Objective

1. School-based mentoring to reduce discipline contacts and improve academic performance Cynthia Buettner, Julie Wolfe, & David AndrewsDepartment of Human Development & Family Science, The Ohio State University Funding for this project provided by the Nationwide Insurance Foundation. Introduction Objective Results Implications • Compare pre- and post- academic and behavioral changes of students participating in a school-based mentoring program in a large, urban, Midwest school district with a matched group of non-participating students from the same district. • The school-based mentoring program demonstrated no significant benefit for participants, regardless of program participation level (as measured by attendance), SOR, or grade. • This supports prior research conclusions that time constraints on school-based mentoring may not allow for the quality and intensity necessary to improve behavioral and academic outcomes. • Consistent with prior research, this study suggests the value of mentoring cannot be expected in programs where contact is less than six months to a year. Programs should do everything possible to create sustained relationships that last more than six months.  • Establishing these practices and creating benchmarks that place sustainable relationships as the highest priority of a program may lead to greater potential impact. • For the analysis, participants were split into quartiles based on session attendance to determine the influence of participation (attendance) level on the outcomes. (Q1= 1-8 attended sessions, Q2= 9-14, Q3= 15-19, Q4= 20-29) • Mentoring session attendance ranged from 1-29 (M = 13.63, SD = 6.621) • Students in the 4th quartile (highest participation level) ranked higher on all four dependent variables than their peers at both Time 1 and Time 2. • School-based mentoring programs are becoming increasingly popular approaches for dropout prevention, with the rationale that supportive adults can help students avoid high-risk activities, make more successful transitions to adulthood, and focus and improve academic activities (Bernstein, 2009). • A recent scientific study of school-based mentoring found small to modest short-term impacts for teacher reported, school-related improvements. Significant outcomes self-reported by youth were an increase in scholastic efficacy and a decrease in unexcused absences. No benefits were found in examined areas outside of school (Herrera et al., 2007). • The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) recently published findings on the effects of the U.S. Department of Education’s Student Mentoring Program on students’ interpersonal relationships, academic outcomes, and delinquent and risk behaviors. The programs had no statistically significant effect on the academic and behavioral outcomes (Bernstein, 2009). • Studies on school-based mentoring have consistently reinforced the importance of intensity and quality of relationships, finding that one school year is not enough to permanently improve youth’s academic performance (Herrera et al., 2007). Methods • Mentoring occurred during the 2008-2009 school year. Time 2 data were collected at the end of the school year. Time 1 data were from the school year immediately preceding mentoring (2007-2008). • As per the Big Brother Big Sister (BBBS) protocol, students met with the mentor one-on-one, but in a group setting with other students pairs of mentors and students in the same classroom. Mentors and students met for approximately 50 minutes one time a week and participated in program activities provided by BBBS. • Measured Outcomes • Attendance (number of days absent) • Discipline contacts (total reported offenses) • OAT Reading and Math levels (1-5 scale with 1-3 ranked proficient, 4-5 ranked basic/ limited) • Length of relationship (sessions attended by both mentor and student) • Span (number of calendar days between first and last meeting) • Strength of relationship (SOR; assessed by BBBS with an end-of-year questionnaire) • Participants • 1125 participants in the school-based mentoring program were compared to 1125 students from the same district who were matched on special education status, free/reduced lunch status, grade, risk status (from attendance and discipline data, gender, race, OAT (Ohio Achievement Test) Reading and Math levels at Time 1. • Pre- and post-test difference scores were calculated and compared between groups using means comparison tests and one-way ANOVAs. • There were no significant between-group difference scores on attendance, total reported discipline offenses, or OAT Math or Reading scores. • Length of relationship and span were significantly correlated with student- and mentor- reported SOR. Q1 students’ and mentors’ SOR were significantly lower. • Quartile by student-reported SOR References 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. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences,U.S. Department of Education. Herrera, C., Baldwin Grossman, J., Kauh, T., Felman, A., McMaken, J., & Jucovy, L. (2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based mentoring impact study. Philadelphia: Public/ Private Ventures.