University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools

(USC Thesis Other)

Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

CREATING CONNECTIONS: AN IMPLEMENTATION STUDY OF
PROMISING PRACTICES FOR MENTORING IN CALIFORNIA CHARTER
SCHOOLS

by

Melanie Sue Maxwell

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2009

Copyright 2009 Melanie Sue Maxwell
ii

Dedication

For my amazing husband, Matt

Your patience, encouragement, and support in every way made this a reality.

Thank you for always believing in me.

For my incredible children, Jared & Samantha

You were wonderful distractions throughout this process.

May you always pursue your dreams.

iii
Table of Contents

Dedication ................................................................................................................. ii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ..................................................................................................................viii
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study............................................................................ 1
The Problem of the Achievement Gap.......................................................... 1
A Solution to the Achievement Gap: Mentoring .......................................... 4
History and Definition of Mentoring ................................................. 4
Theory of Action: Linking Mentoring to Improved Student
Achievement .......................................................................... 5
Figure 1: Theory of Action Linking Mentoring to
Improved Student Achievement............................................. 7
Charter Schools as Laboratories for Innovation............................................ 8
Focus of the Study: Mentoring in Charter Schools..................................... 11
Purpose and Significance of the Study........................................................ 12
Organization of Dissertation ....................................................................... 14

Chapter 2: Literature Review................................................................................. 15
Introduction.................................................................................................15
Literature Selection.........................................................................15
Key Studies and Authors.................................................................16
Types of Mentoring Programs ........................................................ 18
Chapter Organization......................................................................19
Review of Components in Community-Based Mentoring
Programs ............................................................................... 19
Component #1: Roles and Interactions within
Community-Based Mentoring Programs ............................ 20
Duration and Relationships.................................................20
Relationship Style...............................................................21
Mentoring Activities...........................................................23
Component #2: Selection and Matching within
Community-Based Mentoring Programs............................23
Mentor Selection.................................................................23
Mentee Selection.................................................................24
Matching Mentors and Mentees..........................................25
Component #3: Infrastructure and Support within
Community-Based Mentoring Programs............................26
Ongoing Monitoring and Support....................................... 26
Training of Mentors............................................................27

iv
Component #4: Sustainability of Community-Based
Mentoring Programs...........................................................28
Components in School-Based Mentoring Programs................................... 29
Component #1: Roles and Interactions within
School-Based Mentoring Programs....................................30
Component #2: Selection and Matching within
School-Based Mentoring Programs....................................31
Component #3: Infrastructure and Support within
School-Based Mentoring Programs....................................32
Component #4: Sustainability of School-Based
Mentoring Programs...........................................................34
Summary .............................................................................................35
Components and Findings...............................................................35
Need for Study................................................................................35
Chapter Three Organization........................................................................ 36

Chapter 3: Research Methods ................................................................................ 37
Introduction.................................................................................................37
Research Questions and Study Design........................................................ 37
Strengths and Limitations of Research Design ............................... 38
Reliability, Validity, and Generalizability......................................40
Reliability............................................................................40
Validity................................................................................40
Generalizability...................................................................41
Data Collection Processes and Procedures ................................................. 42
Thematic Dissertation Process........................................................42
Selection of Study Participants ....................................................... 42
Nomination Process............................................................42
Selection Criteria and Screening Process............................ 44
Site Visits........................................................................................45
Interviews........................................................................................46
Principal Pre-Site and On-Site Interview............................ 47
Mentoring Program Coordinator.........................................47
Mentor Interviews...............................................................48
Observations....................................................................................48
Documents......................................................................................49
Data Analysis .............................................................................................49
Conclusion .............................................................................................50

Chapter 4: Findings................................................................................................ 51
Introduction.................................................................................................51
Community Harvest Charter School ........................................................... 51
Introduction.....................................................................................51
Mentoring Program Description.....................................................55
Connections......................................................................... 56
v
Group Outings.....................................................................58
One-On-One Mentoring......................................................59
Mentoring Program Goals and Theory of Action ........................... 61
Implementation of the Mentoring Program at CHCS ..................... 62
History.................................................................................62
Unity One............................................................................64
Challenges and Lessons Learned........................................65
Evidence of Impact.........................................................................68
Program Benefits for Students ........................................... 69
Program Benefits for Mentors and Parents......................... 71
Resource Requirements...................................................................72
Budget and Facilities...........................................................72
Staffing................................................................................73
Professional Development..................................................74
Recommended Resources...............................................................75
Summary for Community Harvest Charter School ........................ 76
Escondido Charter High School.................................................................. 76
Introduction.....................................................................................76
Mentoring Program Description.....................................................81
Mentoring Component........................................................82
Elements to Support Relationship Building ....................... 83
Mentoring Program Goals and Theory of Action ........................... 86
Program Implementation.................................................................87
History.................................................................................87
Challenges and Lessons Learned........................................87
Evidence of Impact.........................................................................90
Program Benefits for Students ............................................ 91
Program Benefits for Teachers ........................................... 92
Resource Requirements...................................................................93
Staffing................................................................................94
Professional Development..................................................95
Recommended Resources...............................................................96
Summary for Escondido Charter High School ............................... 97
Conclusion .............................................................................................97

Chapter 5: Conclusions .......................................................................................... 98
Summary of the Chapter ............................................................................. 98
Connections to Prior Research.................................................................... 98
Research Question One...................................................................98
Factors that Contribute to Achievement ............................... 99
Research Question Two................................................................102
Research Question Three..............................................................105
Research Question Four................................................................108
Implications...............................................................................................109
Policy and Practice........................................................................110
vi
Federal-Level Recommendations........................................ 110
School-Level Recommendations ........................................ 112
Future Study..................................................................................113
Conclusion................................................................................................115

Bibliography .......................................................................................................116

Appendices
Appendix A: Mentoring Web Sites........................................................... 123
Appendix B: Compendium Contents ....................................................... 124
Appendix C: Announcement..................................................................... 125
Appendix D: Nomination Form ................................................................ 126
Appendix E: Triangulation Table ............................................................. 129
Appendix F: Pre-Site Principal Interview Protocol ................................. 131
Appendix G: On-Site Principal Interview Protocol .................................. 133
Appendix H: On-Site Promising Practice Lead Interview
Protocol .................................................................................................... 136
Appendix I: On-Site Mentor Interview Protocol ...................................... 139
Appendix J: Mentoring Observation Protocol ......................................... 142
Appendix K: Document Checklist ............................................................ 143
Appendix L: CHCS School Charter ......................................................... 144
Appendix M: CHCS Mentoring Program Application ............................ 182
Appendix N: Connections Summary ........................................................ 207
Appendix O: ECHS School Accountability Report Card ........................ 208
Appendix P: ECHS School Charter ......................................................... 226
Appendix Q: Master Agreement .............................................................. 238
Appendix R: Probationary Contract.......................................................... 239
Appendix S: Individualized Learning Program Summary........................ 240

vii

List of Tables

Table 1: Profile of Community Harvest Charter School .......................... 54

Table 2: Profile of Escondido Charter High School ................................. 78

viii
Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to uncover promising practices in the
area of mentoring, specifically implementation of one-on-one adult mentoring with
students within the California charter school setting. A case study approach formed
the theoretical framework for this study. Research questions guiding the study
included: How do charter schools use adult mentoring to improve student
achievement? How are resources used to implement adult mentoring for students
successfully? What challenges have charter schools faced when implementing adult
mentoring and how were the challenges addressed? How do key adults perceive the
impact of the mentoring program on mentees and mentors? What other evidence
exists to support these perceptions?
This study was conducted using a selected sample of two mentoring
programs within California charter schools. The selection process utilized the
following criteria: the mentoring program must have been implemented for more
than one year; it should demonstrate innovativeness; it should show evidence of a
positive change for student outcomes; and it should contain a potential for
replicability. Data sources, which were qualitative in nature, included interviews
with charter school administrators and mentors, a document analysis, and mentoring
session observations.
The study results showed similarities and differences in the promising
practice each charter school performed. A promising practice was defined as a
strategy demonstrating the promise, or potential, of improved student achievement.
The research provided evidence that one-on-one adult mentoring has the potential to
ix
increase student achievement through improving student attendance, grade-to-grade
promotion, and decreased discipline referrals.
This study’s findings and conclusions offer meaningful information regarding
implementation of school-based mentoring programs. By publicizing these findings
and conclusions through USC’s web-based Compendium of Promising Practices, this
information has the potential to inspire and guide educators to implement mentoring
programs that connect students to school and lead to improved student achievement.
1
CHAPTER ONE
Overview of the Study
The Problem of the Achievement Gap
Across the United States, educators are striving to improve the academic
achievement of students, especially students from poverty. Despite decades of
discussion, reforms, and funding, achievement gaps continue to exist among various
student subgroups, particularly affecting students from poverty. Students from
poverty typically reside at the low end of this gap.
Swanson (2004) reported that students at high-poverty schools were 15% to
18% more likely to drop out of school without graduating than students at low-
poverty schools. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) demonstrate that students from poverty, as measured by qualification for
free and reduced lunch, have significantly lower proficiency levels than students not
eligible for free and reduced lunch (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],
2005). In 2005, only 15% of eighth graders from poverty scored “proficient” or
above on the reading portion of the NAEP, whereas 39% of eighth graders not from
poverty scored “proficient” or above. Mathematics achievement for eighth graders
showed similar differences, as did mathematics and reading scores for fourth graders.
The NAEP data also identified the stability of the achievement gap (NCES). On both
the 1996 and 2005 NAEP, a 24-percentage-point gap in proficiency levels existed,
with eighth-grade students from poverty trailing their eighth-grade peers both years.
The differences are more pronounced in fourth-grade mathematics. In 1996, the
percentage of fourth graders from poverty who were proficient on the NAEP was 19
2
points lower than the percentage of fourth-grade students not from poverty who
demonstrated proficiency on the measure. This gap increased to a 30 percentage
point difference on the 2005 NAEP. Clearly, the achievement gap is not closing for
students from poverty across the nation.
In California, similar gaps in achievement exist as measured by the Academic
Performance Index (API). The API was established through the Public Schools
Accountability Act of 1999 to place more emphasis on student achievement in
California schools. The API scores range from 200 to 1000, with a target of 800. In
the 2006 API report by the California Department of Education (CDE), the subgroup
of students from low socioeconomic status, statewide, scored 652, which was over
50 points below the state average of 720 and about 150 points below the target of
800. These discrepancies highlight the fact that the API program may bring public
exposure to the achievement gap but has not brought solutions. Nevertheless, policy
makers continue to emphasize the achievement gap at the state and national levels.
California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell used his February 2,
2007 State of Education address to call for “a renewed sense of urgency in finding
solutions to closing the achievement gap” (“SPI Focuses,” 2007, p. 3).
The California legislature has mandated several solutions. Sanctions for low-
performing schools include an external evaluation, possible personnel reassignment,
and school reorganization or closure, over the course of 3 or more years (CDE,
2006). An underperforming school can also be converted to a charter school. In
addition, the API program includes public exposure, so that achievement rankings
are widely disseminated through print media and on the CDE Web site. The labels
3
“California Distinguished School” or “Underperforming School” are intended to
communicate clearly to parents the type of schools their children are attending. As
such, the API system leverages public pressure regarding student achievement.
At the federal level, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) explicitly
links continued funding for programs targeting low-income students to student
achievement. Federal funding for at-risk students through the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was first enacted in 1965, providing billions of
dollars for schools with large populations of low-income students. This funding is
intended to provide additional services to students from poverty to help them
overcome challenges that impede achievement. The 2001 reauthorization was the
first time ESEA funding was linked to student achievement outcomes. Student
achievement data are now required to be disaggregated by racial and socioeconomic
subgroups, as well as the overall student population. Although school districts have
the option of foregoing federal funding and related accountability to NCLB
guidelines, the over $13 billion of Title I funding in the United States is a strong
factor motivating districts to comply with NCLB. In addition, the federal Office of
Safe and Drug Free Schools (OSDFS) offers funding through grants to implement
specific strategies such as mentoring that have been shown to be effective with at-
risk students targeted by NCLB.
Therefore, both the API program and the NCLB legislation demonstrate
pressure to increase academic achievement. The gaps in achievement for some
student populations indicate a distinct need for research and innovation to increase
4
student achievement, especially within low-performing subgroups, including
students from poverty.
A Solution to the Achievement Gap: Mentoring
History and Definition of Mentoring
During the 1990s, structured mentoring programs emerged in the field of
education for the purpose of increasing educational achievement for students from
at-risk environments, including poverty settings (Brown, 1995; Flaxman & Ascher,
1992). Prior to this period, mentoring occurred informally for centuries. Formal
youth mentoring did not develop until the early 1900s in the context of the court
system. Around the same time, community-based mentoring programs such as Big
Brothers, Big Sisters (BBBS) began (Baker & Maguire, 2005). In each setting—
court systems, community-based programs, and education—mentoring was
identified as a one-on-one relationship between a more experienced individual and a
less experienced individual. Applied to educational settings, mentoring is typically a
relationship between an adult and a student (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, &
Cooper, 2002). Different programs establish diverse goals for mentoring
relationships, including supportive social relationships, tutoring, apprenticeships, or
combinations of each area (Anda, 2001; Brown; Flaxman & Ascher; Tierney et al.,
1995). Mentoring programs also vary in structure; for instance, they may involve
business and community organization partnerships with schools as well as
independent after-school programs (Cavanagh, 2007; DuBois et al.; Holland, 1996).
Based on prior research, mentoring in this study was defined as a planned one-on-
5
one relationship between an adult and a student with the goal of improving student
achievement.
Theory of Action: Linking Mentoring to Improved Student Achievement
Theories and research regarding resiliency and self-efficacy demonstrate how
mentoring can mitigate the influence of poverty on student achievement. As
explained previously, low socioeconomic status (SES) places students at risk of low
achievement. Resilience, by definition, is the ability of an individual to overcome
developmental threats or risk factors such as poverty in order to experience positive
outcomes including academic achievement (Bernard, 2004; Masten, 2001). In
summarizing research regarding resiliency development, Bernard explained three
essential environmental factors that protect natural resiliency development: caring
relationships, high expectations, and opportunities to participate and contribute. The
first two factors, caring relationships and high expectations, are characteristics of
effective mentoring relationships. Therefore, the research suggests that the
development of an effective mentoring relationship can protect students from the
negative impacts of poverty on their natural resilience and related academic
achievement.
Research also demonstrates a positive correlation between student self-
efficacy toward academics and academic achievement (Bandura, Barbaranelli,
Caprara & Pastorelli, 1996; Pajares, 1995). Bandura et al. defined self-efficacy as
“people’s beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their level of
functioning and environmental demands” (p. 1206). Research conducted by Tierney,
Grossman, and Resch (1995) revealed increased self-efficacy toward schoolwork as
6
an outcome of mentoring relationships through the BBBS program. Other
evaluations of mentoring programs found similar positive outcomes with respect to
academic self-efficacy (Anderson, Christenson, Sinclair, & Lehr, 2004; Beegle,
2006; Brown, 1995). Therefore, the research suggests that mentoring programs have
the potential to improve academic achievement by increasing students’ academic
self-efficacy.
In addition to theoretical support, empirical studies of mentoring programs
have identified positive indirect and direct correlations between mentoring and
student academic achievement. In their empirical study of the BBBS program,
Tierney et al. (1995) found increased attendance rates and a reduction in disciplinary
actions among participants, both of which are related to student achievement. Other
studies also found higher levels of attendance, grade-to-grade promotion, and credits
earned among students who participated in mentoring relationships (Anderson et al.,
2004; Cavanagh, 2007). A program evaluation for Project 2000, a community-based
mentoring program in Washington, DC, identified a substantially higher percentage
of mentored students—85%—at or above grade level in mathematics and reading, as
compared to a control group (without mentoring) in which only 15% of students
were at or above grade level (Holland, 1996). Other evaluations of mentoring
programs have also identified positive correlations between mentoring programs and
student academic achievement (Cavanagh; Flaxman & Ascher, 1992). Figure 1
graphically presents the theory of action underlying the relationship between
mentoring and improved academic achievement.
7
Figure 1: Theory of Action Linking Mentoring to Improved Student Achievement

