifications of successful or failing responses to school tasks is based on the

manner in which teachers interpret the behavior. Teacher interpretations are likely to be

influenced by their expectations, by their propensity to expect success or to anticipate

failure (Swadener & Lubeck, 1995). In addition, Hargreaves, Earl, and Ryan (1996)

demand the need to make schools into better communities of caring and support for

young people. Last, Swadener and Lubeck (1995) express the importance of culturally

inclusive alliances, in which these alliances for children can begin to “transcend the

32
internalized oppression which is a major byproduct of the deficiency model embodied in

the construct ‘children and families at-risk’ ” (p. 41).

In their study to alleviate racial opportunity costs for students and maximize

student learning, Chambers and Huggins (2014) focused on 5 factors in which schools

could concentrate their efforts. First, they found that flexible school norms and values

allow students to express themselves appropriately while still being viewed as

academically successful. Second, an inclusive school community is imperative to allow

students to feel wanted and supported. Next, teachers and administrators must initiate

discussions regarding race and racism to help address, and hopefully prevent, racial

incidents when they occur. Also, an open enrollment pattern prevents racial isolation

and allows all students equitable resource allocation. Last, it is absolutely necessary to

maintain a campus staff that is fully committed to supporting and encouraging all

students on individual bases.

One of the negative aspects of A Nation at Risk has been the willingness to define

student achievement solely by standardized testing, which may have prevented reform of

policies focused on equally important aspects of student achievement (Guthrie &

Springer, 2004). As Chambers and Huggins (2014) asserted, the current focus on test

scores and other “objective” measures of student achievement causes a disconnect that

prevents educators from looking at a broader, more inclusive vision of “schooling”

(Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010) that allows room for students’

diverse identities instead of demoralizing them. Understanding their aforementioned

factors would allow educators to support their students’ learning and academic

33
performance. This understanding may also help decrease the number of students being

placed “at-risk” by educators, affording them equal opportunities to all educational

resources.

The History and Definition of Mentoring

A valuable inheritance bestowed upon us through ancient Greek literature is the

concept of mentoring (Nash & Treffinger, 1993; Noller & Frey, 1995). The history of

mentoring can be derived from Homer’s The Odyssey, in which the term “mentor” was

originated. Historically, the term mentor has been utilized within literature to identify

one who was responsible for educating and nurturing another (Provident, 2005). To a

key extent, Mentor was responsible for the Telemachus’ education, as well as his

character development and psychological maturation. Over the years that followed, the

term “mentor” became synonymous with trusted advisor, friend, teacher, and wise

person (Shea, 2002). As illustrated in the literature, mentors have been present from as

far back as Greek mythology. However, it has only been since the late 1970s that the

concept has been researched and received attention in the professional literature. Over

the years, the concept of mentoring has expanded significantly (Provident, 2005).

According to Jacobi (1991), many researchers have attempted to provide a

succinct definition of mentoring. Nonetheless, an array of definitions derived from

education, management, and psychology continues to embody the literature. Merriam

(1983) addresses the problem of fluctuating definitions:

The phenomenon of mentoring is not clearly conceptualized, leading to

confusion as to just what is being measured or offered as an ingredient in

34
 success. Mentoring appears to mean one thing to developmental psychologists,

another thing to business people, and a third thing to those in academic settings

(p. 169).

For the purpose of this study, a representative sampling of definitions utilized by DuBois

and Karcher (2005) is as follows:

“Mentoring is a structured and trusting relationship that brings young people

together with caring individuals who offer guidance, support, and encouragement

aimed at developing the competence and character of the mentee”

(MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, 2003).

“…a relationship between an older, more experienced adult and an unrelated,

younger protégé – a relationship in which the adult provides ongoing guidance,

instruction, and encouragement aimed at developing the competence and

character of the protégé” (Rhodes, 2002, p. 3).

“…a powerful emotional interaction between an older and younger person, a

relationship in which the older member is trusted, loving, and experienced in the

guidance of the younger. The mentor helps shape the growth and development of

the protégé” (Merriam, 1983, p. 162).

The Role and Function of Mentoring

Presently, children struggle with a complex array of issues, many of which they

are unable to deal with on their own. Dappen and Isernhagen (2005) confirmed this

dilemma by suggesting that today’s youths experience an excessive number of obstacles

that negatively affect their academic and social behavior. There is a growing trend that

35
believes that these individuals would greatly benefit from having a positive role model,

such as a mentor, in their lives when faced with the aforementioned obstacles. Benard

(1991) declared that an adult role model that can exhibit unconditional love assists the

development of resiliency in children, which, in turn, serves as the basis for adult-youth.

Benard (1995) stated:

The presence of at least one caring person - someone who conveys an attitude of

compassion, who understands that no matter how awful a child’s behavior, the

child is doing the best that he or she can given his or her experience – provides

support for healthy development and learning. (p.1)

Such support may be especially important for “at-risk” youth, that is, young people from

poor, struggling, often single-parent families who live in neighborhoods that offer few

positive outlets and a limited number of positive role models. Mentoring programs can

be seen as formal means for establishing and nurturing a positive relationship with at

least one caring adult. The very foundation of mentoring is the idea that if caring,

compassionate adults are available to young people, youth will be more likely to become

successful adults themselves (Jekielek et al., 2002).

As evident in the literature, the mentor assumes numerous roles in their quest to

establish the model relationship when working with a youth. The National Education

Association classifies 13 critical roles of a mentor in an academic environment: a

counselor, teacher, challenger, coach, observer, facilitator, trainer, master, tour guide,

advocate, role model, reporter, and equal (National Education Association, 1999). Daloz

(1986) suggested that the mentor must become a guide rather than a tour director and

36
provide reinforcement through listening, advocacy, sharing of self, establishing

structure, highlighting strengths, and making the experience unique and positive.

Similarly, Sipe (1996) asserted that mentoring serves as a one-to-one relationship in

which an adult volunteer and youth meet often over a period of time, in which the

mentors are primarily expected to act in a supportive and friendly role, rather than trying

to change the youth’s behavior. Additionally, whether implemented formally or

informally, mentoring entails a relationship of coaching, counseling, and, most

importantly, caring, which enables both mentor and mentee to grow and develop (Fresko

& Wertheim, 2006). Lastly, Ferguson and Snipes (1994) asserted that to establish the

most effective mentoring relationship, the mentor needs to work not only with the youth,

but with others in the youth’s life as well. Parents, teachers, mentors, and other service

providers, such as police, social workers, corrections officers, and medical professionals,

are all crucial components in assisting to develop youth. Each individual involved needs

to understand and practice methods for sustaining the development of healthy identities.

According to Schwiebert, Deck, and Bradshaw (1999), the principal

responsibilities of a mentor include: (a) to invest quality time in the mentoring

relationship; (b) to commit to the time necessary to allow for in-depth, detailed

discussion of the needs and goals of the protégé and the progress towards those goals; (c)

to continuously maintain a supportive interaction. In addition, sharing resources,

providing coaching in a non-threatening manner, encouraging and challenging the

protégé to achieve his or her goals, helping with the development of a vision, ensuring

37
that learning exists, and fostering reflective practice are key responsibilities of the

mentor (Provident, 2005).

Although parents play the most critical role in a child’s life, these relationships

may not always be positive and beneficial for the child. Therefore, it is imperative that

children have non-related adults in their lives to foster psychological resilience (Masten

& Coatworth, 1998). Relationships with parents are essential resources; however, other

adults can offer support that is parallel to the support received from a parent (Jekielek et

al., 2002). In a longitudinal study of a nationally representative sample of young adults,

DuBois and Silverthorn (2005) established that those individuals who accounted having

had a mentoring relationship during adolescence showed evidence of significantly

enhanced outcomes within the domains of education and work (high-school completion,

college attendance, employment), mental health (self-esteem, life satisfaction), problem

behavior (gang membership, fighting, risk taking), and health (exercise, birth control

use).

Types of Mentoring

Traditionally, mentoring has been classified into two categories, informal and

formal, or planned mentoring. According to Noller and Frey (1995), informal mentoring

happens naturally when an individual gives reinforcement or assists another person.

Occasionally, these informal mentorships can facilitate the exhibition of unrecognized

talents in troubled children and youth (McCluskey et al., 2004). Informal mentorships

grow out of informal relationships and interactions between older and younger

individuals. The relationships may be based on professional or non-professional issues.

38
From these interactions, protégés may illustrate the need for special attention and

support. Mentors often select protégés with whom they share common ground with and

with whom they are willing to establish and develop a relationship with (Chao, Waltz, &

Gardner, 1992).

In other instances, mentoring may be implemented in a more formal approach.

This type of planned, influential mentoring tends to be broad-based and methodical

(Noller & Frey, 1995). Normally, formal mentorships are not based on initial informal

relationships or interactions between two individuals. The match between mentor and

protégé may vary from random assignment to a formal process completed by committee

assignment or based on protégé files. In relation to informal mentors, formal mentors

may not feel it is necessary to provide the extra support. Furthermore, a longer

adjustment period may be required for the induction process between the formal mentors

and protégés (Chao, Waltz, & Gardner, 1992).

According to the National Mentoring Partnership and their “Elements of

Effective Mentoring Practices,” a successful formal mentoring process must encompass

the following: (a) recruit appropriate mentors and mentees according to the program’s

goals; (b) screen prospective mentors to ensure that they are qualified and truly

committed to the endeavor; (c) provide the necessary training to the mentors to enable

them to establish an effective mentoring relationship; (d) effective matching between

mentor and mentee to promote lasting mentoring relationships; (e) monitoring

mentorship relationship milestones and providing the necessary support and training

opportunities to the mentors; (f) facilitate a closure process that allows both parties to

39
assess the mentoring experience (MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, 2009).

Furthermore, the meta-analysis of mentoring programs conducted by DuBois, Holloway,

Valentine, and Cooper (2002) determined that the following empirically based best

practices produced the most favorable outcomes: (a) targeting the appropriate candidates

to be effective mentors; (b) conducting mentoring activities outside of the school setting

such as the workplace or community; c) mentorship program must entail a structured

process for mentors/mentees, tracking system of program progress, clear and concise

frequency of contact expectations for mentors, and parental support.

In addition to the matching of mentors and protégés, formal and informal

mentorships may differ in degree of motivation for both participants. Informal

mentorships occur due to the desire of the mentor to assist the protégé and a willingness

on the part of the protégé to be receptive to advice and coaching from the mentor.

Formal mentorships, on the other hand, sometimes entail a degree of stress; the mentor

and the protégé may be required to participate in the mentorship program as a role of

their positions. This added stress could decrease a mentor's desire to aid the protégé and

diminish the protégé’s willingness to be open to support from the mentor (Chao, Waltz,

& Gardner, 1992).

Types of Mentoring Programs

Mentoring programs are developed to meet the different needs of participants.

Becker (2004) identified six general types of mentoring programs:

40
1. Community-based programs, such as Big Brothers Big Sisters or Partners, Inc.,

all of which receive youth from numerous sources and recruit volunteers from

the community;

2. School-based programs, such as school-sponsored or district-sponsored efforts in

which the youth are identified by the campus, district, or school system, and

mentors are recruited specifically to help the mentee with academic or school

related issues;

3. Court-based programs, such as Volunteers in Probation, which assists

professional probation officers with excessive caseloads.

4. Career or hobby-based programs, such as professional or union-sponsored efforts

in which a more advanced individual assists a novice experienced person in

developing specific skills.

5. Campus-based programs, such as Campus Compact’s Campus Partners in

Learning, which are supported by colleges and universities and focus on

community service projects;

6. Church-based programs that recruit mentors from the church, and provide

benefits to community youth, special populations, or their ministry.

According to McHale (1990), 10 forms of mentoring included: mentoring in the

business community, career mentoring within specific groups as professionals or

businesses, mentoring situations that demand special training, mentoring within

educational settings, language-culture-gender or ethnic group mentoring, special

41
 needs or focus groups, group mentoring, youth-to-youth mentoring, and cross-age

intergenerational mentoring. (p. 321)

Jekielek et al. (2002) identified mentoring programs that have been evaluated by

experimental, quasi-experimental, or non-experimental methods. Most of these

programs evaluated were community based, compared to school-based, while targeting

an “at-risk” population. These programs include:

1. Across Ages, based in Philadelphia, targets 6th graders in troublesome areas for

mentoring by an older adult, with a special emphasis on preventing or reducing

substance abuse and other harmful behaviors.

2. Big Brothers Big Sisters operates nationwide. This renowned, highly structured

program targets 5-to-18-year-olds who come primarily from single parent

families.

3. The Buddy System, based in Hawaii, utilized adult community volunteers to

serve as mentors for 10-to-17-year-olds with discipline and academic problems.

4. Building Essential Life Options through New Goals (BELONG) provided

opportunities for middle school and junior-high students to be mentored by

undergraduates from Texas A& M University to improve academic performance

and prevent substance abuse.

5. Career Beginnings, targets 11th- and 12th-grade students to prepare students for

further education and future employment.

42
 6. Campus Partners in Learning, a national program in which college students

mentored 4th through 9th graders to improve academic performance and social

outcomes, while increasing the mentors’ leadership skills.

7. The Hospital Youth Mentoring Program, utilizes volunteers who work in

hospitals in cities across the nation to mentor young people (ages 14-22), to

decrease their chances of dropping out of school, introduce them to careers in the

medical field, and promote positive development.

8. Linking Lifetimes, based in Philadelphia that allowed adult mentors to mentor

“at-risk” juvenile offenders.

9. Raising Ambition Instills Self-Esteem (RAISE), a 7-year program based in

Baltimore, in which the participants began in the 6th grade and completed

academic and provides recreational activities throughout the program.

10. Sponsor-A-Scholar, focused on Philadelphia high school students that provided

academic and financial support to help students stay in school and enroll in

college.