Benefits of Mentoring:
• Increased attendance at school
• Increased grade-to-grade promotion
• Increased academic credits earned
• Increased number of students working at or above grade level
• Increased student self-efficacy toward academics
• Resiliency development
• Decreased discipline referrals
Adult Mentoring of Students
• One-on-one relationship
• High expectations

Improved Academic Achievement
8
As discussed, the use of mentoring to improve academic achievement has
both theoretical and empirical support; however, the effectiveness of mentoring
programs varies considerably based on differences in implementation (DuBois et al.,
2002). Implementation studies of mentoring programs, therefore, are needed to
identify effective program characteristics and to suggest ways in which the
achievement gap for students from poverty may be reduced. Charter schools, with a
focus on serving at-risk students and considerable school site autonomy, offer a
laboratory for investigating innovative mentoring programs that serve students of
poverty.
Charter Schools as Laboratories for Innovation
The intention of charter schools is to encourage innovation and accountability
within an autonomous organizational structure (Brewer & Ahn, 2007; Mallory &
Wohlstetter, 2003; Wohlstetter, Griffin, & Chau, 2002). Specifically, charter schools
receive public funding but are free from many state laws and regulations as well as
school district management. In addition, charter school autonomy typically includes
freedom from union involvement (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003). Utilizing their autonomy
in the areas of staffing, scheduling, budget, and the educational program, charter
schools can establish staffing positions or structure the school day to include
innovative programs such as mentoring. Further, without the constraints of district
oversight, partnerships with external organizations can be established to target
specific student needs of the charter school, including mentoring programs
(Wohlstetter et al.).
9
While charter schools have considerable autonomy, they also must
demonstrate accountability for results. By the end of their contract period (usually 3
to 5 years), charter schools must demonstrate accomplishment of their school goals,
including those related to student learning (Wohlstetter et al., 2002). Charter schools
are not only accountable to their chartering agencies, but also highly accountable to
their students’ parents. Charter schools receive public funding, but students are not
required to attend charter schools; instead, parents must choose to place their
children in a charter school. Therefore, charter school funding functions in a similar
manner to a free-market setting; parents serve as consumers and funding follows the
student (Wohlstetter, Wenning, & Briggs, 1995). This structure is intended to foster
competition between schools and to offer parents educational options within the
public school system (Murphy & Shiffman, 2002).
Within this context of competition and autonomy, charter schools are
intended to experiment and explore innovations that improve student achievement.
The best innovations are then expected to be disseminated to improve the entire
public school system, within both charter and noncharter schools (Brewer &
Wohlstetter, 2005; Bulkley & Fisler, 2003; Murphy & Shiffman, 2002). Millions of
dollars are available each year through federal and state grants for dissemination
efforts regarding effective strategies developed within charter schools. In the 2006–
2007 funding cycle, four California charter schools received over $990,000 for
dissemination of best practices (CDE, 2007). Charter school innovations include
restructuring the school day by extending instructional time, incorporating team
teaching, and organizing instruction around themes such as the arts (Murphy &
10
Shiffman; Wohlstetter & Kuzin, 2006). Charter school reformers expected that
promising innovations would be incorporated by other charter schools and
noncharter public schools.
As the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (n.d.) argued, a smaller school
community is better able to explore and initiate practices targeted to individual
student needs, including the needs of at-risk students. Charter schools provide this
smaller community, as they are typically smaller than noncharter public schools
(EdSource, 2006; Ziebarth, Celio, Lake, & Rainey, 2005). In the 2007 annual report
on California charter schools, EdSource researchers reported that the median size of
charter schools is significantly lower than the median size of noncharter schools.
Specifically, median charter schools at each grade span (elementary, middle, and
high school) have less than 400 students, while the median noncharter schools have
564, 884, and 1,890 students at the elementary, middle, and high school levels,
respectively.
Aside from size, another characteristic of charter schools is that they are
typically located in urban districts and serve low-income students (Mallory &
Wohlstetter, 2003; Wohlstetter et al., 2002; Ziebarth et al., 2005). While the overall
percentage of students from poverty is lower in charter schools than in noncharter
public schools, this difference is shrinking. In 1999, the percentage of students from
poverty within California charter schools was 31.1%, but this figure had increased
over 8 percentage points to 39.6% in 2005 (Center on Educational Governance,
2007; Wohlstetter et al.). Over the same period, noncharter public schools in
California experienced a much smaller increase in the enrollment of students from
11
poverty. This group grew by approximately two percentage points, from 47.3% in
1999 to 49% in 2005. Within charter schools, increasing numbers of students from
poverty will likely continue to enroll, in part due to the preferred status given to
charter schools that target at-risk students (CDE, 2007; Mallory & Wohlstetter).
According to a 2006 Rand report, “many urban leaders . . . have initiated charter
schools as a mechanism to improve learning for disadvantaged students” (Buddin,
2006, p. 3). In sum, the facts that charter schools have increased autonomy and
accountability, tend to be smaller than noncharter public schools, and focus on at-
risk students suggest that such schools provide an effective setting for the study of
promising practices regarding student achievement.
Focus of the Study: Mentoring in Charter Schools
The characteristics of charter schools create a viable setting to explore the
promise of mentoring to improve student achievement. Specifically, working within
urban neighborhoods and at-risk student populations requires many charter schools
to develop innovative practices that address the impact of poverty in order to meet
accountability expectations. As previously discussed, mentoring has theoretical and
empirical support, which suggests that it can mitigate the impact of poverty and
increase student achievement.
The term promising practices has been defined in the literature as innovative
strategies that have a theoretical and research basis to support further
implementation, but not substantial empirical evidence to prove their effectiveness
(Bardach, 2003; Wohlstetter & Kuzin, 2006). For the purpose of this study, the term
promising practice is used and further defined as a strategy demonstrating the
12
promise or potential of improved student achievement. In addition, Wohlstetter and
Kuzin’s inclusion of only “strategies of schools (not individual teachers)” in the
category of promising practices will be applied in this study (p. 1).
Mentoring within education meets the criteria of a promising practice based
on its theoretical foundations and researched outcomes demonstrating the potential to
positively affect student achievement. In addition, components of effective
implementation are just now emerging to maximize the benefits of mentoring within
the school setting (DuBois & Karcher, 2005b). For all these reasons, an effort to
explore and disseminate information regarding implementation of mentoring
programs within charter schools is timely.
Purpose and Significance of Study
The purpose of this study was to investigate and analyze how two charter
schools in California implemented effective mentoring programs. The charter
schools were chosen based on evidence of strong student achievement and an
effective mentoring program. The aim of the study was to analyze the details of
implementation in order to determine which program characteristics are critical to
the mentoring of students, including students from poverty.
Study results will be disseminated through the University of Southern
California (USC) Compendium of Promising Practices in the Fall of 2008. The USC
compendium is a searchable online database that identifies strategies for improving
school performance that are “new ideas or existing ideas that have not been widely
disseminated” (Wohlstetter & Kuzin, 2006, p. 1). The goal of the USC compendium
is to disseminate promising practices found in charter schools across various
13
educational settings, including charter as well as noncharter public schools. By
providing information on implementation and the results of specific strategies, the
USC compendium is designed to “inspire educators” and generate the “opportunity
to exchange ideas and share experiences” to improve student learning (Wohlstetter &
Kuzin, p. 1). As of this writing, the USC compendium offers promising practices in
the following areas: arts-themed education, integration of technology into math and
science, high school reform, literacy for English language learners, parent
involvement, project-based learning, school leadership, school–university
partnerships, special education, and student discipline.
The current study was developed as part of a thematic Ed.D. dissertation
group at USC’s Rossier School of Education. In addition to this study’s focus on
mentoring, members of the dissertation group explored promising practices in (a)
integrating academics into career–technical education, (b) teacher evaluation, (c) use
of technology to increase parental involvement, (d) uses of school time, and (e)
writing across the curriculum. These promising practices, taken together with the
ones identified previously, offer educators and other interested stakeholders
strategies for meeting the needs of diverse student populations.
The combination of the benefits of mentoring, an increased need for
strategies to improve the academic achievement of students from poverty, and
increased federal funding for mentoring heightens the importance of this study. With
increased federal expectations for student achievement, expanding numbers of
schools with large populations of students from poverty are being identified as “in
need of program improvement.” Mentoring programs have the potential to
14
supplement efforts to improve instructional programs; they help connect students to
the educational program, and mentors often serve as advocates to help students gain
access to valuable educational resources and learning opportunities (Beegle, 2006).
As noted earlier, a growing body of literature suggests that effective mentoring can
both directly and indirectly have a positive impact on student achievement (Anda,
2001; Cavanagh, 2007; DuBois et al., 2002; Flaxman & Ascher, 1992; Tierney et al.,
1995). Further, as previously discussed, the federal government recognizes the
potential of mentoring through its provisions of funding under OSDFS to encourage
the implementation of mentoring programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).
Therefore, investigating and disseminating mentoring strategies are important
components of efforts to increase student achievement.
Organization of Dissertation
The present study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 has summarized
the value of mentoring to improve student achievement and the potential of charter
schools to establish and expand mentoring practices within school settings. Chapter 2
is a review of the literature regarding mentoring, including attributes of effective
mentoring programs. Research methods and the data collection activities utilized in
the study are described in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 contains an analysis of the data and
findings regarding mentoring practices in the two sample charter schools. Finally,
chapter 5 includes a report on the study’s conclusions and a discussion of its
implications for policy makers and for future research.
15
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to uncover promising practices in the area of
adult mentoring of students at the elementary and secondary levels within the school
setting. As explained in chapter 1, both theory and empirical research support the use
of mentoring to improve student achievement, especially for students from poverty.
By protecting student resiliency, increasing self-efficacy and motivation, and
improving school attendance, mentoring serves as a buffer to protect against the
negative impact that poverty factors can have on achievement. Through a
comprehensive review of relevant literature regarding the implementation of
mentoring, this chapter identifies research-based components regarding the
successful implementation of adult mentoring programs for students.
Literature Selection
In order to align the literature review with the focus of this study, various
decisions were made regarding search strategies, parameters, and publication types.
The phrase youth mentoring was used to identify mentoring programs for the
elementary through high school level. While numerous resources addressed youth
mentoring in general, search parameters were added to further focus on research
related to students from poverty by including the terms poverty or at-risk in
conjunction with mentoring or youth mentoring. Resources were filtered out if they
did not address planned, one-on-one, adult–student mentoring relationships. This
removed the categories of natural, group, and peer mentoring. A search was also
16
made to target research on school-based programs, which is an emerging area of
mentoring research. Through the general and specific parameters used, a
comprehensive set of references was complied regarding research on planned,
individual, adult mentoring for school-age youth.
The types of literature identified included program evaluations, meta-
analyses, expert summaries, and empirical research (mostly qualitative studies). The
primary databases utilized were ERIC, ERIC Cambridge Scientific Abstracts,
JSTOR, and the USC library catalog system, HOMER. Publication types included
peer-reviewed journals, practitioner journals, literature reviews, government
documents, and books, as well as unpublished sources such as dissertations,
technical reports, and policy briefs. Web sites that served as clearinghouses for
mentoring research and information were an additional source of research and
resources (see Appendix A for Web site addresses and other contact information).
Although a range of literature was utilized to develop this review, two studies and
two authors were prominent in the literature. Their works greatly influenced the
development of the four components utilized in this paper.
Key Studies and Authors
One study emerged as the most relevant and important. Tierney et al.’s
(1995) empirical study of the Big Brothers, Big Sisters (BBBS) program was
prominent in the literature, perhaps because it used randomized assignment,
multiyear data collection, and a range of data categories. Numerous other authors
have referenced the findings or reanalyzed data from this study (Herrera, 2004;
Langhout, Rhodes, & Osborne, 2004; Rhodes & DuBois, 2006). In addition, Tierney
17
et al.’s study has served as a catalyst for the expansion of mentoring programs
(Rhodes & DuBois).
The second prominent study was a meta-analysis of mentoring program
evaluations conducted by DuBois et al. (2002). They presented 11 theory-based
implementation elements recommended to build effective mentoring programs. The
meta-analysis revealed an empirical base supporting only seven elements: ongoing
training for mentors, structured activities for mentors and youth, expectations for
frequency of contact, setting for mentoring activities, mentor background,
involvement of parents, and monitoring of overall program implementation. This
study synthesized previous research while calling for more extensive research
regarding effective elements of mentoring programs.
Youth mentoring research within the last decade has frequently included two
researchers: Dr. David L. DuBois of the University of Illinois at Chicago and Dr.
Jean E. Rhodes of the University of Massachusetts in Boston. In addition to
coauthoring the meta-analysis, DuBois co-edited the Handbook of Youth Mentoring
(DuBois & Karcher, 2005a), a compilation of mentoring research, including topics
from mentoring relationships to national policy issues regarding mentoring. DuBois
also served as a member of a panel of youth mentoring experts who developed the
Effective Elements of Mentoring Programs. Rhodes, another member of this panel,
summarized 31 elements organized around the categories of program design and
planning, management, operations, and evaluation (MENTOR, 2003).
This set of guidelines was a revision of an initial set that was identified in
1990 by a similar panel of mentoring experts on which both DuBois and Rhodes
18
served. Both groups were brought together through the MENTOR organization
where, as of August 2008, Rhodes disseminated mentoring research. The Effective
Elements were widely referenced by other authors and were cited extensively in the
2004 report to Congress regarding student mentoring programs funded through the
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools (OSDFS) (Shaul, 2004). Although these
resources and authors formed the foundation of this literature review, the review is a
synthesis of information from a variety of sources.
Types of Mentoring Programs
Through the literature review, two basic kinds of mentoring programs were
identified: community-based and school-based. Community-based mentoring
programs develop matches outside the structure of a specific site. Mentors meet
independently with mentees and generally set their own agendas for interaction
activities. School-based mentoring programs exist within the school setting and often
have academic goals. Whereas previously mentoring programs were almost
exclusively community-based, Manza (2003) reported that only 54% of mentoring
programs were community-based (as cited in DuBois & Karcher, 2005a). In fact,
Hansen (2007b) stated that school-based matches within BBBS increased 270%,
from 27,000 to 100,000, over a 4-year period between 1999 and 2003. This growth
resulted in only 5,000 fewer total school-based matches than in community-based
programs, with 105,000 total matches. The number of school-based programs
continues to grow, due in part to OSDFS mentoring grants and BBBS expansion to