Over the past 12 years, the nation has witnessed an overwhelming increase in

similarly focused programs that match caring, adult volunteers with youth from “at-risk”

backgrounds (Rhodes & DuBois, 2008). Although mentoring programs focus on

developing positive relationships between youths and non-parental adults, they differ

widely in their goals, youths targeted, and structure and guidelines (Karcher, Kuperminc,

Portwood, Sipe, & Taylor, 2006).

43
 Approximately three million youth are in formal one-to-one mentoring

relationships in the United States, which includes both community-based and school-

based programs, and the financial backing and development essentials serve as catalysts

for program expansion (MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership, 2006). In his 2003

State of the Union Address, President Bush proposed $450 million to mentoring junior

high students and children of prisoners (MENTOR, 2004). Since 2004, there has been a

considerable boost in federal funding for mentoring programs, with annual congressional

allocations being around $100 million (Rhodes & DuBois, 2008). This trend illustrates

the willingness of our nation to embrace the idea of mentoring “at-risk” youth and the

desire to financially support this cause.

Despite the lack of reliable scientific evidence on their effectiveness, school-

based mentoring programs have grown immensely (Portwood & Ayers, 2005). In the

Commonwealth Fund 1998 Survey of Adults Mentoring Young People, two thirds of the

mentor participants in formal programs suggested that the program was sponsored by a

school or institution (McLearn, Colasanto, & Schoen, 1998). According to DuBois and

Silverthorn (2005), aside from family members, teachers are the individuals most often

recognized as mentors. Therefore, this growth in program popularity has created a dire

need for additional knowledge and information on school-based mentoring (Portwood &

Ayres, 2005).

Effects of Mentoring on Student Achievement of Students Placed “At-Risk”

The positive effects of an effective youth mentoring program are indisputable.

According to Grossman and Rhodes (2002), evaluations of volunteer mentoring

44
programs provide confirmation of positive benefits on youth outcomes, including

academic achievement, self-concept, pro-social behaviors, and interpersonal

relationships (Davidson, Redner, Blakely, Mitchell, & Emshoff, 1987; DuBois &

Neville, 1997; Grossman & Tierney, 1998; LoSciuto, Rajala, Townsend, & Taylor,

1996). Despite a lack of information regarding how differences in the characteristics of

mentoring relationships affect youth outcomes, an increasing amount of research exists

illustrating that mentoring can positively influence young people and target many “at-

risk” behaviors (Dappen & Isernhagen, 2005; Grossman & Rhodes, 2002).

Jekielek et al. (2002) established that youth who participated in mentoring

programs experienced fewer incidents of physical violence against others, reduced drug

and alcohol use, improved relationships with parents, and a decline in teen pregnancy.

Mecca (2001) further supported these findings by asserting that mentoring decreased the

possibility of dropping out of school, helped prevent teen pregnancy, and decreased the

chances of gang membership. Moreover, in their study, King, Vidourek, Davis and

McClelland (2002) ascertained that successful school-based mentoring programs

correlate with improved school behavior, increased academic achievement, better

attendance, and an enhanced student attitude toward school. Last, Curtis and Hansen-

Schwoebel (1999) contended that a student who has experienced mentoring is more

likely to exhibit an upbeat attitude towards school, trust his/her teachers, perform at a

higher academic level, maintain a higher self esteem, and sustain positive relationships

with adults and peers.

45
 According Grossman and Rhodes (2002), youth who were involved in mentoring

relationships that exceeded a year or longer reported progress in academic, psychosocial,

and behavioral outcomes; whereas those students whose mentoring relationships failed

to last a year obtained fewer positive effects. Skiba and Wu (2004) supported this stance

by asserting that commitment to the relationship may be the most critical component of

effective mentoring. Studies of the Big Brothers Big Sisters mentoring program

recommended that the connectedness that occurs during mentoring relationships may

convey into other positive relationships with parents and adults, thereby promoting

academic achievement (Rhodes, Contreras, & Mangelsdorf, 1994). Karcher, Davis, and

Powell (2002) proposed that spelling achievement increases were initiated by the

developmental school-based mentoring program’s ability to endorse or nourish

interpersonal connectedness in the family. The presence of an effective mentor who

works to make school meaningful and fun, along with engaging school activities and a

strong instructional focus all play critical roles for a student’s achievement gains and

connectedness in the mentoring process (Karcher et al., 2002). According to the study,

“Increasing Self-Esteem and Social Connectedness Through a Multidimensional

Mentoring Program,” King et al. (2002) analyzed a mentoring program focused on

constructing relationships, improving self-esteem, creating goals, and offering academic

support for students failing 2 or more subjects in the first quarter. The findings

confirmed that positive student connections with school and family are linked to

improved student achievement, as 71% of the students that participated displayed

improvement in their grades (King et al., 2002).

46
 Thompson and Kelly-Vance (2001) analyzed the Big Brothers Big Sisters

mentoring program to determine whether or not the program had a significant impact on

the academic achievement of “at-risk” students, while utilizing a standardized

achievement instrument to measure performance. The final sample size consisted of 25

“at-risk” male youths, 12 participants in the treatment group, or mentoring group, and 13

participants in the control group. Participants in the mentoring group scored

significantly better in reading and math on the standardized instrument than the

participants who did not receive mentoring, thus leading to the conclusion that

participation in a mentoring program that has a well-established foundation has a

positive influence on academic achievement.

In addition, Tierney (1995) completed a study on the effectiveness of the Big

Brothers Big Sisters mentoring program on academic achievement. There were a total

of 959 “at-risk” participants, 487 youths in the treatment group and 472 in the control

group, ranging from 10-16 years of age. The participants were approximately 60%

males and 50% were students of color. The majority of the participants were from low

socioeconomic areas, single parent homes, or histories of violence or drug abuse in the

households. Students who had mentors were significantly less likely to be absent from

school, as those students missed 52% fewer days and 37% fewer classes. In addition,

girls who had mentors throughout the study missed 84% fewer days of schools than

those who received no mentoring. The mentored group was 46% less likely to use

drugs. Overall, the mentoring program was successful in improving the absenteeism

rates, dropout rates, relationships among adults and peers, attitudes toward completing

47
school work, self-esteems. Mentored participants were also less likely to use drugs and

commit acts of physical violence.

Although research has linked successful mentoring programs with academic

achievement for “at-risk” youth, conflicting results were present when addressing the

positive correlation (Thompson & Kelly-Vance, 2001). For example, Jekielek et al.

(2002) suggested that further research was necessary to confirm whether mentoring

improves grades. These researchers conducted analyses on mentoring programs to

gauge their levels of effectiveness. When examining the Big Brothers Big Sisters

program, they found modest gains in the participants’ GPAs over time. On the other

hand, youth who participated in the mentoring program, Across Ages, did not illustrate

significant academic improvements. Participants in the BELONG program were less

likely to fail math, but the program was not effective in other subject areas. Similarly,

Slicker and Palmer (1993) assessed the effectiveness of a school-based mentoring

program in a large, suburban school district in Texas. The authors evaluated 86 tenth

grade “at-risk” students with initial results showing that there were no differences in

dropout rates, student achievement, and self-esteem between the treatment group and the

control group. However, after post hoc tests were conducted, the findings illustrated

variations in the quality of mentoring. After categorizing the students based on effective

or ineffective mentoring practices, effectively mentored students displayed lower

dropout rates and higher GPAs than the ineffectively mentored group. These researchers

implied that the quality of mentoring efforts is critical, as it can manipulate the academic

achievement and dropout rates (Blue, 2004). Tierney (1995) added the following based

48
on their study, the “report does not provide evidence that any type of mentoring will

work, but that mentorship programs that facilitate the specific types of relationships

observed in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program work” (p. 51).

School-Based Mentoring

As the “at-risk” student population increases, the need for school-based

mentoring programs is essential. To meet this need, school-based mentoring is the

fastest growing facet of mentoring programs (Herrera, 1999). Manza (2001)

documented a 40% increase in mentoring programs from 1996 to 2001, in which 70% of

that growth was school-based programs. “Of more than 4,700 programs in a national

database of mentoring programs, approximately one in four (28%) use a school-based

format” (K. Zappie-Ferradino, personal communication, January 6, 2010) (Wheeler &

Keller, 2010, p. 3). Program objectives for school-based mentoring span from

decreasing dropouts and improving student attitudes toward school and school discipline

to improving academic grades and standardized test scores (Blum & Jones, 1993; King

et al., 2002; Slicker & Palmer, 1993; Tierney & Grossman, 1995; White-Hood, 1993).

Traditionally, school-based mentoring programs occur at a school facility and are

designed to help selected students with academic or school related issues. Herrera, Sipe,

and McClanahan (2000) suggested that school-based mentoring to “at-risk” youth

provides an optimistic counterpart to the traditional community-based model. Likewise,

using school personnel as mentors might be financially efficient, simplify program

operations, and offer opportunities for students to view school faculty in a positive

manner (Evelo, Sinclair, Hurley, Christenson, & Turlow, 1996). Furthermore, under the

49
NCLB Act of 2001, initiatives have been set forth to increase school-based mentoring

programs to meet the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Mentoring-Program by federally

funded grants to qualifying schools, which aims to improve academics, relationships

with teachers, adults, and peers, decrease the dropout rate, as well as to decrease the

crime rate and gang activity (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Dappen and

Isernhagen (2005) concluded that the motives for the transformation from the

community-based programs to school-based mentoring programs were due to the

following:

(a) Students are most accessible in the school setting;

(b) Parents are unwilling or unmotivated to refer their child for a

mentoring program;

(c) The school provides a safe haven for mentor volunteers who would

not otherwise volunteer;

(d) School-based programs are less expensive than community-based

programs;

(e) Availability of student diversity and support of the school setting

promotes student matching for cross-raced, cross-gender, and special

needs students;

(f) School-based programs have access to community resources which

allow for a more effective program (p. 22).

Research-based best practices have concluded that a successful school-based mentoring

program can be encapsulated into two phases: program development and program

50
implementation (Dappen & Isernhagen, 2005; Dubois et al., 2002; Herrera, 1999;

Weinberger, 1992). When focusing on the program development phase, several factors

must be considered. First, it is important to seek the involvement and support of all

stakeholders involved such as the superintendent, the board of education, and

administrators before entering the development phase. Next, one must identify the

mentoring program boundaries, such as a detailed plan that encompasses the goals, the

program purpose, student qualifications, grade levels, and all other possible resources

used to implement the program. Last, it is imperative to search the community to

establish the possibility of involving other partners in the process.

The implementation phase of the program must include critical steps to ensure

overall success. To begin, student recruitment information must correlate with the goals

of the program. It is also necessary that target audiences, such as service organizations,

retirees, and businesses, be considered for mentor recruitment. Next, adequate training

and support must be provided to allow the mentors to understand the scope of their role

and the overall program. In addition, precise principles that reflect the program’s goals

must be established for effective mentor/mentee matching. To maintain direction,

regular scheduled mentoring meetings must be conducted with clear and concise

expectations. Also, opportunities for celebration and recognition, along with retention

activities are vital for the program’s success. Last, program evaluation is absolute for a

superior mentoring experience.

The positive impacts of school-based mentoring potentially exist for all

stakeholders involved in the process. Successful school based mentoring programs can

51
not only be advantageous to the mentees, but also to the entire school, by creating social

support networks that incorporate compassionate adults from the nearby community

(Solomon, Watson, Battistich, Schaps, & Delucchi, 1996). These networks can establish

a sense of community for students, which promotes improved levels of school

connectedness for students, shielding them from unfavorable behaviors (Battistich &

Hom, 1997; Portwood, Ayers, Kinninson, Waris, & Wise, 2005; Simons-Morton,

Crump, Haynie, & Saylor, 1999). Furthermore, according to Karcher (2008), DuBois et

al. (2002) and Grossman and Rhodes (2002) proposed that school-based mentoring

relationships might promote connectedness to teachers, classmates, and even to

culturally different peers when matches are cross cultural (Sanchez & Colon, 2005). In

addition, evidence of positive relationships was present in school-based mentoring, and

this relational development is the first step toward accomplishing positive impacts

(Herrera et al., 2000).

Teachers as Mentors

Portwood and Ayers (2005) claimed that teachers might be the best possible

mentors for most students. This claim is further supported in the study conducted by

Chambers and Huggins (2014). In this study, the stories that students shared about their

relationships with teachers and campus personnel revealed that the influences of teachers

and staff proved to be the most impactful aspect in helping or hindering their academic

success. In addition, DuBois and Silverthorn (2005) suggested that mentors with

educational backgrounds may have an advantage in promoting outcomes such as college

attendance and decreasing the risk of drug use. Furthermore, social support from

52
teachers and school faculty has been directly related to increased levels of academic

achievement (Malecki & Demaray, 2000). Portwood and Ayers (2005) suggested that

students may see their teachers as role models for learning. Based on this viewpoint and

teachers’ proximity, it is easy to understand why students often seek mentoring-type

advice from their teachers and establish informal-type mentoring relationships (Bisland,

2001; Dubois & Silverthorn, 2005).

Summary

This literature review focused on the characteristics of students placed “at-risk”

and the effects that mentoring has on this population group. Despite the lack of research

relative to the effects of school-based mentoring on junior high school students and

student achievement, the existing literature supports the need for this study. The

literature undoubtedly illustrates the impacts that positive mentoring relationships have

on “at-risk” youth. With the “at-risk” youth population increasing, the need for

mentoring programs is essential. This can be explained by the growth of school-based

mentoring programs in recent years. Although these programs can be beneficial, it is

important to understand the intricate details and components of a quality mentoring

relationship and program. The literature supports this position by illustrating the

positive outcomes of a well designed mentoring program and purposeful mentoring

relationship.

The literature exemplifies that mentoring remains a popular and effective

intervention for “at-risk” youth. With positive mentoring relationships as the

foundation, student achievement can improve with increased attendance, improved

53
relationships with teachers, parents, and peers, improve academic performance, decrease

chances of drug use or violent activity, increase communication and decision-making

skills, and decrease likelihood of dropping out. While existing literature demonstrates

positive results for school-based mentoring, there is an apparent need to evaluate student

outcomes more fully and with increased accuracy (Portwood et al., 2005). The question

of whether school-based mentoring programs that are confined to the school

environment produce meaningful outcomes should continue to be explored (Portwood et

al., 2005). In addition, although Dubois et al. (2002) revealed that even thorough

school-based mentoring program evaluations are open to biased outcome measures, they

advocated that future studies should include objective measures such as archival criminal

or behavioral records and educational achievements to evaluate the effectiveness of the

programs (Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft 2009). Therefore, the literature demands the

need for this study to contribute to the existing body of research on this topic.

54
 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Overview

This chapter includes an overview of the methodology used to conduct the

research on the effects that school-based mentoring has on student achievement for

junior high school students. The chapter is divided into six sections. The first section of

this chapter will provide a description of the research design used by this study of the

ISAGE school-based mentoring program. In addition, this section contains the research

questions that directed the study along with descriptions of the independent and

dependent variables. The second section explains the context of the study. The third

section includes the subjects utilized in the study, including descriptions of the mentors

and mentees. Next, the data collection instruments used throughout the study will be

discussed. Last, the types of data analysis tools that will be used to answer the research

questions will be explained.

Research Design

To address the research questions established by the ISAGE school-based

mentoring study, a retrospective quasi-experimental, non-equivalent comparison group

design (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007) was used. This type of research design was selected

because the independent variable, school-based mentoring, is categorical, and the

dependent variables are continuous. The dependent variables in this study were: (a)

attendance, (b) discipline referrals, (c) report card grade averages in core courses, (d)

TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) Mathematics scale scores, and (e)

55
TAKS Reading scale scores. A non-equivalent comparison group design was selected

because random assignment was not possible due to mentors voluntarily selecting their

mentees. For those mentors who did not select a mentee, they were assigned mentees by

the campus principal. Due to a shortage of available mentors, additional eligible

students were placed on a waiting list or control group. The treatment and control group

are non-equivalent because, without random assignment, it is not possible to ensure that

both groups are equivalent to one another in regards to the pretest values of the

dependent variables (Gall et al., 2007).

Similar to the Dupuis (2012) study, age and gender of the mentees were used as

the control variables in this dissertation research. Grossman and Rhodes (2002)

documented that mentor/mentee matches serving older youth, ages 13-16 years, were

more likely to terminate than were mentor/mentee matches serving younger individuals,

ages 10-12 years. Grossman and Rhodes (2002) asserted that older youth experience

more abbreviated mentoring relationships due to developmental changes that occur

throughout adolescence. Furthermore, Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, Feldman, and

McMaken (2007) determined through a rigorous nationwide evaluation of the Big

Brothers Big Sisters program that students in a secondary setting might benefit more

academically from mentoring than elementary youth. Accordingly, student age was

included as a control variable because it has the potential to influence the intimacy and

duration of mentoring relationships, as well as the potential to impact academic

performance.

56
 Gender was also controlled in this study as the literature indicates its influence on

the dependent variables posed by this study. The social identities of males and females

are different, and it is likely that these variations affect their mentoring experiences

(Darling, Bogar, Cavell, Murphy, & Sanchez, 2006). For example, girls may be more

closely associated with family during their teenage years, especially in more intimate,

interpersonal matters (Larson, Richards, Moneta, Holmbeck, & Duckett, 1996), and

girls’ relationships are more likely than are boys’ relationships to be exemplified by

emotional closeness (Buhrmester, 1990; Clark & Ayers, 1993). Personal relationships

are more significant in the lives of girls (Chodorow, 1987; Jack, 1991; Jordan, Kaplan,

Miller, Stiver, & Surrey, 1991), and good quality relationships are more likely to affect

girls’ psychosocial outcomes than boys’ psychosocial outcomes (Berndt & Keefe, 1995),

including depression (Greenberger, Chen, & Beam, 1998; Jack, 1991). Boys and girls

also seek out peers and parental support differently for guidance in solving interpersonal

and other problems (Sullivan, Marshall, & Schonert-Reichl, 2002). Thus, girls’ natural

social networks are more likely to be characterized by devoted emotional relationships,

which they are more likely to utilize in times of need and which affect them more

strongly than boys (Darling et al., 2006). Portwood et al. (2005) posited that “the effects

the effects of mentoring by gender should continue to be explored to determine not only

how outcomes may differ, but also how various components of the mentoring

relationship (e.g., type of mentoring activity, duration) may impact these outcomes” (p.

142).

57
Research Questions

In this investigation, the following research questions were addressed:

1. What is the difference in report card grade averages in core classes (i.e.,

English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies) between students

who participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who

were in the control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the

2009-2010 school year?

2. What is the difference in attendance between students who participated in the

school-based mentoring program and students who were in the control group

during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

3. What is the difference in discipline referrals between students who

participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who were in

the control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-

2010 school year?

4. What is the difference in the TAKS Mathematics test scores between students

who participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who

were in the control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the

2009-2010 school year?

5. What is the difference in the TAKS Reading test scores between students

who participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who

were in the control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the

2009-2010 school year?

58
Context

The setting for this study was two junior high schools located in a suburban

school district, Utopia ISD, of the southwestern United States. Utopia ISD is a

pseudonym for the actual school district involved in the study. Utopia ISD has

experienced a tremendous amount of growth in the past 20 years. Over a 15 year span

alone, Utopia ISD has realized a student enrollment increase of 158%, going from 4,600

students in 1995 to approximately 11,800 students in 2010. In addition, the district has

seen a 237% growth in the number of economically disadvantaged students, going from

approximately 1,400 to almost 4,900 students over this same period. In regard to ethnic

distribution of the district, Utopia ISD has witnessed a 539% increase in their Hispanic

student population over this 15 year period, going from approximately 500 Hispanic

students in 1995 to 3,100 in 2010. The African American student population has

decreased by 78%, with approximately 110 students in 1995 and 24 students in 2010.

Last, the White student population has increased by 109%, going from approximately

3,900 students in 1995 to almost 8,150 in 2010.

The two junior high schools included in this study schools had enrollments of

approximately 920 students in Grades 7 and 8. Junior High School “A” was located on

the west side of the district, whereas Junior High School “B” was located on the east

side. School “A” had an ethnic breakdown of; 70% White, 25% Hispanic, 3% African

American, and 2% Other. The school had an economically disadvantaged student

population of 47%. School “B” had an ethnic breakdown of; 72% White, 22% Hispanic,

2% African American, and 4% Other. The school had an economically disadvantaged

59
student population of 29%. In this research investigation, 72 students were included.

Gender, ethnicity, and economically disadvantaged status was not taken into account in

the selection of participants for this research.

The schools began the ISAGE school-based mentoring program during the 2010-

11 school year. To qualify for inclusion in the mentoring program, students were

identified as “at-risk” due to being classified in Scenarios 11, 12, 16, or 17 based on

INOVA data. The INOVA tool was a data-driven instructional tool that connected

standardized test results with instructional intervention. Students were classified in the

aforementioned scenarios due to experiencing a drop in their scale scores on their Math

or Reading TAKS test in the 2009-10 school year. Approximately 110 students met the

criteria for inclusion in the mentoring program.

The purpose of the ISAGE program was to provide an individualized

psycho/social intervention program supporting student mentees to improve their

academic performance, attendance rate, completion rate, and scores on the Reading and

Mathematics Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) tests for students “at-

risk” of academic and social failure based on the INOVA data mentioned above.

Students were required to receive parent consent to participate in the mentoring program.

Participants

Mentees. The sample size for this study was 72 “at-risk” junior high school

students within the Utopia Independent School District. The 72 students were either

placed in a treatment group (n = 36) or on a waiting list (i.e., control group) (n = 36).

Students were placed in the treatment group by using non-random selection. Of the 72

60
students, 39 were female and 33 were male; 24 students were in Grade 7 during the

2010-11 school year and 48 students were in Grade 8. Of the 72 students in this research

investigation, 54 of the students attended Junior High School “A” in Utopia ISD,

whereas 18 of the mentees attended Junior High School “B.” Table 1 gives the

distribution of the demographic variables of the mentees.

Table 1

Distribution of Mentee Demographic Variables

Demographic Characteristic n %
Gender
Female 39 54
Male 33 46
Grade
7th Grade 24 33
8th Grade 48 67
Ethnicity
White 44 61
Hispanic 21 29
African American 1 1
2 or More Races 6 8

Mentors. Any teacher interested in becoming a mentor in the ISAGE mentoring

program was able to apply. They were required to complete an application and submit it

to the campus principal. The campus principal was responsible for matching the

mentors and the mentees. Specific criteria were present to participate as a mentor in the

ISAGE mentoring program. These criteria included: (a) Must serve as a full-time

classroom teacher ; (b) Must attend a preliminary interest session regarding the ISAGE

61
program; (c) Must complete a mentor application and submit to principal; (d) Must

attend a best practices training and sign a release form; (e) Must complete a student

survey with their respective mentee(s); (f) Must meet with mentee(s) one hour per week;

(g) Monitor and document core class grades, attendance and discipline referrals through

teacher contact every 3 weeks; (h) Contact the key person(s) in the mentee’s life each 9

weeks; and (i) Must complete all documentation forms and submit to the campus

principal.

As mentioned previously, the mentors must have been current certified teachers

in the Utopia ISD. As defined in Texas Education Code 5.001(2), “classroom teacher”

means an educator who is employed by a school district and who, not less than an

average of 4 hours each day, teaches in academic instructional setting or a career and

technology setting. The term does not include a teacher’s aide or a full-time

administrator.

Mentors were awarded stipends for their participation in the program. All

mentors who satisfactorily completed the required documentation and activities were

awarded a $500 stipend, payable on July 1, 2011. For mentors who were mentoring

Grade 7 students, if they moved individual mentees 2011 Math TAKS data scenario

from baseline to center or any advancement on the continuum, then they were awarded

an additional $1,605, payable in September 2011. For mentors who were mentoring

Grade 8 students, if they moved individual mentees 2011 Math and/or Science TAKS

data scenario from baseline to center or any advancement on the continuum, then they

62
 were awarded $803 for Math and/or $802 for Science, payable in September 2011.

Mentors were awarded for each of their assigned mentees who met the target(s).

There were a total of 24 mentors that participated in the mentoring program. Of

the 24 mentors, 20 were female and 4 were male. See Table 2 for the distribution of the

mentor demographic variables. Mentors were given the opportunity to choose their

mentee(s) from a list of eligible mentees created by the INOVA data. The mentoring

relationship between the teacher and student lasted from approximately mid-October

2010 until the end of May 2011.

Table 2

Distribution of Mentor Demographic Variables

Demographic Characteristic n %
Gender
Female 20 83
Male 4 17
Teaching Experience
0 Years 0 0
1-5 Years 4 17
6-10 Years 7 29
11-20 Years 5 21
Over 20 Years 8 33
Ethnicity
African-American 0 0
White 23 96
Hispanic 1 4

63
Measures

In this section of Chapter III, how the key variables were measured in the ISAGE

study will be described. Key variables in this investigation were: student report card grade

average in core subjects; scale scores on the reading and math TAKS tests; attendance; and

discipline referrals. Student report card grade averages were collected for their core

academic classes (i.e., English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies). Pre and

post academic data were retrieved for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years from

computerized student records. The TAKS Math and Reading scale scores were available

through computerized student records. Pre and post standardized testing data for the 2009-

2010 and 2010-2011 school years were retrieved for all students involved in this study.

Attendance was measured by the number of days each student was absent from

school and the number of times tardy to school. Pre and post attendance data were retrieved

for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years from computerized student records.

Discipline was calculated by the number of times a student was assigned out-of-school

suspension, in-school suspension, and detention. Pre and post discipline data were also

retrieved for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years from computerized student records.

Finally, mentor and mentee demographic information was retrieved via student and

employee computerized records.

Procedures

A total of 72 “at-risk” junior high school students in Grades 7 and 8 in Utopia

ISD consented to participate in the ISAGE school-based mentoring study. Students were

identified as “at-risk” and eligible for the ISAGE school-based mentoring program from

INOVA data, a data-driven instructional tool utilized by the district. Upon receiving
64
consent, students were assigned a mentor in the treatment group based on their level of

need or personal connections already established with staff members who requested to

mentor these specific students. Students who did not already have an informal

mentoring relationship in place with a teacher or who were not matched with a teacher

after the mentoring pairs were established were placed on a waiting list (i.e., control

group). The study and control groups were equivalent groups based on similar inclusion

criteria determined by the INOVA data, which includes students being classified within

Scenarios 11, 12, 16, or 17.

Consent to participate in the study was obtained by face-to-face or phone

communication, notifying parents/guardians that their child has been selected to

participate in the program. In addition, parents were also mailed a notification letter

informing them of their child’s selection into the ISAGE program. All consent

communication was monitored by the ISAGE campus coordinators of both junior high

school campuses.

Prior to the mentor/mentee matching, aspiring ISAGE mentor teachers were

required to complete an application process. Once the campus principal selected the

appropriate mentors for the program, the matching process was completed. Upon

meeting with their mentees, the mentors were required to attend a best practices training

and sign a mentor release statement confirming that they would abide by the rules and

regulations of the ISAGE mentoring program.

The quantitative data collection was completed by the mentors throughout the

entire duration of the mentoring relationship utilizing existing instruments. These

65
instruments were created by the district committee responsible for the development and

implementation of the ISAGE program in Utopia ISD. The mentors were responsible

for submitting their quantitative data to the campus principal at the end of every grading

period, or every nine weeks. They were also responsible for recording and documenting

the mentee’s attendance, discipline information, academic grades, and their

mentor/mentee contact log as part of the data collection procedures. The data collection

process began in October 2010 and ended at the conclusion of the 2010-2011 school

year, or the end of May 2011.