site-based programs (Herrera, Sipe, & McClanahan, 2000).
19
Herrera et al. (2000) identified differences between community-based and
school-based mentoring programs in the areas of program focus, mentor
characteristics, and cost and staffing. For instance, school-based mentoring has a
greater focus on academic activities, while community-based mentoring emphasizes
social activities. Although this study investigated school-based programs, research in
this area is emerging and is much more limited than findings regarding community-
based programs. Therefore, community-based mentoring research was used as a
foundation regarding general youth mentoring, with findings specific to school-based
programs presented separately.
Chapter Organization
Chapter 2 is organized into several parts. The four components utilized to
organize findings for this study are identified first. These components were
developed based on the findings regarding the implementation of both community-
based and school-based mentoring programs. Next, the findings are analyzed and
synthesized for community-based programs, then for school-based programs.
Finally, the gaps in the literature and the need for this study are explained in the last
section of the chapter.
Review of Components of Community-Based Mentoring Programs
Synthesis of theoretical, empirical, and experience-based recommendations
regarding mentoring programs revealed several overarching areas of focus and an
emerging issue. These areas are mentoring roles and interactions, selection and
matching of mentors and mentees, and program infrastructure and support. In
addition, the issue of program sustainability is emerging in current research. Taken
20
together, these four components provide a research-based structure for the effective
implementation of mentoring programs.
Component 1: Roles and Interactions Within Community-Based Mentoring
Programs
Findings regarding mentoring roles and interactions that correlate with
positive results focus on the duration of matches (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006; Langhout
et al., 2004; Morrow & Styles, 1995; Sipe, 1996). Building effective relationships is
essential in meeting what Morrow and Styles identified as “mentoring’s major
challenge: to make the relationship last long enough to be helpful to the youth” (p.
iv). Research regarding mentoring styles and mentoring activities has identified
strategies that assist in building enduring relationships.
Duration and relationships.
The most consistent finding regarding mentoring relationships is that longer
is better (Cavell & Smith, 2005; Jekielek, Moore, Hair, & Scarupa, 2002; Rhodes,
2002; Tierney et al., 1995). In fact, studies have found a negative impact of
mentoring when the mentoring relationship ended prematurely (Cavell & Smith). A
minimum recommendation of at least one year of meetings, 4 hours per month, is
identified by Grossman and Rhodes. Several studies identified that the best results
occur if the match is for more than one year, and some programs require a 2-year
commitment (Anderson et al., 2004; Cavell & Smith; Grossman & Johnson, 1999;
Herrera, 2004).
An effective relationship within the mentoring match is important in order to
maximize the benefits of mentoring. Within BBBS, this relationship is clarified in
21
the definition of a mentor “as a friend, not as a teacher or preacher” and by
identifying that the goal of mentoring is to support the youth, not explicitly change
behavior (Tierney et al., 1995). Other studies also identify the relationship itself, not
fixing problems, as the most important goal of mentoring (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006;
Herrera, 2004; Langhout et al., 2004; Mentoring Resource Center [MRC], 2005;
Morrow & Styles, 1995). A focus on building a strong relationship establishes the
trust needed to help mentees make changes and overcome challenges in their lives.
When the main focus is the transformation itself, mentoring relationships frequently
end in frustration for both the mentor and mentee before change occurs. Two studies
of BBBS matches identified specific characteristics of mentoring interactions that
build strong relationships.
Relationship style.
Morrow and Styles’s (1995) study analyzed the relationships of 82 mentoring
matches within the BBBS program. Their work revealed two mentoring styles:
developmental and prescriptive. Mentors using a developmental style focused on the
needs of the mentee and included the mentee in decisions regarding activities, which
were often negotiated to match the interests of both individuals. In discussions,
nonjudgmental responses and reassurances of the mentee helped build trust within
the relationship and developed the mentee’s willingness to discuss personal
concerns. When developmental mentors experienced difficulties, they were more
likely than prescriptive mentors to contact program support personnel for guidance
and encouragement.
22
Mentors using a prescriptive style made the mentor’s goals the focus of the
relationship (Morrow & Styles, 1995). Activities were often similar to those utilized
by developmental mentors; however, the prescriptive mentor made decisions
regarding these activities without input from the mentee. When prescriptive mentors
engaged in discussions, they lectured their mentees and expressed disappointment
rather than support. This is in contrast to developmental mentors, who followed the
mentee’s lead and offered encouragement without judgment. Such interactions built
trust for developmental relationships and frustration for prescriptive relationships.
In Morrow and Styles’s (1995) study, these differences correlated to
differences in the duration and strength of mentoring relationships. Specifically,
more than 90% of the mentor–mentee pairs in relationships using the developmental
style were still meeting regularly 9 months after the initial interview, while only
about 30% of the pairs using the prescriptive style were still meeting regularly. The
findings of Morrow and Styles regarding developmental versus prescriptive
mentoring styles are often referenced in other studies (DuBois et al., 2002; Rhodes &
DuBois, 2006; Herrera et al., 2000; Langhout et al., 2004).
Langhout et al. (2004) found similar results regarding mentoring
relationships in their analysis of data from the BBBS study by Tierney et al. (1995)
using the self-reported scales completed by the adolescents in the initial study. In
general, Langhout et al. found that more active involvement and less talking
produced more positive results. More specifically, their findings indicated that
mentoring relationships that had moderate levels of structure, activity, and support
correlated with increased self-worth and school competence, as well as decreased
23
feelings of inequality, alienation toward parents, and peer conflict for the mentees. In
contrast, relationships with moderate activity and structure but unconditional support
correlated to increased mentee alienation from parents. Langhout et al. also found
that the existence of negotiation and possible conflict within the mentoring
relationship may help mentees develop skills leading to increased self-efficacy
toward areas such as school competence.
Mentoring activities.
Based on these and other studies, the role of activities is important for
building strong mentoring relationships. Examples of activities utilized in various
programs include engaging in social activities, attending school events, playing
sports or games, and “hanging out” (Herrera, 2004, p. 11). Having fun and enjoying
each other’s company were commonly identified as important characteristics of
activities (Morrow & Styles, 1995; Spencer & Rhodes, 2005). This evidence
regarding the importance of ensuring long-term matches through building effective
relationships emphasizes the need to utilize effective strategies when selecting and
matching mentors and mentees.
Component 2: Selection and Matching Within Community-Based Mentoring
Programs
Mentor selection.
As mentoring is about relationships, the people involved and their matching
are important. Those screening and selecting mentors should consider issues of
commitment and potential effectiveness of mentors, as well as safety issues (Jekielek
et al., 2002; Tierney et al., 1995). Several studies have found that specific traits of
24
mentors correlated with stronger outcomes. Stein (1987) found that using outgoing
and older adults correlated with positive results (as cited in Cavell & Smith, 2005).
DuBois et al. (2002) further found in their meta-analysis that backgrounds in
“helping roles,” such as the role of teacher, correlated with stronger relationships and
outcomes. In addition, mentors who possessed self-efficacy regarding their ability to
work with youth, understood socioeconomic and cultural influences, and respected
these influences were recommended by Rhodes and DuBois (2006).
Screening for mentors who utilize a developmental approach and are not a
safety risk should also occur. As Morrow and Styles (1995) found, developmental
mentors identify relationship building as the goal of mentoring, while prescriptive
mentors identify transformational goals. These differences can be determined
through screening questions about mentors’ goals for mentoring. For the safety of
mentees, fingerprinting is another essential element of mentor screening. The
MENTOR organization supports mentoring programs by providing access to
SafetyNET, a background check system, as one of its essential strategies.
Mentee selection.
Criteria for identifying mentees are also important to consider when
developing a mentoring program (Cavell & Smith, 2005). Mentoring programs
typically target their resources to specific types of individuals. Some programs serve
students in the juvenile court system; others work with students in foster care or
gifted and talented students. DuBois et al. (2002) as well as Jekielek et al. (2002)
found that students from poverty benefited from mentoring. However, students with
significant personal problems need intensive interventions, which are often beyond
25
the scope of mentoring. If such students are placed in a mentoring relationship in
coordination with other interventions, Jekielek et al. recommended strong support
and training for the mentor.
Matching mentors and mentees.
While various criteria for matching mentors and mentees are discussed in
mentoring implementation literature, few criteria have been supported by research
(Anda, 2001). The one area with some support is that of matching by interests
(Herrera et al., 2000; Sipe, 1996). Shared interests allow mentors and mentees to find
common activities they enjoy and therefore build their relationship.
Even though criteria such as gender and race matching are often considered
in program implementation, research has not demonstrated that such matches
correlate with stronger outcomes (DuBois et al., 2002; Herrera et al., 2000; Morrow
& Styles, 1995; Rhodes & DuBois, 2006; Sipe, 1996). Nonetheless, mentoring
organizations such as BBBS have programs targeted to ethnic matches for African
American and Hispanic youth (BBBS, 2007). Such matching strategies seem to
address social considerations rather than demonstrated benefits. Some considerations
such as cross-gender matches address social concerns regarding potential sexual
harassment and the perception of inappropriate relationships. In addition, mentors
may want to “give back” to a younger generation from the same ethnic background
or address problems prevalent in specific groups; this is demonstrated in programs
such as Project 2000, which was targeted to African American students (Holland,
1996).
26
In summary, selection and matching of mentoring participants should go
beyond finding willing mentors and students with needs. Instead, screening criteria
for mentors should focus on finding people with a developmental perspective.
Matches should be made around characteristics that build relationships, such as
individuals’ interests, rather than using assumed commonalities based on race or
gender. Even with careful screening and matching, mentoring relationships will not
necessarily flourish. In order to ensure that mentor–mentee pairs develop strong
relationships that last, mentoring programs must provide ongoing support, training,
and monitoring.
Component 3: Infrastructure and Support Within Community-Based Mentoring
Programs
While the initial selection of mentors is essential for effective mentoring
implementation, mentoring programs must also provide support for mentors to work
effectively (DuBois et al., 2002; Rhodes & DuBois, 2006; Hansen, 2007b; Herrera,
2004; Jekielek et al., 2002; Mentoring Resource Center [MRC], 2007; Rhodes, 2002;
Sipe, 1996). Program infrastructure includes ongoing monitoring, support systems,
and training.
Ongoing monitoring and support.
Ongoing monitoring and support of mentor relationships help ensure the
consistency and strength of these relationships. However, ongoing monitoring should
go beyond confirmation that the mentor and mentee are meeting and bonding; the
relationship should also be monitored for signs of abuse (Jekielek et al., 2002; MRC,
2007). Monitoring methods include mentor logs, phone calls to mentors, mentor
27
support groups, meetings, and program structures (MRC). Sipe (1996) and Herrera
(2004) found that the type of monitoring affects the duration and frequency of
meetings for mentoring matches. For example, Sipe found that regular phone calls to
mentors increased the consistency of meetings. Other structures such as consistent
meeting times and assistance with transportation were also correlated with increased
meeting consistency.
In addition to monitoring, mentoring relationships benefit from various
support systems. Sipe (1996) and Jekielek et al. (2002) discussed the importance of
supporting the mentoring relationship through personal contact with program
personnel. Sipe stated that the support of individuals who are experienced in
mentoring can contribute to the strength and duration of mentoring relationships in
ways that other structures cannot. Jekielek et al. also identified one of the roles of a
mentoring program as helping pairs solve problems. In addition, Sipe encouraged
support focused on helping mentors utilize a developmental approach instead of a
prescriptive approach. Such monitoring and support require program personnel to
make contacts and provide guidance. Some programs utilize volunteers in these
roles, while other programs pay individuals to oversee mentoring pairs (Anda, 2001;
Anderson et al., 2004; Sipe; Tierney et al., 1995).
Training of mentors.
In addition to monitoring and individual contacts, training of mentors helps
matches last. This training should occur prior to creating mentoring matches as well
as over the course of the mentoring relationship (Jekielek et al., 2002). The need for
mentor training consistently appears in the literature as an important element of
28
mentoring programs (Anda, 2001; Hansen, 2007a; Herrera, 2004; Langhout et al.,
2004; Rhodes, 2002; Sipe, 1996). In fact, DuBois et al. (2002) found ongoing
training to be a significant variable in their meta-analysis.
While Langhout et al. (2004) identified that training needs differed based on
specific mentoring matches, some training topics are commonly noted in the
literature. In order to focus mentors on relationship development, mentors should be
trained to utilize a developmental approach (Langhout et al.; Rhodes & DuBois,
2006; Sipe, 1996). This could include communication and limit-setting skills to
prepare the mentor to allow the mentee to effectively guide the relationship (Tierney
et al., 1995). Sipe also emphasized the need to “foster realistic expectations” (p. 10),
which includes an understanding that mentor goals should focus on building a
relationship, not academic or social behavior goals. In addition, training should
prepare mentors for different stages of youth development, especially the transition
toward independence in adolescence (Langhout et al.; MRC, 2007). Other identified
topics include recognizing child abuse, issues of confidentiality, mentoring activities,
and dealing with difficult situations, as well as program structures and expectations
(MRC; Rhodes & DuBois; Sipe).
Component 4: Sustainability of Community-Based Mentoring Programs
Over the last decade, the mentoring movement has experienced rapid growth
(Baker & Maguire, 2005; Rhodes & DuBois, 2006). Research, state and federal
funding for mentoring, and the efforts of mentoring organizations such as the
National Mentoring Project’s media campaign initiated and continue to fuel the
development of mentoring programs (DuBois & Karcher, 2005a). Sustainability is a
29
concern as numerous programs emerge and move beyond initial development. As M.
Garringer (personal communication, April 24, 2007), resource associate with the
National Mentoring Center, explained, recipients of federal mentoring grants
typically have training and support strategies in place but have not developed plans
or mechanisms to continue their programs beyond the life of the grant.
The issue of sustainability was also included in Elements of Effective
Practice, the report developed by a panel of mentoring experts, in the
recommendation to “identify and secure a diversified funding stream needed to start
and sustain the program” (Rhodes, 2002). Within the U.S. Congressional report on
the OSDFS mentoring grant program, Shaul (2004) also identified diversified
funding, as well as elements of marketing and recognition, as strategies that
contributed to program sustainability. Other recommendations regarding program
sustainability were ongoing program evaluation to develop and maintain
effectiveness and implementing strategies for volunteer retention (Rhodes; Rhodes &
DuBois, 2006). However, empirically based research to determine which strategies
correlate to mentoring program sustainability is still needed (Rhodes & DuBois).
Review of Components in School-Based Mentoring Programs
As research on school-based programs, as noted earlier, was especially
applicable to the present study, findings specific to school-based programs were
separated from findings related to community-based mentoring programs. The
findings discussed in this section identify strengths and challenges unique to the
school setting. Similar to the previous section on community-based mentoring
programs, findings about school-based mentoring were organized under the
30
following four categories: (a) mentoring roles and interactions, (b) selection and
matching of mentors and mentees, (c) program infrastructure and support, and (d)
program sustainability.
Component 1: Roles and Interactions Within School-Based Mentoring Programs
Within school-based programs, the issues regarding duration and the focus of
interactions arose; both issues are associated with the importance of building a
relationship. As previously stated, the positive results of mentoring were associated
with building a relationship within the match (Herrera, 2004; Herrera et al., 2007;