Data Analysis

To determine the extent to which statistically significant differences were present

between students in the school-based mentoring program and students in the control

group for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years, inferential statistical procedures

were used. Because two independent groups of students were present and because the

dependent variables were interval level data, a two-way mixed analysis of variance

(ANOVA) statistical procedure was used. A mixed ANOVA compares the mean

differences between groups that have been split on two "factors" (also known as

independent variables), where one factor is a "within-subjects" factor and the other

factor is a "between-subjects" factor. The primary purpose of a mixed ANOVA is to

determine if there is an interaction between these two factors on the dependent variable

(“Mixed ANOVA,” n.d., para. 1).

For the first research question involving report card grade average differences

in four core classes (i.e., English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies)

66
between students who participated in the school-based mentoring program and students

who were in the control group, four separate two-way ANOVAs were calculated, with

repeated measures on the 8 grading periods over the two year time period. In each case,

two groups were present and the dependent variable of grade point average constituted

interval level data. The conventional alpha level of .05 was used to determine the

presence of statistical significance for these statistical analyses. That is, an alpha level

of .05 or below was interpreted to mean that the difference between the averages of these

two groups was highly unlikely to have occurred by chance.

With respect to the second research question regarding attendance between

students who participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who were

in the control group, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA was calculated. Again, two

student groups were present and the dependent variable of attendance constituted

interval level data. The conventional alpha level of .05 was again used to determine the

presence of statistical significance for these statistical analyses.

Regarding the third research question on discipline referrals between students

who participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who were in the

control group, a two-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted. Two student

groups are again present and the dependent variable of discipline referrals comprised

ratio level data. Congruent with the inferential statistical analyses for the first two

research questions, an alpha level of .05, customary in educational research, was used to

determine the presence of statistical significance.

67
 Finally, for the last two research questions involving TAKS Math and Reading

scale scores for students who participated in the school-based mentoring program and

students, two two-way repeated measures ANOVAs was calculated; one for each subject

area. Two student groups were again present, and the dependent variables of the TAKS

Math and Reading scale scores constituted interval level data. The conventional alpha

level of .05 was used to infer the presence of statistically significant results for these

analyses.

For any statistically significant results at the .05 level, the effect size or practical

significance was ascertained. Not only is it important to know whether a result is highly

unlikely to have occurred by chance, it is also very important to know the importance or

relevance of the result. Reporting effect sizes is beneficial because “they provide an

objective measure of the importance of an effect” (Field, 2005, p. 32). To what extent

does the result matter? In the case of this research investigation, the effect size can

provide information on the magnitude of the impact of the school-based mentoring

program. Because two-way repeated measures ANOVA were calculated to answer the

research questions, Wilks’ Lambda (λ) distribution constituted the effect size metric. A

Wilks’ λ distribution aims to test whether there are differences between the means of

identified groups of subjects on a combination of dependent variables.

68
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the ISAGE school-

based mentoring program for junior high school students in Grades 7 and 8 in Utopia

ISD, which is located in a southwestern United States, suburban school district. This

study occurred over a two-year period, during the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years, in

which the school years began at the end of August and lasted until the end of May. Used

in this study were current junior high school teachers, who operated within the

constraints of the traditional junior high school schedule for “at-risk” junior high school

students. The study aimed to add to the body of research on school-based mentoring

programs at the junior high school level and extend the research on interventions in

secondary school settings.

This chapter includes the results of this study. Results of data analysis are

presented in the order in which the research questions were tested. The dependent

variables included report card grade averages in core classes, attendance, discipline

referrals, TAKS Math scale scores, and TAKS Reading scale scores. For these

variables, a two-way, repeated measures mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA), with

repeated measures on time, was used. The statistical analyses were performed in the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 22.0.0, to analyze group

differences, changes across times, and the possible interaction effect of group

membership with change across time. Prior to conducting the analysis, dependent

69
variables were inspected to screen data for normality and homogeneity of

variance/covariance matrices. Assumptions for performing repeated measures ANOVA

were met. For all analyses conducted, alpha was set at a value of .05.

In this study, the following research questions were addressed:

1. What is the difference in report card grade averages in core classes (i.e.,

English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies) between students

who participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who

were in the control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the

2009-2010 school year?

2. What is the difference in attendance between students who participated in the

school-based mentoring program and students who were in the control group

during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

3. What is the difference in discipline referrals between students who

participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who were in

the control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-

2010 school year?

4. What is the difference in the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and

Skills) Mathematics scale scores between students who participated in the

school-based mentoring program and students who were in the control group

during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

5. What is the difference in the TAKS Reading scale scores between students

who participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who

70
 were in the control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the

2009-2010 school year?

Research Question #1

What is the difference in report card grade averages in core classes (i.e.,

English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies) between students who

participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who were in the

control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school

year?

A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyze the effects of

mentoring on student’s report card grade averages in English/Language Arts, Math,

Science, and Social Studies. Report card grading periods were based on a nine week

grading period, making four grading periods for Year 1 and four grading periods for

Year 2. Therefore, there were 8 grading periods, which were the repeated measures in

this analysis. Multivariate tests and descriptive statistics were evaluated to determine if

any significant differences or interactions exist in report card grades for the four core

subjects in either the treatment or control groups from Year 1 to Year 2.

Upon analysis of the English/Language Arts statistics, it was concluded that no

statistically significant interaction exists, Wilks’ λ = .946, F (7, 64) = .526, p = .812, η2 =

.054. An illustration of the non-interaction is displayed in Figure 1. In addition, there

were no significant main effects on the groups or time using both the between-subjects

and within-subjects testing. The means and standard deviations for report card grade

averages for English/Language Arts are reported in Table 3. The means for report card

71
grades for the four grading periods for the treatment group for Year 1 and Year 2 can be

seen in Figure 2. Conversely, the means for Year 1 and Year 2 for the four report card

grade averages for the control group are illustrated in Figure 3. In summary, the report

card grade averages were not significantly different through time for either the treatment

or control groups. Last, when looking at the standard deviations as reported in Table 3, a

reduction in variability occurs for both groups as the school years conclude. This

reduction in variability will be discussed in further detail in Chapter V.

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations for English/Language Arts Report Card Averages for
Participants
Grading
Time Period Group M SD N
Year 1 1 Treatment 80.14 15.31 36
Control 78.72 16.05 36
2 Treatment 78.36 14.90 36
Control 77.61 16.94 36
3 Treatment 77.75 8.02 36
Control 76.78 16.11 36
4 Treatment 78.22 7.85 36
Control 79.36 7.45 36
Year 2 1 Treatment 79.61 15.71 36
Control 81.14 6.40 36
2 Treatment 80.22 15.48 36
Control 81.50 6.64 36
3 Treatment 81.94 6.39 36
Control 81.97 5.03 36
4 Treatment 83.25 6.52 36
Control 80.61 9.24 36

72
Figure 1. English/Language Arts Report Card Grade Averages

73
Figure 2. English/Language Arts Treatment Group Report Card Grade Averages

74
Figure 3. English/Language Arts Control Report Card Grade Averages

After reviewing the statistics for the report card averages for Mathematics, it was

concluded that no statistically significant interaction exists, Wilks’ λ = .632, F (7, 64) =

.728, p = .728, η2 = .065. An illustration of the non-interaction is displayed in Figure 4.

Similar to English/Language Arts, there were no significant main effects on the groups

or time using both the between-subjects and within-subjects testing. The means and

standard deviations for report card grade averages for Mat

Mathematics
hematics are reported in Table

75
4. The means for report card grades for the four grading periods for the treatment group

in Year 1 and Year 2 can be seen in Figure 5. On the other hand, the means in Year 1

and Year 2 for the four report card grade averages for the control group are shown in

Figure 6. Despite no group effect, the means for the treatment group were higher than

those of the control group for 6 out of the 8 grading periods during the two year period.

In addition, similar to the variances in the English/Language Arts results, the variability

is less at the end of both years for the Mathematics report card averages.

Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations for Math Report Card Averages for Participants
Grading
Time Period Group M SD N
Year 1 1 Treatment 78.92 15.81 36
Control 77.11 15.42 36
2 Treatment 75.92 15.66 36
Control 73.83 14.59 36
3 Treatment 76.81 8.86 36
Control 74.03 15.21 36
4 Treatment 76.22 9.16 36
Control 75.22 9.39 36
Year 2 1 Treatment 74.86 19.48 36
Control 76.94 8.21 36
2 Treatment 73.31 19.80 36
Control 73.53 8.41 36
3 Treatment 78.19 9.37 36
Control 75.33 10.47 36
4 Treatment 81.08 8.42 36
Control 76.72 9.92 36

76
Figure 4. Math Report Card Grade Averages

77
Figure 5. Math Treatment Group Report Card Grade Averages

78
Figure 6. Math Control Group Report Card Grade Averages

Last, similar to English/Language Arts and Math, the statistical analysis for

Science report card grade averages found no significant interaction to exist between the

treatment and control groups over time, Wilks’ λ = .856, F (7, 64) = 1.536, p = .171, η2 =

.042. An illustration of the non-interaction is displayed in Figure 7. In addition, there

were no significant main effects on the groups or time using both the between-subjects

and within-subjects testing. The means and standard deviations for report card grade

79
averages for Science are reported in Table 5. The means for report card grades for the

four grading periods for the treatment group in Year 1 and Year 2 are shown in Figure 8.

In addition, the means and standard deviations in Year 1 and Year 2 for the four report

card grade averages for the control group are illustrated in Figure 9. Although the mean

averages for the treatment group remained higher throughout the two years, both groups

followed similar patterns. Both groups’ averages increased and decreased at almost

identical levels for six out of the eight grading periods.

Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations for Science Report Card Averages for Participants
Grading
Time Period Group M SD N
Year 1 1 Treatment 78.67 15.65 36
Control 77.58 15.45 36
2 Treatment 79.61 15.49 36
Control 76.25 15.16 36
3 Treatment 80.89 5.44 36
Control 76.61 5.44 36
4 Treatment 78.14 7.29 36
Control 78.06 8.62 36
Year 2 1 Treatment 78.75 14.63 36
Control 81.64 7.04 36
2 Treatment 76.69 14.59 36
Control 76.92 9.14 36
3 Treatment 77.64 10.73 36
Control 74.03 11.38 36
4 Treatment 78.97 8.12 36
Control 78.75 7.92 36

80
Figure 7. Science Report Card Grade Averages

81
Figure 8. Science Treatment Group Report Card Grade Averages

82
Figure 9. Science Control Group Report Card Grade Averages

Regarding the Social Studies report card grade averages, the multivariate tests

revealed no significant interaction between the groups over time, Wilks’ λ = .958, F (7,

64) = .405, p = .896, η2 = .042. An illustration of the non-interaction is displayed in

Figure 10. In addition, there were no significant main effects on the groups or time

using both the between-subjects and within-subjects testing. The means and standard

deviations for report card grade averages for Social Studies are reported in Table 6. The

83
means for report card grades for the four grading periods for the treatment group in Year

1 and Year 2 can be seen in Figure 11. Conversely, the means in Year 1 and Year 2 for

the four report card grade averages for the control group are illustrated in Figure 12.

Although the mean averages for the treatment group remained higher throughout the two

years, both groups followed similar patterns. Both groups’ averages increased and

decreased at almost identical levels for six out of the eight grading periods.

Table 6

Means and Standard Deviations for Social Studies Report Card Averages for
Participants
Grading
Time Period Group M SD N
Year 1 1 Treatment 81.56 16.21 36
Control 79.53 15.71 36
2 Treatment 79.83 16.13 36
Control 78.17 15.43 36
3 Treatment 81.89 8.35 36
Control 78.92 15.59 36
4 Treatment 82.39 9.17 36
Control 80.75 7.16 36
Year 2 1 Treatment 81.94 15.92 36
Control 80.78 8.48 36
2 Treatment 79.39 15.20 36
Control 77.19 8.25 36
3 Treatment 83.17 9.03 36
Control 78.11 8.49 36
4 Treatment 82.75 6.90 36
Control 78.39 8.03 36

84
Figure 10. Social Studies Report Card Grade Averages

85
Figure 11. Social Studies Treatment Group Report Card Grade Averages

86
Figure 12. Social Studies Control Group Report Card Grade Averages

Research Question #2

What is the difference in attendance between students who participated in the school-

based mentoring program and students who were in the control group during the 2010-

2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the impact of

mentoring on school attendance. Furthermore, the attendance of students in the

87
treatment group was compared with that of students in the control group over a

consecutive two school-year period.

There was no statistically significant interaction between group means, Wilks’ λ

= .999, F (1, 69) = .07, p = .80, η2 = .001. An illustration of the non-interaction is

displayed in Figure 13. When analyzing the between-subjects effects, it was found that a

significant group effect exists, F (1, 69) = 4.03, p = .049, η2 = .055. The means and

standard deviation for attendance data are reported in Table 7. Although not statistically

significant, the number of absences slightly decreased across time for the students in the

treatment group, while slightly increasing for those in the control group. Interestingly,

over both periods of time, absenteeism was lower for the treatment group. Illustrated in

Figure 13, students who were included in the treatment group had a lower mean for

absenteeism for 2010-2011 than students in the control group over the same period of

time, respectively.

Table 7

Means and Standard Deviations for Participants’ Absences

Time Group M SD N
Year 1 Treatment 4.60 2.79 36
Control 6.06 4.95 36
Year 2 Treatment 4.54 3.82 36
Control 6.31 4.86 36

88
Figure 13. Average Number of Absences

Research Question #3

What is the difference in discipline referrals between students who participated in the

school-based mentoring program and students who were in the control group during the

2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the impact of

mentoring on the number of school discipline referrals. Moreover, the number of

89
discipline referrals for mentored students was compared with that of non-mentored

students over a consecutive two school-year period.

A statistically significant interaction effect exists between the treatment group

and control group over time, Wilks’ λ = .935, F (1, 70) = 4.89, p = .03, η2 = .065. An

illustration of the interaction is displayed in Figure 14. The means and standard

deviation for the discipline referral data are reported in Table 8. As one can see, the

means between both groups beginning in Year 1 were relatively similar. After Year 2,

the impact of the mentoring was evident as the mean number of discipline referrals for

the control group increased significantly, while the mean for the treatment group

remained almost unchanged.