Jekielek et al., 2002; MRC, 2005; Morrow & Styles, 1995; Rhodes & DuBois, 2006).
Duration of mentoring matches was one challenge of school-based programs found
by Herrera; these programs typically operated just during the school year (i.e., for a
period of 10 months) instead of the full year recommended in the research on
community-based mentoring. In addition, school-based mentoring pairs tended to
have shorter meetings and spent less time together overall than did community-based
pairs (MENTOR, n.d.). In fact, DuBois et al.’s (2002) meta-analysis showed a
negative impact in school settings. However, a recent study of about 500 matches
within school-based programs found that school-based mentoring was associated
with students’ academic gains (Hansen, 2007b).
As previously stated in relationship to community-based mentoring, a focus
on academic activities within mentoring relationships was not found to correlate
positively with increased student achievement. Within school-based programs,
Hansen (2007b) found that “programs that encourage activities with a
social/emotional focus . . . are more likely to have matches with greater academic
31
impact” than programs in which academic activities are the focus (p. 4). However, a
balance was deemed important. Spending up to 50%, but not more, of mentoring
time on games was related to positive outcomes on indicators of relationships
including match continuation and increased satisfaction of mentors and mentees
(Hansen & Corlett, 2007). Spending up to 50% of activity time on general tutoring,
not homework or specific academic work, was related to positive perceptions for
mentors.
While more research is needed in this area, it is important for program
creators to remember that a mentoring program is different than a tutoring program.
Mentoring is about building a relationship that is not best facilitated by tutoring
activities. Even without a focus on academic activities, programs have demonstrated
a positive impact on academic outcomes such as grades (Hansen, 2007b). Mentors
should focus on building a relationship but could address a student’s academic needs
by advocating for student access to resources such as tutoring and advocating for the
student through direct communication with teachers (MRC, 2005; MENTOR, n.d.).
Component 2: Selection and Matching Within School-Based Mentoring Programs
There were three main findings specific to school-based programs in the area
of selection and matching of mentors and mentees: the mentors available,
recommendations to encourage multiyear matches, and the value of interest-based
matching. School-based programs have many advantages in attracting greater
numbers of mentors than community-based programs (Hansen, 2007a; Herrera,
2004). School-based mentoring takes place in an environment where cross-gender
matches are more feasible, thereby helping to meet the needs of the disproportionate
32
numbers of males waiting for mentoring (Herrera et al., 2000; MENTOR, n.d.). In
addition, a broader age range of mentors can be utilized in the supervised school
setting. For example, high school students can serve as mentors within a school
setting but often do not meet the age requirements of community-based programs.
Rhodes also found that senior citizens are also more likely to engage in school-based
mentoring due partly to the supportive environment of the school.
According to research, selection of mentors and mentees needs to attend to
issues that impact the duration and intensity of matches. Hansen (2007b) found that
high school mentors were as effective as corporate or other mentors and that they
tended to spend more time in each meeting with mentees. Hansen also supported the
use of college-age mentors, although the program needs to have clear expectations
and follow-up over the course of the year to monitor commitment and the
consistency of meetings. The research further advocates avoiding the use of mentors
in their senior year when using high school or college students in order to provide the
opportunity for the match to continue beyond a single year. For the same reason,
Hansen also encouraged placing students in mentoring relationships when they still
have 2 years left in the initial school setting (i.e., fourth or seventh grade). In
relationship to matching, Hansen found that school-based programs tend not to focus
on matching by interests but concluded that this element should be considered in
order to support relationship development.
Component 3: Infrastructure and Support Within School-Based Mentoring Programs
While many issues of program infrastructure and support for mentors are
similar for school-based and community-based programs, some findings were
33
specific to school-based programs. These findings were focused on issues of
communication, resources, and general support.
Effective communication within mentoring programs begins with clear
expectations. Developing the school staff’s understandings of appropriate activities
and mentor characteristics could avoid misconceptions of the role and impact of
mentoring. For instance, if teachers expect students to receive tutoring during the
mentoring session and discover that they are playing games or making crafts with
their mentors, teachers’ support of the mentoring program would likely weaken. On
the other hand, helping school staff understand that the mentoring relationship can
improve academic results would likely encourage teachers’ support of relationship-
building activities. As Herrera et al. (2000) concluded, the staff need to understand
that “youth benefit academically simply from having an adult pay attention to and
spend time with them” (p. 9).
According to previous research, once clear expectations are established,
structured communication among stakeholders is important. Herrera (2004) found
that mentors benefited from structured communication with teachers and parents
before and during the mentoring relationship. Structured communication between the
school and the program, as well as between the program and mentors, was also found
to support relationship building and the duration of mentor–mentee relationships.
Hansen (2007b) also concluded that teacher and principal involvement (another by-
product of structured communication) correlated with increased program
effectiveness.
34
Resources that support relationship development are also important within
school-based programs. As school-based matches typically have a limited amount of
time together, it is important to have a consistent and convenient meeting place to
help maximize mentoring time (Hansen, 2007a). Being able to access school
resources such as the library, computers, and sports equipment further supports
effective use of time for relationship development (Herrera, 2004).
As in community-based programs, mentor training is important in school-
based programs. Herrera et al. (2000) found that mentors who had at least 6 hours of
pre-match training reported stronger mentoring relationships than mentors with less
pre-match training. Both Hansen (2007b) and Herrera et al. recommended additional
training for mentors working with middle school students to address “the challenges
of mentoring middle school youth” (Hansen, p. 9). Within Herrera et al.’s study,
mentors identified additional components of value to them, including clear
guidelines on what mentors may do, supervision by site staff, encouragement, and
communication with other mentors.
Component 4: Sustainability of School-Based Mentoring Programs
Issues regarding mentor satisfaction, site personnel support of programs, and
funding sources affect the sustainability of school-based mentoring programs. As
with community-based mentoring programs, school-based programs need to address
issues of mentor attrition (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006). Implementing the
recommendations within component three, regarding mentor support, can assist in
addressing mentor attrition issues. Mentoring programs initially funded by federal
grants have an additional challenge of identifying a funding source for their
35
maintenance beyond the life of the grant. As many OSDFS grants were coming to a
close at the time the present study was conducted, research regarding these issues
was just beginning. More research is needed in this area to help sustain effective
school-based mentoring programs.
Summary
Components and findings.
An analysis of research on school-based mentoring programs and
community-based mentoring programs revealed four components: (a) selection and
matching of mentors and mentees, (b) mentoring roles and interactions, (c) program
infrastructure and support, and (d) sustainability. Within these four categories, some
consistent findings were identified, as were gaps in information. The most consistent
findings regarding mentoring programs were the value of developing a strong
relationship within the mentoring match and the importance of match duration to
support the relationship’s development. Past studies have highlighted ways to
develop and maintain these relationships. The research also suggested that mentoring
results in positive outcomes for students, such as improved grades, increased school
attendance, and improved self-efficacy.
Need for study.
While the research on the positive impact of mentoring programs has
generated interest and the expansion of mentoring programs, the integration of
findings regarding elements of effective implementation has not consistently
occurred in these programs (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006). In addition, there is a dearth
of information regarding how programs effectively implement these research-based
36
components. Some researchers have also called “for innovation and experimentation
with enhancements to program design” (DuBois et al., 2002, p. 190).
This study addresses the need for integration of empirical findings into
mentoring program implementation. Through analyzing the implementation of two
school-based programs in light of research-based findings, this study provides insight
into how these implementation elements are incorporated into mentoring programs.
This information will ideally be utilized to expand the use of research-based
implementation elements and improve the quality of replication of effective
mentoring programs.
Chapter 3 Organization
Chapter 3 presents the research methods employed in this study. Four
research questions are presented, as are the data collection instruments used to
investigate the questions. A description of the data collection process and data
analysis procedures is also included in chapter 3.
37
CHAPTER THREE
Research Methods
Introduction
As stated in chapter 1, the purpose of this study was to uncover promising
practices in the area of mentoring, specifically implementation of one-on-one adult
mentoring programs with students within the charter school setting. The purpose of
this chapter is to identify and explain the research methods employed for this study.
Chapter 3 is organized into three parts. First, the research design and research
questions are presented. Next, the data collection process and procedures as well as
instrumentation are identified and explained. Finally, the data analysis methods are
presented.
Research Design and Questions
This case study investigated one-on-one adult mentoring of students at the
program level, not the school or participant levels. Therefore, the unit of analysis is
the promising practice of mentoring.
The key research questions were as follows:
1. How do charter schools use adult mentoring to improve student achievement?
2. How are resources used to implement adult mentoring successfully?
3. What challenges have charter schools faced when implementing adult
mentoring and how were the challenges addressed?
4. How do key adults perceive the impact of the mentoring program on mentees
and mentors? What other evidence exists to support these perceptions?
38
This study was intended to present an in-depth and detailed description of
two mentoring programs to understand their implementation. Qualitative
methodology through a descriptive case study was employed due to the detailed and
dynamic nature of this study. According to Merriam (1998), the purpose of a
descriptive case study is to provide detailed information on the phenomenon under
study. Patten (2002) stated that qualitative methodology facilitates in-depth study to
develop an understanding of issues. A case study offers an effective way to
understand active components (Merriam). Mentoring is a dynamic phenomenon. In
addition, Merriam stated that case studies are effective for describing the impact of
policies and programs, especially innovative practices in areas in which there is
limited research available. While the field of mentoring is not devoid of research,
this research is in its early stages of development, especially in the area of
implementation of school-based mentoring programs (DuBois & Karcher, 2005a).
This study was intended to add to this growing field of research through its
contribution to the USC Compendium of Promising Practices, a searchable online
database of strategies for improving school performance.
Strengths and Limitations of Research Design
The case study method was appropriate for this study, but the design has
strengths and limitations. The strengths of qualitative case study design align with
the dynamic and in-depth nature of implementing mentoring programs. Merriam
(1998) stated that the case study design is “emergent and flexible, responsive to
changing conditions” (p. 8). As it is important to understand the interaction of
variables within mentoring programs while still providing a holistic account, a
39
descriptive case study design is an effective method for capturing these dynamic
processes. Another strength of qualitative case studies is their thick descriptions,
which facilitate understanding of real-life examples of promising practices such as
mentoring (Merriam; Patton, 2002). Merriam also identified that case studies provide
an effective means of understanding educational innovations, including the complex
interaction of variables within the implementation of a mentoring program. The
opportunity to use a variety of data sources is a strength of case studies identified by
Yin (2003). Based on the strengths of case studies and the dynamic and complex
nature of mentoring, a qualitative case study is an effective design for reaching the
goals of this study.
The limitations of case studies lie within the difficulties of fully
understanding complex and dynamic phenomena. In creating detailed descriptions,
case studies can become lengthy and impede the audience’s ability to process the
information presented (Merriam, 1998; Patton, 2002). Other limitations relate to the
validity and reliability of case studies due to researcher bias, as the researcher serves
as “the primary instrument of data collection and analysis” (Patton, p. 43). However,
Yin (2003) reinforced the value of training to develop qualitative research skills,
including asking good questions and listening, in order to minimize researcher bias.
This study’s researcher was trained in interviewing and observation skills, including
Cognitive Coaching and Class Room Walk Through training. These trainings
developed the researching skills described by Yin: listening and questioning, as well
as flexibility balanced with rigor. Finally, Merriam warned that the findings of a case
study should not be considered a complete account of a phenomenon such as
40
mentoring program implementation; they represent only part of larger systems. For
the purposes of this study, the strengths of a qualitative case study design outweigh
the weaknesses.
Reliability, Validity, and Generalizability
Reliability.
Merriam (1998) defined reliability within qualitative research as the
consistency and dependability of the findings in relationship to the data collected, not
the ability to replicate findings. She argued that replication is impossible in
qualitative research, due in part to its complexity, dependence on the researcher’s
skills, and emergent structure. However, both Merriam and Yin (2003) identified
methods to improve the reliability of a case study. Specifically, the study’s reliability
can be strengthened through the use of multiple sources of data to triangulate the
study’s findings as well as through the development of a clear chain of evidence, or
audit trail, between the case study questions, data collection, and the findings. Data
collection instruments, including interview protocols and observation instruments,
also increase reliability and provide structure for data collection (Yin). Data
triangulation, use of protocols, and a clear chain of evidence were utilized to
establish reliability of the data collected and the resulting findings of this study.
Validity.
Validity within case studies is the ability to capture “people’s constructions
of reality,” as the reality under study is “holistic, multidimensional, and ever-
changing” (Merriam, 1998, p. 203). Merriam described several strategies that
enhance internal validity, including triangulation, peer examination, and
41
collaborative modes of research. Triangulation of collection methods was utilized in
this study, which involved a combination of interviews, observations, and document
analysis at each site. Through the thematic dissertation team, collaborative modes of
research and peer examination of findings occurred. According to Yin (2003), this
collaboration and review process also addresses issues of researcher bias that can
threaten the validity of a case study. Yin also stated that protocols, such as those
utilized in this study, can increase a study’s validity. Together, the strategies of
triangulation, peer examination, and the use of protocols were utilized to increase the
validity of this study.
Generalizability.
The goal of quantitative studies is generalizability, the ability to transfer
findings to other situations (Merriam, 1998). However, when nonrandom selection is
used, as in qualitative studies, findings are not generalizable, as the information is
context specific (Merriam; Patton, 2002). However, in his summary of various
researchers’ insights, Patton presented a case for the value of case studies to build
knowledge and theories for application in analyzing similar situations. Such
applications are dependent upon rich descriptions to help others use the similarities
and differences between their situation and the one described in the study. From this
comparison, a hypothesis regarding the applicability to their context emerges.
Therefore, the detailed descriptions of each mentoring program provided in the
compendium are intended to inform decision making for similar programs.
42
Data Collection Processes and Procedures
Thematic Dissertation Process
This thematic dissertation was created through a shared process in which
each member focused on a different promising practice in charter schools but utilized
and developed common data collection instruments. As stated in chapter 1,
summaries from individual dissertations within the thematic group will be compiled
into USC’s Compendium of Promising Practices. Therefore, the contents of the
compendium guided the data collection of this study. (See Appendix B for a list of
compendium contents.) The contents of the compendium were identified by the
original dissertation group in collaboration with the committee chair and a panel of
charter school stakeholders. Instrumentation used to collect data was also developed
by the initial dissertation group and based on the contents of the compendium.
However, the current dissertation group refined and updated the instruments.
Selection of Study Participants
Nomination process.
The nomination process for program selection included a range of strategies
in order to identify charter schools with the promising practices under study by the
dissertation team. The process resulted in the nomination of eight mentoring
programs within charter schools. The USC Center on Educational Governance
developed a one-page advertisement that included a link to an online nomination
form for use in the nomination process. The announcement and nomination forms are
located in Appendixes C and D, respectively. In June 2007, this advertisement was
sent through the listserv networks of two charter school organizations: the California
43
Charter Schools Association (CCSA) and the Charter Schools Development Center
(CSDC). CCSA is a professional association that serves over 4,800 individuals
within California charter schools. The goal of the CCSA is to support the
development of charter schools within California in order to improve student
achievement. The CSDC is located at California State University, Sacramento. The
center offers workshops and other technical assistance to charter schools and other
charter school developers in California. In addition, e-mails and personal contacts to
charter school leaders within California were initiated by members of the thematic
dissertation team for all eight promising practices. These leaders, including
researchers and California Department of Education officials, were asked for
recommendations and encouraged to nominate programs for the study through the
online nomination form.
Additional actions were taken to generate nominations specific to the topic of
mentoring. A request for nominations was posted on two mentoring listserv services,
EDmentoring Forum and Mentor Exchange, on July 12, 2007. The EDmentoring
Forum includes over 900 individuals who are recipients of OSDFS mentoring grants.
This forum is managed by the U.S. Department of Education Mentoring Resource
Center. The Mentor Exchange has over 1,600 subscribers across the United States
who are interested in mentoring. It is managed through the National Mentoring
Center. In addition, requests for nominations were made through personal contacts to
mentoring leaders within the National Mentoring Center and other mentoring
organizations. The researcher also used the California Department of Education’s
(CDE) database of charter schools to review over 100 school web sites to identify
44
schools with mentoring programs. Schools with mentoring programs were contacted
to self-nominate or were nominated by the researcher. The programs nominated were
from across California and represented a range of grade-level configurations, school
structures, and mentoring partnerships. Combined, the final eight nominations
created a viable pool of programs from which to choose two for in-depth study.
Selection criteria and screening process.
In order to narrow the selection of schools to two case-study schools, a
screening process was used. Throughout the selection process, purposeful sampling
was utilized in order to select two schools from among the nominees that offered the
greatest level of depth and breadth of information for this study. As Merriam (1998)
stated, information-rich samples are important for qualitative studies. Yin’s (2003)
recommended to identify screening criteria prior to the collection of nominations was
followed. The three main criteria applied were (a) demonstration of the innovative
practice, (b) evidence of positive change, and (c) the program’s potential for transfer
and usefulness to other schools.
Data sources for screening information included the nomination form, school
Web sites, and relevant online documents. Data regarding school demographics and
achievement were obtained from the CDE Web site. Schools with a California
Academic Performance Index (API) rating of 7 or greater in relationship to similar
schools were given greater weight as part of the criteria for programs to evidence
positive change. The screening process yielded five California charter schools that
met the screening criteria. Three schools were removed from consideration due to the
impact of wildfires, previous involvement in the USC compendium, and evidence
45
that the mentoring program was not formally developed. The remaining two schools
met the criteria established and were selected for the study. The two programs
provided diverse perspectives on the use of mentoring to improve achievement for
students, including students from poverty. In accordance with the guidelines of the
Institutional Review Board, an application was submitted and approved before the
site visits in the fall of 2007.
Site Visits
Site visits were conducted at the two charter schools beginning in the fall of
2007 to collect descriptive data on how mentoring was being implemented at each
site. Information was obtained through interviews, observations, and document
analysis. Patton (2002) identified that these three methods generate direct quotes and
detailed descriptions regarding experiences, behaviors, feelings, interactions, and
organizational processes. Each visit conducted for this study focused on collecting
detailed data regarding the implementation of mentoring at the school site from a
variety of sources. Information was obtained from the principal, mentoring program
coordinator, and mentors through interviews. These one-on-one interviews were tape
recorded with consent from participants to accurately preserve data for analysis
(Merriam, 1998; Patton; Yin, 2003). Additional data were collected through
observations of mentoring sessions. Site and online documents were also used. The
data collection instruments, described below, increased the reliability of the study
and guided the data collection.
Triangulation of data regarding various elements of each program occurred
through corroborating data gathered from each data collection method to identify
46
findings supported by multiple sources. As Yin (2003) stated, “any finding or
conclusion in a case study is likely to be much more convincing and accurate if it is
based on several different sources of information” (p. 98). The triangulation table
identifies how information regarding the key research questions was triangulated
across data collection instruments and methods (Appendix E). For example, as
shown in the triangulation table, information regarding the evidence of program
impact was collected from interviews with the principal, mentoring program
coordinator, and mentors, as well as site documents. By corroborating data between
various sources, weaknesses of individual sources, such as interviewee bias, are
addressed (Yin). The triangulation of data sources provided construct validity by
using varied measures of the same phenomenon. The visit to Escondido Charter High
School occurred in December 2007, and the site visits to Community Harvest High
School occurred during January and February 2008.
Interviews
Interviews were used because “human affairs should be reported and
interpreted through the eyes of specific interviewees” (Yin, 2003, p. 92). The
interviewees for this study included the principal, mentoring program coordinator,
and mentors. Semi-structured protocols were used for all interviews utilizing a set of
questions with flexibility for probes and additional questions (Merriam, 1998). The
questions included in each protocol aligned with researchers’ recommendations that
interviews focus on things that are not observable, including past events,
interpretations, and behavior that occurs outside observations (Merriam; Patton,
2002; Yin). Interviews were also used to triangulate data by providing individuals’
47
perspectives on information gained from observations and document analysis
regarding program impact as well as other issues.
Principal pre-site and on-site interview.
Prior to site visits, pre-site interviews were conducted with the principal, or
executive director, of each school via telephone. The two telephone interviews each
lasted approximately 10 minutes. The protocol used for these interviews is in
Appendix F. The purpose of this interview was to verify program information, gather
general information regarding the principal, and establish site visitations. To
maximize the effectiveness of data collection during the site visits, key events and
individuals for observation and interviews were identified through the pre-site
interview. The individuals and events identified were purposefully chosen, in
consultation with each site principal, to provide a deep and broad understanding of
the mentoring program at each site. A scheduling grid was then developed among the
site principal, the mentoring program coordinator, and the researcher to facilitate the
2-day data collection process.
During the site visit, the principal, or executive director, was interviewed for
a second time using the onsite principal interview protocol (see Appendix G). The
primary purpose of this interview was to gather information about the history and
details of the mentoring program’s implementation, including the benefits and
challenges. The onsite interviews lasted 50 minutes each.
Mentoring program coordinator.
The interview with the mentoring program coordinator at each site focused
on implementation information, including resources required, lessons learned, and
48
program history, as well the coordinator’s role in implementation. The Promising
Practice Lead Interview protocol was used (Appendix H). One interview lasted 40
minutes and the other lasted 85 minutes.
Mentor interviews.
As mentors are the heart of the mentoring program, three to four mentors
were interviewed once at each site. These interviews focused on lessons learned,
evidence of impact, sustainability, and professional development. The Mentor
Interview protocol was used (Appendix I). Mentors to be interviewed were
purposefully chosen to represent a breadth of perspectives and depth of knowledge
based on years in the program, personal background, and mentee characteristics.
Interviews lasted between 16 and 55 minutes each.
Observations
Formal observations of mentoring sessions were utilized to triangulate data
from interviews and document analysis. Observations at both sites were done in
coordination with interviews of the same mentors resulting in five observations (two
mentors were not able to schedule sessions during observation days). The semi-
structured interview protocol allowed for probes and questions specific to the
mentoring session observed. Formal observations of mentoring sessions at each site
focused on the structure and interactions within each session, as well as the resources
utilized. The Mentoring Observation protocol was used (Appendix J). Each
observation lasted between 45 and 65 minutes.
49
Documents
Through the phone interviews and site visits, various documents were
gathered. According to Yin (2003), documents can provide clues on topics for
further inquiry but should not be used on their own, due to unknown bias of the
author or collector. Merriam’s (1998) broad definition of documents, including
artifacts and archival records, was utilized for this study. As part of the pre-site
principal interview, the principal identified a site contact to assist in gathering the
requested documents. The Document Checklist was then faxed/emailed to the
identified contact for use in collecting the documents (Appendix K).
Mentoring program documentation was used to triangulate data regarding
program goals, resources used by mentors, evidence of impact, and other topics.
Documentation collected included handbooks, a mentoring grant application,
memos, and forms. Together, the use of interviews, observations, and document
analysis provided raw data regarding the implementation of mentoring programs in
two charter schools.
Data Analysis
As stated, data collection methods at both sites included interviews,
mentoring observations, and document analysis. Rudimentary analysis was
conducted in the field as recommended by Merriam (1998) in order to allow analysis
of new findings in light of previous ones. More in-depth analysis occurred through a
review and coding of the researcher’s notes and recorded content. Recordings from
interviews and observations were transcribed by a professional transcription service
and reviewed by the researcher for accuracy. The transcriptions were then coded to
50
correspond to research questions and themes that emerged in relationship to the four
research questions. The coding process was guided by the USC Compendium
Contents and used by the entire thematic dissertation team to enhance the
consistency and reliability of data analysis.
Conclusion
This chapter has identified, explained, and justified the research methods
employed for this study. The research design and questions, data collection process
and procedures, instrumentation, and data analysis methods were addressed. Chapter
4 presents the research findings and analysis.
51
CHAPTER FOUR
Findings
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to uncover promising practices in one-on-one
adult mentoring programs for students within the charter-school setting; a qualitative
case study design involving two California charter schools formed the study’s basis.
Sites at each school were visited between December 2007 and April 2008, and the
findings presented in this chapter were drawn from interviews, observations, charter
documents, and each school’s Web site.
Chapter 4 is organized into two parts, with each section focusing on one
school: First, Community Harvest Charter School is discussed, followed by
Escondido Charter High School. Information given about each school includes a
description of its mentoring program, details regarding implementation, required
resources, and a discussion of lessons learned. In the fall of 2008, the findings from
this chapter will be incorporated into the Center on Educational Governance’s online
compendium of promising practices, which profiles effective strategies associated
with increased school performance in California charter schools.
Community Harvest Charter School
Introduction
Community Harvest Charter School (CHCS) was established in 2002 by four
educators who worked in both public school and private schools. The school is
associated with the Community Harvest Foundation; this nonprofit organization was
founded “to support initiatives aimed at creating educational equity in underserved
52
communities nationwide” (Community Harvest Foundation, n.d.). The school’s
executive director, who had over 20 years of experience in education, ran the
foundation. Although CHCS had only students in the sixth through ninth grades in
2002, the school later expanded to include students in the tenth through twelfth
grades. During the 2007–2008 school year, the program had 320 students in sixth
through twelfth grade; according to the executive director, the school’s goal was to
grow to 600 students. The school had four administrators: three directors, as well as
an executive director. All four administrators also had some teaching responsibilities.
Housed in a building owned by a church, the school was a unique and
remarkable environment. As stated in the school’s charter, “From the outside, CHCS
doesn’t exactly look like a school. . . . Once you walk inside, however, there is no
mistake that this is a place that celebrated learning” (CHCS School Charter, p. 8, see
Appendix L). The building was a labyrinth of classrooms, offices, and a cafeteria. A
parent/reference room, which doubled as the outer space to the directors’ offices,
housed information from institutions of higher learning across the country.
Classroom environments varied from the traditional setup, with desks and a teacher’s
table at the front of the room, to a room layered with rugs on which students, their
shoes removed, could sit and lean against backrests during mathematics instruction.
Despite the limited space, the school exuded a comfortable feeling of
closeness. During the four site visits, the researcher observed a caring environment
in which adults connected with children. For example, one of the directors gave a
student a hug during a brief moment outside of a meeting. Staff members called
students by name and engaged in straightforward, comfortable conversations
53
regarding upcoming events, the college application process, and discipline issues. A
student who escorted the researcher to an office stated that the school was better than
other high schools because there were fewer kids and no “drama” (personal
communication, January 10, 2008). The executive director reinforced the advantage
of a small school environment by stating that CHCS was “small enough where we
[could] look at every single kid” (personal communication, January 10, 2008). This
focus on students was reflected in the school’s mission “to plant seeds and harvest
our community by focusing on the strengths of each student and empowering them to
become responsible citizens and leaders” (CHCS School Charter, p. 4, see Appendix
L). The executive director reinforced that the instructional program at CHCS was
student-focused by stating that “the character development of the child [was] first
and foremost” (personal communication, January 10, 2008).
Student demographics reflected the south central Los Angeles neighborhood
surrounding the school. According to state data records, 99% of the students during
the 2006–2007 school year were of color and from various ethnic groups (CDE,
2007). About 88% of students qualified for free or reduced lunch, and 12% were
identified as English language learners. The executive director stated that the school
spent about $7,000 per student during the 2007-08 school year. As noted previously,
staffing included the following four directors, who also taught part-time: the
executive director, the director of finances, the director of curriculum, and the
director of discipline. Four office staff handled the school’s clerical and financial
matters. The teaching staff included 13 full time-teachers and 6 part-time teachers
(e.g., a yoga instructor who was also the tennis coach). A comprehensive summary
54
of the school demographics, staffing, and the charter status of CHCS are presented in
Table 1 below.
Table 1
Profile of Community Harvest Charter School: Summary of School Demographics
and Charter Status