Table 8

Means and Standard Deviations for Participants’ Discipline Referrals

Time Group M SD N
Year 1 Treatment 2.86 7.06 36
Control 2.03 4.26 36
Year 2 Treatment 2.64 10.05 36
Control 4.89 7.95 36

90
Figure 14. Average Number of Discipline Referrals

Research Question #4

What is the difference in the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills)

Mathematics scale scores between students who participated in the school-based

mentoring program and students who were in the control group during the 2010-2011

school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

91
 A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the impact of

mentoring on TAKS Mathematics scale scores. The researcher was interested to see if

participating in a mentor program caused a significant difference in the post-test TAKS

scores for the mentees when compared to their TAKS Math scale scores administered

the year before, prior to the mentoring occurring. Additionally, the researcher aimed to

determine if there was significant growth from the pre-test and post-test periods for both

the treatment and control groups.

A statistically significant interaction effect exists between the treatment and

control groups, Wilks’ λ = .941, F (1, 70) = 4.37, p = .04, η2 = .059. An illustration of

the interaction is displayed in Figure 15. The means and standard deviation for the

TAKS Math scale scores are reported in Table 9. At Year 1, the means for the treatment

and control groups were basically the same. At Year 2, there was a significant increase

in the TAKS Math scores for the treatment group, while the scores for the control group

remained almost unchanged. The means and standard deviations for both groups can be

found in Table 9.

Table 9

Means and Standard Deviations for TAKS Math Participants

Time Group M SD N
Year 1 Treatment 650.78 19.31 36
Control 656.22 22.24 36
Year 2 Treatment 711.36 51.88 36
Control 672.11 123.43 36

92
Figure 15. Math TAKS Average Scale Scores

Research Question #5

What is the difference in the TAKS Reading scale scores between students who

participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who were in the

control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school

year?

93
 A two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine the impact of

mentoring on TAKS Reading scale scores. The researcher was interested to see if

participating in a mentor program caused a significant difference in the post-test TAKS

scores for the mentees when compared to their TAKS Reading scale scores administered

the year before, prior to the mentoring occurring. Additionally, the researcher aimed to

determine if there was significant growth from the pre-test and post-test periods for both

the treatment and control groups.

After analysis, it was determined that no statistically significant interaction effect

exists between the group means of the treatment and control groups, Wilks’ λ = .980, F

(1, 68) = 1.39, p = .24, η2 = .02. An illustration of the non-interaction is displayed in

Figure 16. Although no interaction exists, the within-subjects test revealed a significant

change in reading levels for both groups, F (1, 68) = 13.30, p = .001. The means and

standard deviation for the TAKS Reading scale scores are reported in Table 10. At Year

1, the means for the treatment and control groups were approximately 45 points apart.

At the conclusion of Year 2, the gap was closed considerably, as the means for both

groups were only separated by approximately 16 points.

Table 10

Means and Standard Deviations for Reading TAKS Participants

Time Group M SD N
Year 1 Treatment 700.44 59.49 34
Control 745.28 280.40 36
Year 2 Treatment 758.21 77.01 34
Control 774.81 277.80 36

94
Figure 16. Reading TAKS Average Scale Scores

Summary

The findings of the study indicated that the ISAGE program showed significant

effects in the number of student’s discipline referrals along with the TAKS Math scale

scores. No significant differences were observed for mentees’ report card grade

averages in core classes, attendance, or TAKS Reading scale scores. Chapter V will

explore the findings in further detail, offering explanations as to why the mentoring

95
program failed to statistically impact certain variables. In addition, implications and

limitations along with future recommendations for future studies will be discussed.

96
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

The ISAGE study examined the impact of a comprehensive school-based

mentoring program on the following variables: core academic report card grade

averages, attendance, discipline referrals, and TAKS scale scores in Math and Reading.

This study used quantitative research instruments, in which the primary source of data

was derived from instruments created locally to record information pertaining to the

dependent variables. In addition, standardized test scores were retrieved from

computerized student records. Mentors were required to record the quantitative data

throughout the duration of the mentoring relationship. This study covered a consecutive

two year span, which included the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. The

following research questions guided this study:

1. What is the difference in report card grade averages in core classes (i.e.,

English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies) between students

who participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who were

in the control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-

2010 school year?

2. What is the difference in attendance between students who participated in the

school-based mentoring program and students who were in the control group

during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

97
 3. What is the difference in discipline referrals between students who participated

in the school-based mentoring program and students who were in the control

group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

4. What is the difference in the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and

Skills) Mathematics scale scores between students who participated in the

school-based mentoring program and students who were in the control group

during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

5. What is the difference in the TAKS Reading scale scores between students

who participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who were

in the control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-

2010 school year?

This chapter will include a description of major findings for each research

question, as well as how these findings compare to past research and previous studies

regarding mentoring “at-risk” youth. This will be followed by the implications and

limitations of this study and will conclude with recommendations and suggestions for

further studies.

Research Question #1

What is the difference in report card grade averages in core classes (i.e.,

English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies) between students who

participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who were in the

control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school

year?

98
 The first research question focused on whether there was significant difference in

academic performance as measured by report card grade averages in the four core areas

(English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies) between mentored and non-

mentored students. The data utilized were the participant’s averages from each grading

period throughout Year 1 and Year 2 for all four subjects, which consisted of 4 grading

periods per year.

The results for all four core report card averages revealed there were no

significant differences between the treatment and control groups across the two year

period. In addition, the outcomes indicated no significant differences within each group

across time as well. Overall, this study revealed that students did not see any significant

change based on their participation in the ISAGE mentor program. Despite fluctuations

in the report card averages throughout the two year period, there were no substantial

improvements in any subject for either group from start to finish.

For English/Language Arts and Math, both groups began Year 1 with similar

means, with a difference of only 1.42 points in English/Language Arts and a difference

of 1.81 points in Math, respectively. Both groups exhibited similar trends throughout

the grading periods, with the English/Language Arts averages decreasing from grading

periods 1-3 in Year 1, while the Math report card averages for both groups decreased

from periods 1-2 in Year 1 and 5-6 in Year 2. For the most part, the treatment and

control groups for each subject showed a steady increase throughout the remainder of the

grading periods to finish 2.64 points apart at the last grading period for

English/Language Arts and 4.36 points apart in Math. Despite small in nature, both

99
groups showed overall improvement in English/Language Arts and Math report card

averages from the start of Year 1 until the end of Year 2.

Even though no significant interaction existed with the Science report card

averages, the results indicated the most opposite trends for the treatment and control

groups than in any other content area. For Year 1, the groups exhibited an inverse

relationship in means until having only a .08 points difference at the final grading

period. During Year 2, both groups increased and decreased in means during the first

and second grading periods, while showing opposite results for the third grading period.

Last, both groups increased for the final grading period of Year 2, with the treatment

group finishing only .22 points higher than the control group.

For Social Studies, the trends in the means for report card averages for the

treatment and control groups were almost identical for the two year period. Both groups

increased and declined in their means throughout all of the same periods except for one.

Coinciding with Math, the treatment group finished 4.36 points higher than the control

group after the final grading period in Year 2.

Similar to the findings conducted by Cantu (2013), these results differ from

other research results concerning mentor programs and improved academic outcomes,

particularly related to report card grades or GPAs. The findings for King et al. (2002)

and Karcher (2008) found mentor programs showed significant and positive change

when related to report card grades. On the contrary, Slicker and Palmer (1993) assessed

the effectiveness of a school-based mentoring program in a large, suburban school

district in Texas. The authors evaluated 86 tenth grade “at-risk” students with initial

100
results showing that there were no differences in student achievement between the

treatment group and the control group. However, after post hoc tests were conducted,

the findings illustrated variations in the quality of mentoring. This possibility is

explored in the limitations section of this chapter.

Although no statistical significance exists in this study between the report card

averages for core subjects and mentoring, the means for the treatment group for all

subject areas improved over time. The highest increases were illustrated in the areas of

English/Language Arts and Math, with overall gains of 2.14 points for Math and 3.11

points in English/Language Arts, from the beginning of Year 1 to the end of Year 2.

Despite no appreciable differences being apparent in the core averages, another

point of interest would be the reduction in variability during the third and fourth nine

weeks of the second year of the study, 2010-11. It could be argued that the teachers

were much more comfortable with the mentoring of their students during this time. One

would expect that the treatment for Year 2 would take effect at the latter part of the year,

so this could be an illustration of the program in action.

These outcomes are similar to the results of the research cited earlier by King et

al. (2002), Karcher (2008), and Thompson and Kelly-Vance (2001). Furthermore,

Jekielek et al. (2002) found modest gains in the participants’ grade point averages over

time when examining the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Also, Bergin and Bergin

(2009), Blue (2004), and Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, and McMaken (2011) posited that

grades improve for students when they have a positive adult relationship within the

school environment (Cantu, 2013).

101
 As the principal of one of the junior high schools involved in this study, I have to

admit that I was somewhat disappointed when I realized that the ISAGE mentoring

program had no statistical effect on the participants’ core report card grade averages. I

have reflected on the possible reasons for this insignificance. One of the possible

reasons that continued to come to the forefront revolved around the overall condition of

the schools. For the most part, these two junior high schools involved in the study were

considered healthy and successful schools. Both schools have been deemed

“Recognized” schools under the state’s accountability system. Both schools have

adequate support systems in place for the different learners that attend. Therefore, I do

not believe that the major achievement gaps that may exist in some schools across the

nation are present in the schools involved in this study, thus creating a more narrow

range for improvement when pertaining to grade averages for students. Collectively

speaking, the overall core report card grade averages for all participants involved could

be considered average or above average before and after the study.

Research Question #2

What is the difference in attendance between students who participated in the school-

based mentoring program and students who were in the control group during the 2010-

2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

Research Question #2 concentrated on whether mentoring had a statistically

significant impact on the attendance rates of the student participants. Attendance was

measured by the number of days each student was absent from school and the number of

times tardy to school. Pre and post attendance data were retrieved for the 2009-2010 and

102
2010-2011 school years from computerized student records. Although absenteeism

improved for the treatment group over the two year period, the results showed that no

significant interaction exists over the two year period. There was, however, a main

effect for the treatment and control groups.

In general, the average mean for the treatment group is less than that of the

control group. The mean number of absences for the treatment group was 4.60 at the

start of Year 1, while decreasing to 4.54 absences at the end of Year 2. On the contrary,

the mean absences for the control group were 6.06 absences for the beginning of Year 1,

while increasing to 6.31 absences at the conclusion of Year 2.

The frequency breakdown of absences for the treatment and control groups in

Year 2 is worth noting. 35 of the 36 students in the treatment group had 10 or fewer

absences for the 2010-11 school year, while 28 out of the 36 students in the control

group had 10 or fewer absences during that same time. The remaining 8 students in the

control group fell in the range of 11-20 absences.

The findings from this study seem to contradict results from previous research.

Previous research of mentoring programs has shown significant improvements on

attendance. For example, the study conducted by Tierney (1995) on the effectiveness of

the Big Brothers Big Sisters program, which consisted of 959 “at-risk” participants, 487

youths in the treatment group and 472 in the control group, ranging from 10-16 years of

age, showed that the mentoring program was successful in improving the absenteeism

rates. In addition, King et al. (2002) and Converse and Lignugaris/Kraft (2009),

indicated a decrease in absenteeism for youth involved in a mentoring program, as

103
students have more of a purpose to attend school if they are connected to a caring adult.

Similar with this current study, however, in their comparative analysis of three studies

involving Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, Communities in Schools of San Antonio,

and grantees of the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program,

Wheeler, Keller and Dubois (2010) found that school-based mentoring can be modestly

effective for improving selected outcomes such as absenteeism.

When analyzing the attendance data for both junior high schools, it is important

to note a few key points. The attendance rate for Utopia ISD for both school years

included in this study, which also included the attendance rates for both schools, is even

with the state attendance rate average. Therefore, student attendance was not a glaring

issue at either junior high school. In addition, the overall attendance rates improved at

both junior high schools between the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years. Junior high

school “A” experienced a 0.5% improvement in overall attendance rate over this time,

while junior high school “B” realized a 0.3% improvement.

Research Question #3

What is the difference in discipline referrals between students who participated in the

school-based mentoring program and students who were in the control group during the

2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

Research Question #3 placed emphasis on the impact that mentoring might have

on student discipline. In this study, discipline was calculated by the number of times a

student was assigned out-of-school suspension, in-school suspension, and detention. Pre

and post discipline data were also retrieved for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school

104
years from computerized student records. After statistical analysis, it was found that

mentoring did, indeed, have a significant impact on student discipline. The mean

number of discipline referrals for the treatment group decreased over the two year period

from 2.86 in Year 1 to 2.64 in Year 2. The results for the control group were quite

staggering. The mean number of discipline referrals for Year 1 was 2.64, which was

very comparable to the treatment group in Year 1. Year 2 showed a significant increase

of discipline referrals for the control group, as the mean number jumped to 4.89, more

than double than the initial mark.

In addition, further tests were conducted when an outlier was removed from the

treatment group for the 2010-11 school year. This student had received 60 discipline

referrals over the course of Year 2. An independent t-test was conducted, which

determined that a significant difference exists between the treatment and control groups

during Year 2, further illustrating the impact that mentoring had on the variable of

discipline referrals.

Results from this study support the findings from previous research regarding the

effects of mentoring on student discipline and behavior. White-Hood (1993), Tierney et

al. (2000), and Jekielek et al. (2002) also found significant improvements in student

behavior for those participating in a mentoring program, realizing that youth who

participated in mentoring programs experienced fewer incidents of physical violence

against others and reduced drug and alcohol use. Likewise, King et al. (2002)

determined that effective school-based mentoring programs correlate with improved

school behavior.