Variable Descriptor

Charter status Startup

Charter authorizer Los Angeles Unified School District

Year chartered 2002
Year opened for operation with students 2002

Grades served: current 6–12
Grades served: projected 6–12

Students served: current 312
Students served: projected 600

Student population
Ethnicity African American: 50% (155 students)
Asian: 0% (0 students)
Hispanic: 45% (141 students)
White: <1% (1 student)
Native American: <1% (1 student)
Pacific Islander: 0% (0 students)
Filipino: <1% (2 students)
Multiple/no response: 4% (12 students)
Special populations Free/reduced-price lunch: 88%
(283 students)
Students with disabilities: 4%
(12 students)
English language learners: 12%
(38 students)

Number of full-time administrators 4 (also serve as teachers; 4 office staff)
Number of teachers 13 full-time, 6 part-time
Teachers in a collective bargaining unit No

Per-pupil spending $7,000

School address 3202 Adams Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90018

55
Table 1, Continued

Variable Descriptor

Type of school Site-based

Contact information Director: Charletta Johnson
(323)373-2000
cjohnson@communityharvest.us
Web site www.communityharvest.us

Mentoring Program Description
Not limited to one-on-one relationships, the Planting Dreams mentoring
program at CHCS provided “multiple mentoring for each child,” including
mentoring through group discussion sessions, group outings, cross-age and peer
mentoring, as well as one-on-one adult mentoring (Mentoring grant application, p.
22; see Appendix M). Students also attended after-school study hall from 3:30 to
6:00 p.m. each day including a tutoring component. The executive director stated
that the study hall was a “fundamental” component of the mentoring program
because it provided a safe place for children to study, as well as an opportunity for
one-on-one mentoring sessions. The mentoring program was overseen by the
executive director and a program coordinator as part of their other responsibilities at
CHCS.
The students identified for the mentoring program needed additional attention
to make academic progress. As one mentor explained, the targeted students were
“stagnant. They weren’t getting what they needed either at home or at school. These
students tend to get lost, so we focused on them” (personal communication, April 10,
2008). This mentor also stated that the students targeted for the program “weren’t
56
moving up or down. It seemed like they were caught in a rut and we felt they needed
an additional boost” (personal communication, April 10, 2008). The executive
director stated that many students struggled to overcome risk factors such as limited
parent education, high neighborhood crime rates, teenage pregnancy, and drug use.
The mentoring program “enabled [the staff] to really counter these negative factors”
(personal communication, January 10, 2008).
Mentored students came from all grade levels. For the one-on-one mentoring,
individual students were matched with teachers, community members, or members
of a local church who volunteered. In general, matches aligned student problems,
such as a predisposition to gang activity, with mentor strengths. As one mentor
stated, “A kid is identified as having certain issues, and if they are issues that I am
equipped to handle, then they are referred to me” (personal communication, April 10,
2008). Because the one-on-one mentoring was integrated with other mentoring
components at CHCS, it was important to learn about these components. The
following sections first describe the programs supplemental to the one-on-one
mentoring and then discuss the one-on-one mentoring.
Connections.
Connections was a system of discussion techniques used to help students
change their thinking and related actions. As a program summary explained,
certain behaviors and issues cannot be changed or resolved until the ideas,
beliefs, and ways of thinking that causes the behavior are changed. The
Connections process uses discussion techniques and homogenous groupings
to bring about change, break down barriers, diminish negative attitudes,
modify behavior and resolve conflicts. (See Appendix N for Connections
program summary.)

57
Connections was implemented each Monday during weekly group discussions and
integrated into the school’s instructional schedule.
The structural components of Connections included the use of relevant topics,
listening strategies, an inclusive environment, and questioning to elicit student
examples. Connections sessions observed on April 21, 2008, included discussions on
topics such as handling family conflict, the legacy each student was creating at the
school, perspectives on conflicts between friends and boyfriends, as well as advice
from seniors to freshmen. A mentor explained that topics included academic and
social issues, or “issues that are out in the party scene that students see on TV, such
as trends, hypes, propaganda, and conditioned behaviors” (personal communication,
April 10, 2008).
To reinforce listening skills, students passed around a “talking piece” during
discussions. This “talking piece” reflected the different personalities of the teachers;
a rain stick was passed around in one class, whereas another group used a Star Wars
lightsaber. Only the individual with the item could speak, and that person chose
when to pass the talking piece on to another student. In each classroom, students
were arranged in a circle to help them shut out external distractions and focus on one
another. According to a mentor, another Connections strategy was to “ask students
questions that allowed them to give examples of things” (personal communication,
April 10, 2008). This sharing of personal experiences provided students with
different perspectives they could apply to issues in their own lives. The executive
director expressed the importance of the weekly sessions in noting, “I think that is
the reason why our students talk and can open up” (personal communication, January
58
10, 2008). She went on to state that Connections was “the heart and soul of the
school, and the heart and the soul of the mentoring program.”
Group outings.
In addition to participating in the school-wide Connections program, students
in the mentoring program took part in various off-campus group events that
complemented the one-on-one mentoring program; one type of outing was
comprised of Catch Fire activities. These off-site events provided intense retreats to
jumpstart students’ reflections and encourage them to change their behavior and life
choices. One mentor described these retreats as opportunities to “get students out of
their everyday environments to break them down, rehabilitate them, then go back to
Connections to keep tracking the progress” (personal communication, April 10,
2008). Another mentor explained the experience students had during a camping
Catch Fire event, which kicked off the mentoring program, as follows: “They faced a
lot of fears of nature, of being in foreign environments and we really pushed them”
(personal communication, April 10, 2008). This mentor went on to explain how the
event allowed the adults and students to bond differently than they could at school.
He stated that after the camping trip, “it was like night and day because the students
felt so much more comfortable with us and comfortable with each other.”
In addition to the initial camping trip, students and mentors participated in
various outings. For example, students and mentors spent a day at Malibu State
Creek Park and participated in leadership training, hiking, and a ropes course. A
group of girls in the mentoring program went to Glenn Ivy Hot Springs Spa for a
day. In reflecting on the day, the executive director stated, “I’m telling you, you
59
should have seen them change. It was an absolutely wonderful experience” (personal
communication, January 10, 2008). Other mentee and mentor events included
attending the 50th anniversary Dodgers’ game and playing miniature golf. Each
mentee also spent a day each year shadowing his or her mentor at work. One mentor
explained that the day offered students perspective on potential careers. In
summarizing the importance of the group outings, the executive director stated,
“That kind of experience is life changing” (personal communication, January, 10,
2008). The interplay of the school’s Connections program and the mentoring events
provided a powerful context for the one-on-one mentoring at CHCS.
One-on-one mentoring.
Although there were some common expectations of all mentors, the
interactions within the one-on-one mentoring relationship varied depending on the
mentor and mentee involved. For example, all mentors were trained in Connections.
At least initially, mentor expectations included having contact with the mentee 2 or
more times a week, attending study hall with the mentee, meeting with the mentee’s
teachers, and having weekly contact with the mentee’s parents.
The interviewed mentors shared with the researcher a range of ways they met
these expectations. One mentor explained that his contacts varied depending on the
student. He checked in each day with some students, whereas he talked to others
twice a week. He went on to explain,
There are times that we check in once a week to do a small Catch Fire
activity, where we get away from the everyday environment. Maybe on the
outskirts of the city, whether it is the beach or at a park, do something that is
a little bit lower key.

60
This mentor called students, as well as dropped by the school to talk with his
mentees.
Another mentor was very involved with his mentees through electronic
communication, individual meetings, and group events. In addition to conversing
over the phone, the mentor used texting and his MySpace account to “check in with
the kids” (mentor, personal communication, April 10, 2008). This mentor set daily
goals with the students. Some student goals were to help clean the house, get up in
time for school, or work out each day; when they met, the mentor and mentees
discussed progress toward these goals. The mentor also incorporated the Connections
strategy of using examples to explain and discuss issues. For activities, this mentor
took mentees individually and in groups to bowl, play paintball, and play basketball.
The group events helped students “see other kids who are also being trained to do the
right thing” (mentor, personal communication, April 10, 2008). Other mentors
attended performance events such as baseball games or dance recitals. One mentor
noted, “I know that I can’t replace Mom or Dad, but some of the kids don’t even
really have moms or dads, so to speak. So I know it’s exciting to have someone
scream for you, and I do scream” (personal communication, April 10, 2008).
Some mentors integrated their visits with mentees into the mentors’ home life
or through the school. For example, one mentor who had a family included his
mentees in family activities such as going out to dinner. This mentor also worked
with students in the after-school tutoring program. Some mentors visited students’
classrooms, which was in line with the program expectations, in order to “see what
their teachers were doing or see how the student was acting in school” (mentor,
61
personal communication, April 10, 2008). In summary, mentors utilized a variety of
methods to build relationships with their mentees.
Before mentors were matched with students, they were expected to commit to
the mentoring program for a minimum of 1 year. One mentor emphasized the
importance of a match lasting at least 1 year by stating that “the students can get so
attached. If the mentor leaves, it can be very detrimental to their growth” (personal
communication, April 10, 2008). Although finding mentors was a challenge initially,
many mentors maintained the mentoring relationship through high school. One
mentor, who previously served as a project coordinator, estimated that the average
match lasted about 3 years. Some matches lasted longer, with one mentor stating, “I
try to follow them until they get to college” (personal communication, April 10,
2008).
Mentoring Program Goals and Theory of Action
The goal of CHCS’s mentoring program was to provide students the
additional attention they needed to achieve academic and social success. As the
executive director stated, “The goal was to monitor those students having problems
so they would not slip through the cracks at school” (personal communication,
January 10, 2008). A mentor reinforced the goal of targeting the students who were
“lost in the whole business of the school and weren’t getting the attention they
needed” (personal communication, April 10, 2008).
This focus on specific students was intended to increase student attendance,
lower the dropout rate, and improve students’ overall academic achievement. The
executive director identified how the mentoring program, in combination with the
62
after-school tutoring program, seemed to improve academic achievement. She noted,
“If there is someone who really cares about the student and expects them to do their
work, then students are provided the environment where they can do their work, it
will increase achievement” (personal communication, January 10, 2008). She also
stated that increased school attendance, a goal of the program, “translates into higher
test scores.”
In addition to helping students set and achieve academic goals, the mentoring
program was intended to broadened students’ experiences. When discussing the
purpose of the group outings, the executive director explained that the students were
exposed to settings they may never have experienced and learned to adjust their
behaviors to the setting. As one mentor explained, “students become what they are
exposed to” (personal communication, April 10, 2008). He went on to emphasize the
importance of a mentor in providing a positive influence in a student’s life.
Implementation of the Mentoring Program at Community Harvest
History.
As previously stated, the mentoring program at CHCS was expected to
counter risk factors faced by students. Initial mentoring began informally as a few
trained staff members applying Connections strategies with individual students. The
mentoring relationships became a formal part of the school’s program in 2004 when
the staff applied for and received a 3-year, federal grant through the Office of Safe
and Drug Free Schools (OSDFS) Mentoring Programs. The newly created program
was entitled Planting Dreams in alignment with the school’s mission to “plant seeds”
63
and develop the character of each student. The executive director was instrumental in
developing the program.
Once they received the grant, it took the staff approximately 6 months to
identify students, mentors, and program managers. As stated in the grant application,
the program was intended to include 100 seventh and eighth graders whose progress
would be monitored over 3 years (see Appendix M for grant application). Over the
course of the grant period, students from various grade levels were added because
these students requested mentors. In addition, some students dropped out. As the
executive director explained, “It doesn’t always fit in a nice box according to the
way the grant was written” (personal communication, January 10, 2008). Program
coordinators also changed over the course of the grant period; coordinators included
two teachers and, later, a coach at a non-charter school who became the athletic
director for CHCS and who worked with the Community Harvest Foundation. Initial
mentors included teachers, community members, and members of a church that
partnered with CHCS for the grant.
Both mentor training and the outings were made possible through the grant.
As one mentor stated, “The Planting Dreams mentoring program has been vital in all
of this, because of the type of training we received” (personal communication, April
10, 2008). In addition to Connections training, mentors learned about the mission of
the school, including its focus on character development. The grant also “enabled
[mentors] to do wonderful things like the Glenn Ivy trip and camping trips, things
that inner city kids would never have the opportunity to do” (executive director,
personal communication, January 10, 2008).
64
Although the grant funding ended with the 2006–2007 school year, many
mentoring program components continued beyond the initial grant period. In
addition, the program expanded to local high schools, as well as to public recreation
centers through the Community Harvest Foundation. Partnerships with community
organizations also continued beyond the life of the grant. Although the grant initially
proposed a partnership with a local church, that partnership never fully developed.
Instead, a partnership with the community organization Unity One emerged and has
continued.
Unity One.
According to the organization’s Web site, Unity One—a Los Angeles anti-
gang organization started by Bo Taylor—“is about building a better future and
stronger community through education, empowerment, improving individual
motivation, and creating lasting opportunities for all people” (Unity One, 2008). The
organization was established in 1992 to “work for peace through
intervention/prevention techniques” and has been recognized for its work with inner
city communities.
CHCS established a connection with Unity One when one of the school’s
students was threatened by gang members at gunpoint on his way to school. The
executive director contacted Unity One, and this initial contact grew into a
partnership in which CHCS paid Unity One through grant funding to implement
Unity One’s curriculum with students weekly. In addition to providing presentations
for students, members of Unity One mentored students and had events for mentees.
Outings included football games and a visit to football player and actor Jim Brown’s
65
house. The executive director explained the impact of Unity One and Jim Brown’s
involvement as follows: “They don’t say anything that you and I wouldn’t say as
educators . . . but we don’t have the right look. We don’t wear the right clothes. We
are not speaking the students’ ‘language,’” yet Unity One mentors were able to
connect with kids and influence their lives (personal communication, January 10,
2008). The school’s partnership with Unity One led CHCS to work with other groups
such as Amigos Unidos, a Latino antigang group, and the Los Angeles police
department; these partnerships were sustained beyond the term of the grant.
Challenges and lessons learned.
Within the CHCS mentoring program, several challenges arose, including
difficulties with student involvement, staffing, match creation, program content,
monitoring, and funding. When the program first began, students were intended to
participate on a volunteer basis. Some students, however, would not attend
mentoring sessions or participate in other components of the program, such as
tutoring. As one mentor explained, “We had a lot of challenges having the kids buy
into having an outside figure impose themselves on their lives” (personal
communication, April 10, 2008). Therefore, for some students, enrollment in the
school became dependent on their attendance in the mentoring program; establishing
such a requirement was possible because CHCS was a charter school. This new
requirement motivated parents and students to follow through and become involved
in the program.
Other ongoing challenges within the program included staffing and creating
matches between mentors and students. Although several mentors and program staff
66
were from within the school, consistency in maintaining program coordinators and
outside mentors was difficult. The program had three different coordinators over the
course of 4 years. When the grant period ended, the executive director placed some
of the coordinator responsibilities on an individual in the Community Harvest
Foundation, which helped to stabilize the position.
Maintaining a pool of mentors was an issue for various reasons. Many
mentors dropped out because of the amount of commitment required, whereas others
did not connect with students. Using church members as mentors was not effective
because, as the executive director stated, “[going] to church and [believing] in God
does not mean that you can relate to kids” (personal communication, January 10,
2008). As the executive director summarized, “The biggest challenge was to find the
mentors. I had someone on staff who was constantly looking for mentors” (personal
communication, January 10, 2008).
Over the years, program coordinators tried various strategies for matching
students with adults to improve the connection between mentors and mentees. At one
point, the matching process used surveys regarding mentor and mentee strengths,
weaknesses, interests, and challenges. Because of the fluctuating numbers of
mentees, however, this process was not always feasible. Other students were
matched to mentors according to career goals; as one mentor noted, “a career can
encapsulate a lot of interests” (personal communication, April 10, 2008). For
example, a student who was interested in filmmaking was paired up with a mentor
who worked at Disney. Mentors and mentees were sometimes but not always
matched by gender.
67
Program coordinators also experienced challenges monitoring and
determining program impact. Although surveys were utilized to measure the
program’s impact on student behaviors, the impact of mentoring on student grades
took a while to initiate. Once in place, reviewing report cards became routine, as the
information was also useful in identifying students who needed additional academic
support.
Deciding on the content of individual and group mentoring sessions was also
an initial challenge. The program began with a “stringent” structure in which all
mentors discussed a common topic with their mentees. This structure did not work
well because of the differences in students’ interests and experiences. One mentor
stated, “It led to a more individualized process in which the mentor and mentee
themselves decided what they would do on an individual basis” (personal
communication, April 10, 2008). In addition to allowing topic flexibility, mentors
emphasized the importance of incorporating fun activities, “in order to keep students
attending and to act as an incentive for them to improve their behavior and academic
achievement” (mentor, personal communication, April 10, 2008).
A mentor further explained the complexity of impacting students’ lives by
saying,
Remember that the kids are first. You are going to fail quite a few times. It
might be an old cliché or a bit corny, but if you can save one kid, then you
have done your job. That one kid can make a big difference today, tomorrow,
for the next generation. . . . Stay focused on the big picture. (personal
communication, April 10, 2008)