105
 The statistical significance found in this study for the discipline variable was

encouraging in a number of ways. First, I know that all mentors involved from both of

the junior high schools made it a top priority to develop and maintain positive

relationships with their mentees throughout the year. I believe this focus helped drive

the continued efforts of mentors working to encourage and help students make the right

choices regarding their behavior. Second, it is evident to me that a large majority of the

students felt a connection with their mentor. As a result, they did not want to behave in

a way that would disappoint their mentor. Last, I believe that this significant impact

offers positive validation for future mentoring programs, which if designed properly,

should also see favorable results when pertaining to the exhibited behaviors of the

students involved.

Research Question #4

What is the difference in the TAKS (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills)

Mathematics scale scores between students who participated in the school-based

mentoring program and students who were in the control group during the 2010-2011

school year from that of the 2009-2010 school year?

Research Question #4 evaluated whether a significant difference existed in the

TAKS Math scale scores between mentored and non-mentored students. The TAKS

Math scale scores were available through computerized student records. Pre and post

standardized testing data for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years were retrieved

for all students involved in this study. This study found that mentoring had a significant

effect on the TAKS Math scale scores. The mean scale score for the pre-test data for the

106
treatment group was 650.78. After mentoring had occurred for those students, their

mean scale scores increased to 711.36, an overall gain of 60.58 points. On the contrary,

the mean pre-test scale score for the control group was 656.22, while the post-test mean

scale score was 672.11, an increase of 15.89 points.

Results from this study pertaining to standardized testing in math support

previous research which finds that the academic outcomes often improve, if only

slightly, when associated with a student mentoring program. Case in point, Hansen

(2007) and the U.S. Department of Education (2009) cited improved academic outcomes

as a direct result of a student mentoring program as determined by standardized

academic achievement tests (Cantu, 2013).

As the principal of one of the schools involved in this study, it is not

completely clear as to why the mentoring program had a significant effect on the Math

TAKS scores, which leads me to a few thoughts for speculation. This result could be

strictly coincidental. Given the mentor selection process, the significance might be due

to a stronger math background for the mentors overall, thus allowing them to possibly

offer more academic interventions in math related coursework. In addition, the learning

gaps in math might have been easier to close for the mentees. Last, the mentees might

have had more experienced teachers for their math classes when comparing them to

other disciplines such as English/Language Arts.

Research Question #5

What is the difference in the TAKS Reading scale scores between students who

participated in the school-based mentoring program and students who were in the

107
control group during the 2010-2011 school year from that of the 2009-2010 school

year?

Research Question #5 attempted to determine if mentoring had a significant

effect on the TAKS Reading scale scores between mentored and non-mentored students.

The TAKS Reading scale scores were available through computerized student records.

Pre and post standardized testing data for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years

were retrieved for all students involved in this study. This study found that mentoring

had no statistically significant effect on the TAKS Reading scale scores for the

participants in the mentoring program.

Although no significant interaction exists, the findings might still prove

beneficial. The pre-test mean scale score for the treatment group was 700.44, while the

mean post-test scale score was 758.21, an improvement of 57.77 points. Despite the

control group also showing improvement over the two year period, the improvement was

only a 29.53 point increase, from 745.28 in Year 1 to 774.81 in Year 2.

These findings challenge the previous studies which support the claims that

mentoring has positive academic outcomes on student participants. As mentioned

earlier, Hansen (2007) and the U.S. Department of Education (2009) found that

mentoring had a positive, significant impact on standardized test scores.

As mentioned earlier in the discussion for Research Question #4, the reasons for

the lack of significance regarding the Reading TAKS scores are unknown. Again, this

finding could be due to pedagogical reasons. It may also be due to the mentee’s inability

to solve their reading deficiencies because of a higher level of difficulty on the cognitive

108
side for students. In the end, it may also be just a mere coincidence that the mentoring

program failed to impact the Reading TAKS scores.

Implications

The results from the ISAGE school-based mentoring study indicate that there

was not a statistically significant relationship between school-based mentoring and

report card grade averages of core classes, attendance, and TAKS Reading scale scores.

The study did illustrate, however, that there was statistically significant relationship

between school-based mentoring and student discipline, along with TAKS Math scale

scores. In addition, the results from this study also showed positive trends with several

of the variables despite no significant relationship. This study adds to the existing

limited research on school-based mentoring programs and suggests that programs must

be designed in ways that aligns to previous research.

Previous research has shown that the duration of the mentoring relationship is a

critical component of the mentoring process. According to Grossman and Rhodes

(2002), youth involved in mentoring relationships which exceeded a year reported

positive results in academic, psychosocial, and behavioral outcomes; whereas those

students whose mentoring relationships failed to last a year obtained fewer positive

effects. The ISAGE study lasted for approximately 28 weeks, with the mentors and

mentees meeting for a minimum of one hour per week. The ISAGE study might have

realized more significant findings had the duration of the mentoring relationship lasted

longer than a 7 month period. It might also be beneficial to require the mentors and

mentees to meet more than just one hour per week. Despite the school year lasting only

109
9 months, it is extremely important to design a mentoring program that maximizes the

entire time to promote the best opportunities for a successful mentoring relationship.

As discovered in the Coffman (2009) study, a primary focus must remain on the

quality of the mentor-mentee relationship in a school-based mentoring program. As with

the Dupuis (2012) study, the outcomes of this study might have been strengthened by

regularly evaluating the quality of the mentoring relationship. It would be helpful for the

mentors to have a protocol for structured, or detailed, activities to complete during the

mentoring meetings, along with instruments to record the progress or data pertained to

the meetings. This would allow the meetings to be more purposeful and might add more

positive results to the relationship. This protocol could be created through direct

observations of meetings between mentors and mentees, offering useful data to create

interventions with fidelity. By obtaining this research on sound, effective mentoring

procedures, it will be possible to replicate effective school-based mentoring programs in

the future (Coffman, 2009).

The training process of mentors is another key element to ensure a successful

school-based mentoring program. According to Blue (2004) and Rhodes and Dubois

(2008), mentors must receive ongoing, continuous training throughout the mentoring

process to ensure success of the program. In the case of the ISAGE program, mentors

were only required to attend a one-time best practices training at the beginning before

the mentoring relationship had begun. There was no additional training involved at any

point thereafter. It is also imperative to have the necessary resources available to assist

and help the mentors when needed throughout the duration of the mentoring relationship.

110
For example, it may be necessary to have specialists available who might offer

assistance to mentors to promote a healthier mentoring relationship when issues arise.

Further implications can also be found for future mentoring research regarding

the sample size in this research study. According to previous mentoring research

outcomes, the ISAGE study might have experienced more statistically significant results

had this study utilized a larger random sample. The treatment and control groups for the

ISAGE study consisted of 36 students per group. Similar with the Dupuis (2012) study,

it is assumed that a lack of a random sample in this study may have resulted in a sample

of higher risk students in the study group. Therefore, the ISAGE study sample size may

have prevented more favorable results when compared to previous experimental studies

with more successful outcomes (Tierney, Baldwin-Grossman and Resch, 1995; Herrera

et al., 2007). Therefore, in alignment with previous research with more favorable

findings, future school-based mentoring researchers might find more significantly

positive results by using an experimental research design with a larger sample size

(Dupuis, 2012).

Limitations

The amount of contact time during which students have been matched with their

mentor will vary. Therefore, one limitation that exists within this study is that the results

gathered will be different depending on the amount of time students have been engaged

in a mentoring relationship with their respective mentee. Although mentors were

required to conduct at least one contact hour per week with their mentee, the contact

time was not consistent amongst mentors. This limitation has the possibility of

111
hindering the researcher from drawing further conclusions based on the statistical data

recorded by the mentee.

A second limitation that exists is the fact that each mentor/mentee relationship

will vary, which could lead to the mentees having extremely diverse experiences in the

program and will naturally be reflected in participants’ statistical data recorded. For

consistency purposes, it might be beneficial for the mentoring relationship if students

were assigned the same mentor for both years. Additionally, the possibility exists that

the match between mentor and mentee may be unfavorable for the mentee. This almost

guarantees that the pair will not have a productive relationship from the start. Finally,

because the data will be collected by the mentors using various instruments, the mentors

may be dishonest in their methods of recording the necessary information to give the

perception that the mentoring relationship has been advantageous to the mentee.

Next, teacher grading procedures have proven to be a limitation in this study. In

the results pertaining to the core academic report card averages, high variability exists at

the beginning of each school year. This could be explained due to a lack of uniformity

in grading procedures on the campus level, as teachers may exercise their subjectivity

when assessing their students. This subjectivity in grading could create skewed results

which might decrease the validity of the study.

Last, selection bias during the assignments between the mentors and mentees is

also a limitation in this study. Some teachers were able to choose their mentees, while

others may have been forced to accept a student as their mentee. When dealing with

humans and relationships, selection bias may be the reality. Typically, schools may

112
implement a new intervention program, such as a mentoring program, and students with

various issues may be “forced” upon teachers. This unwanted assignment may deter an

effective teacher-student relationship, causing potential damage to the social, emotional,

and academic needs for the students.

Recommendations for Future Research

As school-based mentoring serves as the fastest aspect of mentoring programs, it

is crucial to continue further research to ensure maximum optimization of such future

programs. Despite positive results for school-based mentoring, it is imperative that we

continue to explore the favorable outcomes that school-based mentoring provides with

increased accuracy (Dubois et al., 2002; Portwood et al., 2005). Furthermore,

recommendations for further research resulted from this study.

First, the recommendation is needed for further research to be conducted for

school-based mentoring programs for junior high or middle school students. According

to Dupuis (2012), the only previous study completed in mentoring research history on

the impact of school-based mentoring for middle school students was conducted by

Aiello (1988). The junior high school years are crucial for “at-risk” students, as

referenced by the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, which examined the

characteristics of 25,000 eighth grade students from approximately 1,000 schools who

were “at-risk” of school failure. The results of the study disclosed that the factors

relating to students were more likely to have insufficient academic skills in the eighth-

grade and to have dropped out of school between their eighth to tenth grade years. As

113
evidenced, these junior high school years can be the “make or break” years for “at-risk”

youth.

Second, the extended duration of the mentoring relationship could result in more

significant findings because previous mentoring research shows that more positive

effects are found the longer the mentoring relationship exists (Tierney, Baldwin-

Grossman & Resch, 1995; Baldwin-Grossman & Rhodes, 2002; Herrera et al., 2007).

Despite the constraints of the school year calendar being an issue, it could be beneficial

for the student to continue and maintain the mentoring relationship from the previous

year, with the same mentor, upon return to school the following year.

Also, the recommendation is needed for further research on the mentor-mentee

matching processes by which mentor programs match students to mentors. In this study,

teachers, for the most part, were allowed to select their mentees by popular choice. For

those students that were included in the treatment group that were not selected, they

were assigned to a mentor. This assignment might have been against the mentor’s and

mentee’s liking. The process for matching in this study might have contributed to

unfavorable results. Students who have favorable perceptions of their teachers and their

educational environment will be more likely to have positive results in student

achievement (Wehlage & Smith, 1992; Murray & Greenberg, 2000). It seemed in this

study that mentors selecting mentees did not produce the most favorable outcomes for

attendance and academics. Therefore, further research on the matching procedures of

mentors and mentees might provide educators with sustainable options when developing

and implementing their programs.

114
 Similar to a recommendation proposed in the Dupuis (2012) study, a

recommendation is needed for further research to assess the impact of school-based

mentoring from the perspective of the mentors and junior high school students

participating in the mentoring program. In studies completed on school-based mentoring

thus far, Herrera et al. (2007) obtained this information from mentors and students

receiving mentoring in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. In addition, as reported by

Dupuis (2012), there has never been a study where mentors and mentees have evaluated

their experiences in school-based mentoring programs not affiliated with Big Brothers

Big Sisters. Furthermore, there has never been a study that examined this area,

specifically in junior high school school-based mentoring programs. The information

received from this type of study would be critical in development and implementation of

successful school-based mentoring programs for junior high school students.

Another point of interest regarding future research would be the follow up

process with the students involved in the treatment group of this study. These students

are currently high school seniors and juniors. I believe it would be beneficial for future

research to gain their perspectives on the mentoring experience 3-4 years prior, almost

longitudinal in nature. In addition, one could gain some valuable information regarding

the design of the program when discussing the positives and negatives of the ISAGE

program. As a practitioner, I would like to see their academic progresses over the last

several years to determine if the mentoring might have had any sustaining effects in

certain areas.

115
 Last, it would be beneficial to conduct case studies on the effects of school-based

mentoring programs in comparison to non-school-based mentoring programs when

pertaining to student achievement for secondary students. This empirical evidence could

prove the overwhelming advantages of the implementation of school-based mentoring

programs in relation to other mentoring programs. I believe that these case studies might

also offer valuable evidence supporting the impact of a positive teacher-student

relationship in a school setting.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effectiveness of the ISAGE school-

based mentoring program on student achievement for junior high school students. The

results showed that mentoring did not have a significant effect on student’s report card

grade averages for core classes, attendance, and TAKS Reading scale scores. The

mentoring did, however, have a significant effect on student discipline and TAKS Math

scale scores. Despite not showing a significant effect on all variables, the results proved

somewhat favorable in most areas, offering optimism for further studies to be conducted

on school-based mentoring programs.

Even though favorable results were achieved in certain areas, the outcomes did

not fully support previous research findings pertaining to the effects of mentoring

programs on student achievement. As future research is conducted in the area of school-

based mentoring, practitioners will have the opportunity to learn new, valuable

information regarding quality mentoring programs. Thus, they will be able to make the

116
necessary adjustments and modifications to increase effectiveness on future school-

based mentoring programs to maximize student achievement.

117
 REFERENCES

Aiello, H. (1988). Assessment of a mentor program on self-concept and achievement

variables of middle school underachievers (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia

Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts

International, 49(07), 1699A. Blacksburg, VA.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44,

709-716.

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006). Demography as destiny: How America can

build a better future. Washington, DC: Author.

Alliance for Excellent Education. (2009). The high cost of high school dropouts: What

the nation pays for inadequate high schools. Washington, DC: Author.

Amanpour, C. (Interviewer) & Duncan, A. (Interviewee). (2010). ‘This week’ transcript:

Crisis in the classroom [Interview transcript]. Retrieved from ABC News

website: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-crisis-

classroom/story?id=11506701&page=4

Anastasia, T., Skinner, R., & Mundhenk, S. (2012). Youth mentoring: Program and

mentor best practices. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, 104(2), 38-44.

Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check &

connect: The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school.

Journal of School Psychology, 42(2004), 95-113.

118
Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis: Which schools produce

the nation’s dropouts? In Gary Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting

the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Bandura, A. J. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewoods Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Battistich, V., & Hom, A. (1997). The relationship between students' sense of their

school as a community and their involvement in problem behaviors. American

Journal of Public Health, 87(12), 1997-2001.

Becker, J. (1994). Mentoring high-risk kids. Center City, MN: Hazelden.

Belsky, J., & Cassidy, J. (1994). Attachment: Theory and evidence. In M. Rutter & D.F.

Hay (Eds.), Development through life: A handbook for clinicians (pp. 373-402).

Oxford, MA: Blackwell Science.

Benard, B. (1991). Fostering resiliency in kids: Protective factors in the family, school,

and community. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational

Research and Development.

Benard, B. (1995). Fostering resilience in children. ERIC Digest.

Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. (2009). Attachment in the classroom. Educational Psychology

Review, 21, 141-170. doi: 10.1007/s10648-009-9104-0

Berndt, T.J, & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’ adjustment to

school. Child Development, 66, 1312-1329.

Bernstein, L., Dun Rappaport, C., Olsho, L., Hunt, D., & Levin, M. (2009). Impact

evaluation of the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program

(NCEE 2009-4047). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation

119
 and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of

Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/

Bisland, A. (2001). Mentoring: An educational alternative for gifted students. Gifted

Child Today Magazine, 64, 22-25.

Blechman, E.A. (1992). Mentors for high-risk minority youth: From effective

communication to bicultural competence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology,

21, 160-169.

Blue, D. (2004). Adolescent mentoring. Study of High School Restructuring, 1(3).

Blum, D. J., & Jones, A. L. (1993). Academic growth group and mentoring program for

potential dropouts. School Counselor, 40(3), 207-217.

Bohanon-Edmonson, H., Flannery, K. B., Eber, L., & Sugai, G. (Eds.). (2004). Positive

Behavior Support in High Schools: Monograph from the 2004 Illinois High

School Forum of Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR.

Bouffard, J., & Bergseth, K. (2008). The impact of reentry services on juvenile

offenders’ recidivism. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 6(3), 295-318.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human

development. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. In I. Bretherton & E.

Waters (Eds.), Growing points of attachment theory and research (pp. 3-35).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

120
Bridgeland, J. M., Dilulio, J. J., & Morison, K. B. (2006). The silent epidemic:

Perspectives of high school dropouts. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises, LLC.

Buhrmester, (1990). Intimacy of Friendship, Interpersonal Competence, and Adjustment

during Preadolescence and Adolescence. Child Development, 61(4), 1101-1111.

Cantu, K. M. (2013). School-based mentoring programs in middle school: Attendance

and academic outcomes (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest LLC.

(3606396)

Catalano, R. F., Haggerty, K. P., Oesterle, S., Fleming, C. B., & Hawkins, J. D. (2004).

The importance of bonding to school for healthy development: Findings from the

social development research group. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 252-261.

Chao, G. T., Waltz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A

comparison of mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts.

Personal Psychology, 45, 619-636.

Chen, Z., & Kaplan, H. (2003). School failure in early adolescence and status attainment

in middle adulthood: A longitudinal study. Sociology of Education, 76(2),

110‐127.

Child Trends Data Bank (2013). High school dropout rates: Indicators on children and

youth. Retrieved from

http://www.childtrends.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/10/01_Dropout_Rates.pdf

Chodorow, E. (1987). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley: University of California

Press.

121
Christie, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2007). School characteristics related to

high school dropout rates. Remedial & Special Education, 28(6), 325‐339.

Clark, M. & Ayers, M. (1993). Friendship expectations and friendship evaluations:

Reciprocity and gender effects. Youth and Society, 24, 299-313.

Coffman, M. (2009). Teacher mentoring as an intervention with at-risk high school

students. (Master's thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and

Theses database. (UMI No. 1484335)

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen, J. (2003). Educating minds and hearts: Social emotional learning and the

passage into adolescence. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Converse, N., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2009). Evaluation of a school-based mentoring

program for at risk middle school youth. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1),

33-46.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York, NY: Scribner.

Cowan, P. A. (1996). Meta-thoughts on the role of meta-emotion in children’s

development: Comment on Gottman et al. (1996). Journal of Family Psychology,

10, 277-283.

Croninger, R. G., & Lee, V. E. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school:

Benefits to at-risk students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College

Record, 103(4), 548-581.

122
Curtis, T., & Hansen-Schwoebel, K. (1999). Big brothers big sisters school-based

mentoring: Evaluation summary of five pilot programs. Philadelphia, PA: Big

Brothers Big Sisters of America.

Daloz, L. A. (1986). Effective teaching and mentoring: Realizing the transformational

power of adult learning experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Dappen, L., & Isernhagen, J. (2005). Developing a student mentoring program: Building

connections for at-risk students. Preventing School Failure, 49(3), 21-25.

Darling, N., Bogat, G.A., Cavell, T.A., Murphy, S.E., & Sanchez, B. (2006). Gender,

ethnicity, development, and risk: Mentoring and the consideration of individual

differences. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 765-779.

Davidson, W., Redner, R., Blakely, C., Mitchell, C. & Emshoff, J. (1987). Diversion of

juvenile offenders: An experimental comparison. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 55(1), 68-75.

Deutsch, N., & Spencer, R. (2009). Capturing the magic: Assessing the quality of youth

mentoring relationships. New Directions for Youth Development, 121, 47-70.

Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (2006a). Deviant peer influences in

programs for youth: Problems and solutions. London, England: Guilford Press.

Dodge, K. A., Dishion, T. J., & Lansford, J. E. (2006b). Deviant peer influences in

intervention and public policy for youth. Social Policy, XX(1), 3.

Dryfoos, J. D. (1990) Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press

123
Dubas, J. S., & Snider, B. A. (1993). The role of community-based youth groups in

enhancing learning and achievement through nonformal education. In R. M.

Lerner (Ed.), Early adolescence: Perspectives on research, policy, and

intervention (pp. 150-174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

DuBois, D. L. & Karcher, M. J. (2005). Handbook of youth mentoring. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

DuBois, D., Holloway, B., Valentine, J., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness of

mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 30(2), 157.

DuBois, D., & Neville, H. (1997). Youth mentoring: Investigation of relationship

characteristics and perceived benefits. Journal of Community Psychology, 25(3),

227-234.

DuBois, D. L., Neville, H. A., Parra, G. R., & Pugh-Lilly, A. O. (2002). Testing a new

model of mentoring. In J.E. Rhodes (Ed.), A critical view of youth mentoring

(Vol. 93, pp. 21-57). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

DuBois, D., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. (2011). How

effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the

evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(2), 57-91.

DuBois, D., & Silverthorn, N. (2005). Natural mentoring relationships and adolescent

health: Evidence from a national study. American Journal of Public Health,

95(3), 518-24.

124
DuBois, D., & Rhodes, J. (2006). Introduction to the special issue: Youth mentoring:

Bridging science with practice. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 647-

655.

Dubow, E. F., Huesmann, L. R., Boxer, P., Pulkkinen, L., & Kokko, K. (2006). Middle

childhood and adolescent and personal predictors of adult educational and

occupational outcomes: A meditational model in two countries. Developmental

Psychology, 42(5), 937‐949. doi:10.1037/0012‐1649.42.5.937

Dupuis, K. (2012). Impacts of a school-based mentoring program on academic and

behavioral outcomes for middle school youth. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database, (UMI Number: 3523327).

Dworkin, J. B., Larson, R., & Hansen, D. (2003). Adolescents’ accounts of growth

experiences in youth activities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 17-26.

Elliott, S. (2008). Obama’s stamp of approval, prepresidential. New York Times, p. B5.

Evelo, D., Sinclair, M., Hurley, C., Christenson, S., & Thurlow, M. (1996). Keeping kids

in school: Using Check & Connect for dropout prevention. Institute on

Community Integration (UAP). The College of Education & Human

Development: University of Minnesota.

Ferguson, R., & Snipes, J. (1994). Outcomes of mentoring: Healthy identities for youth.

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 3(2), 19-22.

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Flaxman, E., & Asher, C. (1992). Mentoring in action: Prevalence and prevention. New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

125
Fogg, N. P., Harrington, P. E., & Khatiwada, I. (2009). The tax and transfer fiscal

impacts of dropping out of high school in Philadelphia City and suburbs. Boston,

MA: Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University.

Fouad, N., & Keeley, T. (1992). The relationship between attitudinal and behavioral

aspects of career maturity. The Career Development Quarterly, 40(3), 257.

Fresko, B., & Wertheim, C. (2006). Learning by mentoring: Prospective teachers as

mentors to children at-risk. Mentoring Tutoring, 14(2), 149-161.

Freud, S. (1914). On narcissism: An introduction. Standard Edition, 14, 67-104.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (2006). Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, why, and

how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99.

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007) Educational research: An introduction.

Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Goodenow, C. (1992). Strengthening the links between educational psychology and the

study of social contexts. Educational Psychologist, 27, 177-196.

Greenberger, E., Chen, C., & Beam, M.R. (1998). The role of "very important" non-

parental adults in adolescent development, Journal of Youth and Adolescence,

27, 321- 343.

Grossman, J., & Rhodes, J. (2002). The test of time: Predictors and effects of duration in

youth mentoring relationships. American Journal of Community Psychology,

30(2), 199.

Grossman, J., & Tierney, J. (1998). Does mentoring work? Evaluation Review, 22(3),

403.

126
Guthrie, J. W., & Springer, M. G. (2004). A nation at risk revisited: Did “wrong”

reasoning result in “right” results? At what cost? Peabody Journal of Education,

79(1), 7-35.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory

of children’s school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-

638.

Hansen, K. (2007). One-to-one mentoring literature review. Retrieved from

http://oregonmentors.org/files/library/BBBS%201-to-1%20Mentoring%

Literature%20Review%20_Mar%202007_.pdf

Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on

curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom.

Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 5-11.

Harlow, C. (2003). Bureau of justice statistics special report: Education and

correctional populations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Harter, S. (1988). Developmental processes in the construction of the self. In T. D.

Yawkey & J. E. Johnson (Eds.), Integrative processes and socialization: Early to

middle childhood (pp. 45-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Herrera, C. (1999). School-based mentoring: A first look into its potential. Philadelphia,

PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., & McMaken, J. (2007).

Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based

127
 mentoring impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Retrieved

from http://www.ppv.org

Herrera, C., Sipe, C., & McClanahan, W. (2000). Mentoring school-age children:

Relationship development in community-based and school-based programs.

Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Hu, W. (2008). A plan to cut the high school dropout rate. New York Times, 2.

Jack, D. (1991). Silencing the self: Women and depression. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A literature

review. Review of Educational Research, 6l, 505-532.

Janosz, M., Le Blanc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, R. E. (2000). Predicting different

types of school dropouts: A typological approach with two longitudinal. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 171.

Jekielek, S., Moore, K., Hair, E., & Scarupa, H. (2002). Mentoring: A promising strategy

for youth development. Child Trends Research Brief. Washington, DC: Child

Trends.

Johnson, J. S. (2008). A case study of a middle school teacher-student mentoring

program. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation

Publishing. (3329382)

Jordan, J. V., Kaplan, A., Miller, J., Stiver, I., & Surrey, J. (1991). Women’s growth in

connection: Writings from the Stone Center. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

128
Karcher, M. (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.

Karcher, M., Davis, C., & Powell, B. (2002). The effects of developmental mentoring on

connectedness and academic achievement. School Community Journal, 12(2),

35-50.

Karcher, M., Kupperminc, G., Portwood, S., Sipe, C., & Taylor, A. (2006). Mentoring

programs: A framework to inform program development, research, and

evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 709-725.

Kennelly, L., & Monrad, M. (2007). Approaches to Dropout Prevention: Heeding Early

Warning Signs with Appropriate Interventions. National High School Center

report. Retrieved from http://www.betterhighschools.org/pubs/

King, K., Vidourek, R., Davis, B., & McClellan, W. (2002). Increasing self-esteem and

school connectedness through a multidimensional mentoring program. Journal of

School Health, 72(7), 294.

Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Laird, L., Lew, S., Debell, M., & Chapman, C. D. (2006). Dropout rates in the United

States: 2002, 2003. (NCES 2006‐062). U.S. Department of Education, National

Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006062.pdf

Larson, R. W. (2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American

Psychologist, 55, 170-183.

129
Larson, R. W., Richards, M. H., Moneta, G., Holmbeck, G., & Duckett, E. (1996).

Changes in adolescents’ daily interactions with their families from ages 10 to 18:

Disengagement and transformation. Developmental Psychology, 32, 744-754.

Lerner, R. M. (2007). The good teen: Rescuing adolescence from the myths of the storm

and stress years. New York, NY: Stonesong Press.

Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.

Liang, B., Spencer, R., West, J., & Rappaport, N. (2013). Expanding the reach of youth

mentoring: Partnering with youth for personal growth and social change. Journal

of Adolescence, 36, 257-267.

LoSciuto, L., Rajala, A., Townsend, T., & Taylor, A. (1996). An outcome evaluation

across ages: An intergenerational mentoring approach to drug prevention.

Journal of Adolescent Research, 11(1), 116.

Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Leraning from

leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. New York:

Wallace Foundation.

MacLeod, J. (1987). Ain’t no makin’ it: Leveled aspirations in a low-income

neighborhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Malecki, C K., & Demaray, M. K. (2003). What type of support do they need?

Investigating student adjustment as related to emotional, informational, appraisal,

and instrumental support. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 231-252.

Manza, G. (2001, May). Mentoring Works! Presentation at the National Mentoring

Conference, Alexandria, VA.

130
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954-969.

Masten, A., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence in favorable

and unfavorable environments. The American Psychologist, 53(2), 205.

Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. J. (2002). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J.

Lopez (Eds). Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74-78). London, England:

Oxford University Press.

McCluskey, K., Noller, R., Lamoureux, K., & McCluskey, A. L. A. (2004). Unlocking

hidden potential through mentoring. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 13(2), 85-

93.

McHale, G. (Ed.). (1990). Proceedings of the National Mentoring Conference: Turning

Point: A White Paper on the Course of Mentoring. Washington, DC: National

Education Association.

McLaughlin, M.W. (2000). Community Counts: How Youth Organizations Matter for

Youth Development. Public Education Network, Washington, D.C.

McLaughlin, T. F., & Vachta, E. (1992). The at-risk student: A proposal for action.

Journal of Instructional Psychology, 19(1), 66.

McLearn, K. T., Colasanto, D., & Schoen, C. (1998). Mentoring makes a difference:

Findings from The Commonwealth Fund 1998 Survey of Adults Mentoring Young

People. New York, NY: The Commonwealth Fund.

McNeely, C. A., Nonnemaker, J. A., & Blum, R. W. (2002). Promoting school

connectedness: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent

Health. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138-146.

131
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Mecca, A. M. (2001). The mentoring revolution: Growing America one child at a time.

(Part I). Tiburon, CA: California Mentor Foundation.

MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. (2003). Elements of effective practice (2nd

ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. (2004). 450 million dollars for mentoring:

Issue brief. Retrieved on March 16, 2012 from

http://www.mentoring.org/downloads/mentoring_1283.pdf

MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. (2006). Mentoring in America 2005: A

snapshot of the current state of mentoring. Alexandria, VA: Author.

MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. (2009). Elements of effective practice for

mentoring (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Author.

MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. (2013). Key mentoring-related legislation:

113th Congress. Retrieved from

http://www.mentoring.org/images/uploads/113th%20Congress_Key%20Mentori

ng%20Legislation.pdf

Merriam, S. (1983). Mentors and protégés: A critical review of the literature. Adult

Education Quarterly, 33, 161-173.

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. (1989). Student/teacher relations and attitudes

toward mathematics before and after the transition to junior high school. Child

Development, 60, 981-992.

132
Miller, P., Mulvey, C., & Martin, N. (1995). What do twins studies reveal about the

economic returns to education? A comparison of Australian and U.S. findings.

The American Economic Review, 85(3), 586‐599.

Mixed ANOVA Using SPSS. (n.d.) In Laerd statistics online. Retrieved from

https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/mixed-anova-using-spss-statistics.php

Moore, E., & Ratchford, V. (2007). Decreasing discipline referrals for African American

males in middle school. AASA Journal of Scholarship Practice, 4(2), 20-24.

Murray, C., & Greenberg, M. (2000). Children's relationship with teachers and bonds

with school: An investigation of patterns and correlates in middle childhood.

Journal of School Psychology, 38(5), 423-45.

Nash, D., & Treffinger, D. (1993). The mentor kit. A step-by-step guide to creating an

effective mentor program in your school [and] reproducible forms to accompany

the mentor program in your school. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The nation's report card: Reading

2009. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education

Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/201458.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). Characteristics of at-risk students in

NELS:88. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

National Commission Report on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk.

Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html

133
Noller, R. B., & Frey, B. R. (1995). Mentoring for the continued development of lost

prizes. In K. W. McCluskey, P. A. Baker, S. C. O'Hagan, & D. J. Treffinger

(Ed.), Lost prizes: Talent development and problem-solving with at-risk students

(pp. 203-212). Sarasota, FL: Center for Creative Learning.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1998, December). Juvenile

Mentoring Program: 1998 Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice.

Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C. (2004). Losing our future: How minority

youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Civil

Rights Project at Harvard University.

Pagani, L., Vitaro, F., Tremblay, R., McDuff, P., Japel, C., & Larose, S. (2008). When

predictions fail: The case of unexpected pathways toward high school dropout.

Journal of Social Issues, 64(1), 175-193.

Payne, R. K. (1996). A framework for understanding poverty. Highlands, TX: aha!

Process, Inc.

Pianta, R.C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Portwood, S. G., & Ayers, P. M. (2005). Schools. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher

(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 336-347). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Portwood, S. G., Ayers, P. M., Kinnison, K. E., Waris, R. G., & Wise, D. L. (2005).

YouthFriends: Outcomes from a school-based mentoring program. The Journal

of Primary Prevention, 26(2), 129-145.

134
Provident, I. M. (2005). Mentoring: A role to facilitate academic change. The Internet

Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 3(2). Retrieved from

http://ijahsp.nova.edu

Ravitch, D. (2007). EdSpeak: A glossary of educational terms, phrases, buzzwords, and

jargon. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Reddy, R., Rhodes, J., & Mulhall, P. (2003). The influence of teacher support on student

adjustment in the middle school years: A latent growth curve study. Development

and Psychopathology, 15, 119-138.

Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A model of youth mentoring. In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher

(Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 30-43). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rhodes, J., Contreras, J., & Mangelsdorf, S. (1994). Natural mentor relationships among

Latina adolescent mothers: Psychological adjustment, moderating processes, and

the role of early parental acceptance. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 22, 211-227.

Rhodes, J. E., & DuBois, D. L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the youth

mentoring movement. Social Policy Report, 20(3), 3-19.

Rhodes, J., & DuBois, D. (2008). Mentoring relationships and programs for youth.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(4), 254-258.

135
Rhodes, J. E., Haight, W. L., & Briggs, E. C. (1999). The influence of mentoring on the

peer relationships in relative and nonrelative care. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 9, 185-201.

Rhodes, J., Spencer, R., Keller, T., Liang, B., & Noam, G. (2006). A model for the

influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of

Community Psychology, 34(6), 691-707.

Roeser, R., & Eccles, J. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of middle school: Relation to

longitudinal changes in academic and psychological adjustment. Journal of

Research on Adolescence, 8, 123-158.

Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J.S. & Sameroff, A.J. (1998). Academic and emotional

functioning in early adolescence. Longitudinal relations, patterns, and prediction

by experience in middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 321-

352.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C. M., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school

psychological environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral

functioning in school: The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 88, 408-422.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context.

New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Rojewski, J., Wicklein, R. & Schell, J. (1995). Effects of gender and academic-risk

behavior on the career maturity of rural youth. Research in Rural Education,

11(2), 92-104.

136
Rook, K. S. (1995). Support, companionship, and control in older adults’ social

networks: Implications for well-being. In J.F. Nussbaum & J. Coupland (Eds.),

Handbook of communication and aging research (pp. 437-463). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Royse, D. (1998). Mentoring high-risk minority youth: Evaluation of the Brothers

project. Adolescence, 33(129), 145-158.

Rumberger, R. W. (2004). Why students drop out of school. In Gary Orfield (Ed.).

Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard Education Press.

Rutter, M. (1990). Psychosocial resilience and protective mechanisms. In J. Rolf, A. S.

Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and

protective factors in the development of psychopathology. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origin and pawns in the classroom: Self-report

and projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550-558.

Sanchez, B., & Colon, Y. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and culture in mentoring relationships.

In D. L. DuBois & M. J. Karcher (Ed.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 251-

265). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sarason, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (2001). Ongoing aspects of relationships and health

outcomes: Social support, social control, companionship, and relationship

meaning. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships:

137
 Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 277-298). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Schwiebert, V. L., Deck, M. D., & Bradshaw, M. (1999). Women as mentors. Journal of

Humanistic Counseling Education and Development, 37(4), 241-253.

Scott, K. (2005). Reduce your dropouts: It's not as hard as you think. Principal

Leadership Middle Level Ed, 6(3), 38-42.

Shea, G. F. (2002). Mentoring: How to develop successful mentor behaviors (3rd ed.).

Menlo Park, CA: Crisp Publications.

Simons Morton, B., Crump, A., Haynie, D., & Saylor, K. (1999). Student-school

bonding and adolescent problem behavior. Health Education Research, 14(1),

99-107.

Sipe, C. (1996). Mentoring: A synthesis of P/PV's research 1988-1995. Philadelphia,

PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Skiba, R. & Wu, T. (2004). Mentoring: What works in preventing school violence.

Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center.

Slicker, E., & Palmer, D. (1993). Mentoring at-risk high school students: Evaluation of a

school-based program. The School Counselor, 40(5), 327.

Solomon, D., Watson, M., Battistich, V., Schaps, E., & Delucchi, K. (1996). Creating

classrooms that students experience as communities. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 24(6), 719.

Sparks, E., Johnson, J., & Akos, P. (2010). Dropouts: Finding the needles in the

haystack. Educational Leadership, 67(5), 46-49.

138
Suh, S., & Suh, J. (2007). Risk factors and levels of risk for high school dropouts.

Professional School Counseling, 10(3), 297‐306.

Suhyun, S., Jingyo, S., & Houston, I. (2007). Predictors of categorical at-risk high

school dropouts. Journal of Counseling and Development, 85(2), 196-203.

Sullivan, K., Marshall, S. K. & Schonert-Reichl, K.A. (2002). Do expectancies influence

choice of help-giver? Adolescents’ criteria for selecting an informal helper.

Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 509-531.

Swadener, B. & Lubeck, S. (1995). Children and families ‘at promise’: Deconstructing

the discourse of risk. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Swanson, C. B. (2004). Who graduates? Who doesn't? A statistical portrait of public

high school graduation, class of 2001. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Taylor, J. (2005). Poverty and student achievement. Multicultural Education, 12(4), 53-

55.

The Mentoring Institute. (2001). TeamMates program management manual. Lincoln,

NE: TeamMates Nebraska.

The White House: Office of the Press Secretary. (March 1, 2010). President Obama

announces steps to reduce dropout rate and prepare students for college and

careers. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-

obama-announces-steps-reduce-dropout-rate-and-prepare-students-college-an

Thompson, L., & Kelly-Vance, L. (2001). The impact of mentoring on academic

achievement of at-risk youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(3), 227-

242.

139
Tierney, J., Grossman, J., & Resch, N. (1995). Making a difference: An impact study of

big brothers/big sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (2000). Making a difference: An impact

study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.

Tyack, D. (1989). The mismatch between schools and students who don't fit them. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, San Francisco.

U.S. Department of Education (2008). A nation accountable: Twenty-five years after a

nation at risk. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/accountable/accountable.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (1999). America 2000: An education strategy. No.

ED/OS 91-13). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved

from ERIC.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2001). College enrollment and

work activity of high school graduates. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education (2004). No child left behind: A toolkit for teachers.

Washington, DC: Author.

Vang, C. (2005). Minority students are far from academic success and still at-risk in

public schools. Multicultural Education, 12(4), 1-7.

Venzant Chambers, T. T., & Huggins, K. S. (2014). The influence of school factors on

racial opportunity cost for high-achieving students of color. Journal of School

Leadership, 24, 189-224.

140
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walker, G. (2007). Mentoring, policy and politics. Public/PrivateVentures. Retrieved

from http://ppv.org/ppv/publications.asp?section_id=22

Waterman, A. S. (1984). Identity formation: Discovery or creation. Journal of Early

Adolescence, 4, 329-341.

Weaver, P. (2004). The culture of teaching and mentoring for compliance. Childhood

Education, 80(5), 258-260.

Wehlage, G. G., & Smith, G. A. (1992). Building new programs for students at risk. In

F. Newmann (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement in American secondary

schools (pp. 92-118). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Weinberger, S. (1992). How to start a student mentor program. Phi Delta Kappa

Fastbacks, 333, 7-42.

Weis, L., Farrar, E., & Petrie, H. (1989). Dropouts from school: Issues, dilemmas, and

solutions. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Wentzel, K. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of

parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209.

Wheeler, M. E., DuBois, D. L., & Keller, T. E. (2010). Detailed summary of meta-

analysis performed for “Review of three recent randomized trials of school-

based mentoring: Making sense of mixed findings.” Portland, OR: Portland State

University. Retrieved from

http://mentoring.research.pdx.edu/images/stories/sbmmetaanalysis%20summary.

pdf

141
White-Hood, M. (1993). Taking up the mentoring challenge. Educational Leadership,

51(3), 76-78.

Winborne, D. (1991). Perspectives on children “at-risk”: Cultural considerations and

alternative educational approaches. In J. J. Harris III, C. A. Heid, D. G. Carter,

and F. Browns (Eds.). Readings on the state of education in urban America (pp.

251-265). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Urban and

Multicultural Edcuation.

Windram, H., Scierka, B., & Silberglitt, B. (2007). Response to intervention at the

secondary level: Two districts’ models of implementation. Communique, 35(5),

43-45.

Wood, D. (2003). Effect of child and family poverty on child health in the United States.

Pediatrics, 112(3), 707-711.

Wood. S., & Mayo-Wilson, E. (2012). School-based mentoring for adolescents: A

systematic review and meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(3),

257-269.

Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1997). Community services and social responsibility in youth.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

142
 APPENDIX A

MENTOR APPLICATION

143
 APPENDIX B

MENTOR RELEASE STATEMENT

144
 APPENDIX C

STUDENT INTEREST SURVEY

145
146
147
148
 APPENDIX D

GOAL SETTING

149
150
 APPENDIX E

FIRST NINE WEEKS MEETING LOG

151
 APPENDIX F

SECOND NINE WEEKS MEETING LOG

152
 APPENDIX G

THIRD NINE WEEKS MEETING LOG

153
 APPENDIX H

FOURTH NINE WEEKS MEETING LOG

154
 APPENDIX I

FIRST NINE WEEKS DOCUMENTATION LOG

155
 APPENDIX J

SECOND NINE WEEKS DOCUMENTATION LOG

156
 APPENDIX K

THIRD NINE WEEKS DOCUMENTATION LOG

157
 APPENDIX L

FOURTH NINE WEEKS DOCUMENTATION LOG

158