One way to focus on the students was to pay more attention to social issues than to
academic issues. One mentor also stated that it was important to be vulnerable with
68
students. Another mentor identified three elements as most important by stating,
“You have to have some element of fun, some collective activity, and then creative
and inspirational mentors. If you start out with those three things, it will improve
your chances of success” (personal communication, April 10, 2008).
Acquiring funds became a significant challenge that mentors had to
overcome after the grant ended. Mentors began funding events on their own in order
to fill the gap. According to one mentor, “Mentors initiated paying for the events
because they were frustrated that they were unable to do certain activities” (personal
communication, April 10, 2008). Another mentor added, “An issue sometimes is just
money. I pay for a lot of things on my own” (personal communication, April 10,
2008).
Evidence of Impact
The school’s test score data demonstrated students’ growing academic
success. In addition, data from interviews and observations credited the mentoring
program with promoting academic success and positively changing students’ lives.
Although none of the individuals interviewed addressed the school’s performance on
state and federal accountability measures, data in each area demonstrated improved
results. Since 2004, the school’s Academic Performance Index grew over 100 points,
from 556 in 2004 to 700 in 2006 (CDE, 2006). Although this was below the state
goal of 800, CHCS was one of the top 10 schools when compared to 100 similar
schools in 2006. In addition, the school moved from not meeting Adequate Yearly
Progress in 2005 to meeting these targets in both 2006 and 2007. Because of the
range of programs at the school, it was difficult to directly attribute the school’s
69
academic growth to the mentoring program. Staff members clearly attribute the
mentoring program with benefiting students, mentors, and parents, however. Benefits
for students included improved learning, life changes, and a greater likelihood of
enrolling in college. Mentors benefited in the areas of personal satisfaction and
growth. Benefits for parents included increased communication with the school, as
well as the addition of an advice source. Findings regarding these benefits follow.
Program benefits for students.
According to the executive director and the mentors, the benefits for students
went beyond academic gains. Although several individuals stated that student
achievement improved through their involvement with the mentoring program, staff
members highlighted students’ ability to make better choices in their interactions
with others. As one mentor stated, “These are usually angry young men that learned
how to say, ‘Well you know what, I’m hurt right now,’ instead of getting mad”
(personal communication, January 10, 2008). This improvement was observed
during a mentoring session when a student shared a problem he had with another
student; the student had chosen to walk away and contact his mentor instead of fight.
The executive director explained that students improved academically, but
they also “mature and evolve into responsible human beings who are taking care of
business in their lives. That is a victory” (personal communication, January 10,
2008). Improvement in student behavior was evident through survey results and
behavioral changes observed by mentors. According to one of the mentors, annual
surveys regarding student behavior demonstrated a drop in the use of drugs and gang
activity among the mentees over the course of the grant. (Unfortunately, these survey
70
results were not available for review.) A decrease in after-school behavior problems
eliminated the need for after-school monitoring, which previously required five
teachers. Furthermore, one mentor noted that “one of the biggest things that I see
change is how my mentees treat other kids and that they do good things even when
you are not around” (personal communication, April 10, 2008).
Additionally, the executive director shared one of the most powerful success
stories regarding a mentor continuing to work with a student after that student had
been expelled from CHCS. The student’s parents were in gangs, and
he was a menace. Then, he came here about 3 or 4 months ago. You wouldn’t
know him. He had completely changed. He came to show me his good report
card and his good grades. Now he is going to come back to CHCS. . . . It was
the mentoring that turned him around. (personal communication, January 10,
2008)

Mentoring also had a long-term influence. As the executive director stated,
“You know it is working when the mentors take an interest and make sure their kids
get to college. In addition, the students initiate contact with the mentors even after
the students leave Community Harvest” (personal communication, January 10,
2008). One mentor shared how five of his previous mentees contacted him from
college to ask for advice and keep him updated on their progress. He thought the
students may not have made it through high school or to college without the
mentoring program. In addition, mentors expressed the importance of students’
involvement in positive relationships. One mentor explained these relationships as
follows:
It is important for students who lack a father in their lives to see a mentor
with positive family relationships, who comes home to a family, not a
battlefield with constant arguing and bickering. I think it showed students an
71
alterative—families can be positive. (personal communication, April 10,
2008)

Additionally, the executive director summarized the overall impact of the
program as follows:
For students who had been in trouble but stayed in the mentoring program for
3 years, by the time they are seniors they had evolved. You do not know if it
is the mentoring, the school, maturation, or a combination of all of it, but the
combination definitely works. It definitely, definitely works. (personal
communication, January 10, 2008)

Program benefits for mentors and parents.
In addition to the program’s impact on students, all mentors interviewed
shared information about how the program benefited them personally. Mentors
received satisfaction from seeing students’ growth; they also grew themselves. As
one mentor explained, “As I am reinforcing values and etiquettes, I am retraining
myself. . . . It allows me to live that lifestyle a lot easier, which is very important for
my future” (personal communication, April 10, 2008). Anther mentor shared that he
learned to be less selfish and that he had more capacity to help others than he
thought. Several mentors mentioned that mentoring allowed them to positively
impact others’ lives. As one mentor stated, “On a deeper level I do it to help my
people . . . to help young Black men” (personal communication, April 10, 2008).
Mentors also shared the benefits parents received from the program; one
mentor stated that “the mentoring program has acted as a bridge for parental
involvement. For mentors that are teachers, it breaks down the barriers between the
teachers and the parents because they see a different side of us” (mentor, personal
communication, April 10, 2008). Another mentor stated that many parents utilized
72
the mentoring program to ask for advice from the mentors. Clearly, the mentoring
program at CHCS provided numerous benefits to all stakeholders.
Resource Requirements
Budget and facilities.
The mentoring program budget had the following two elements: the grant
funding for the program’s startup and ongoing resources for continuing the program
after the grant period expired. As previously stated, the grant created a foundation of
training, partnerships, and experiences. Over a 3-year period, the Office of Safe and
Drug Free Schools mentoring grant provided CHCS with $161,530 (OSDFS, 2008);
more specific budget information was unavailable. The grant application, however,
identified that several personnel positions, the Connections training session,
partnerships with the church (and later Unity One), and mentor–mentee outings were
funded through the grant. When the grant period ended, school personnel managed
mentoring program responsibilities in conjunction with their classroom duties. For
example, one of the teachers managed the tutoring program following his regular
teaching day. When the grant funding ended, however, some positions were lost.
Funding no longer existed for monitoring student progress or recruiting mentors.
Other costs and responsibilities, including training for the Connections program,
shifted to the Community Harvest Foundation. The executive director continued to
fulfill her responsibilities by maintaining contact with mentors and conducting
research for them. In addition, the partnership with Unity One remained after
funding for their program ended.
73
Several mentors and the director stated that the most important element of the
grant funding was the ability to train all mentors in the Connections program. As one
mentor stated, “It all comes back down to the training that we received from the
original project. If we had not received this training then the mentoring program
would probably never have happened” (personal communication, April 10, 2008).
Several CHCS staff members also became Connections trainers, qualifying them to
train new mentors. Because of this and despite the end of the grant funding, the
program’s impact continued.
As previously mentioned, another challenge after the grant ended was the
lack of funding for field trips and Catch Fire events. The executive director stated
that she was always searching for funding for these program elements; although
mentors assumed some of the costs for field trips, not as many trips were possible.
One mentor wished that vans or other transportation were purchased to make field
trips more feasible.
Although funding was a problem, the mentoring program did not require
special facilities. Teachers who served as mentors used their classrooms at school,
and outside mentors utilized various classrooms and offices within the school
building when meeting at the school. One outside mentor was observed mentoring a
student at a conference table in the executive director’s office. Mentors often met
with students off campus and, therefore, needed no special facilities.
Staffing.
Volunteer mentors comprised the bulk of the personnel required for CHCS’s
mentoring program. The main characteristic that the executive director sought in
74
mentors was the passion to help students and the ability to relate to them. As she
stated, the students “are teenagers, so they can be sullen and won’t talk. You have to
have someone who has a love for teenagers. Sometimes you have to be quiet and let
them talk” (personal communication, January 10, 2008). In the beginning of the
program, mentors were limited to school staff and individuals from the church. Over
time, however, mentors were identified from the community. One of the most active
mentors was a local baseball coach who later became a program coordinator. Other
community mentors included the Unity One members and local businessmen and
women.
Under the grant, the project director was funded 25%, and two mentoring
coordinators were funded full-time. The executive director served as the project
director and continued her mentoring program responsibilities after the grant ended.
Her primary responsibilities included researching information (e.g., topics for group
discussions) that she then disseminated to mentors and maintaining informal contact
with mentors. The two mentoring coordinator positions, which had been funded as
full-time, did not continue beyond the grant, although some of the responsibilities
carried over. As noted earlier, mentors volunteered for their role, and so no
additional funds were needed for staffing.
Professional development.
Mentors received a range of professional development and support at
Community Harvest. Initially, mentors were “trained on what they could and could
not do with their mentees” (executive director, personal communication, January 10,
2008). Mentors also received information about the school’s philosophy, including
75
information about its focus on character development. Initial training sessions were
provided at the beginning of the grant period and when there were four or five
mentors starting around same time. During the grant period, training topics included
“how to be a mentor and how to connect with kids” (mentor, personal
communication, April 10, 2008). Some training sessions involved listening to
speakers from Unity One.
As previously explained, the Connections program was the key training
component of the mentoring program at CHCS. Initial training in a process called
Council occurred through the Ojai Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to
helping people develop communication skills and a connection with nature to create
a more peaceful society (Ojai Foundation, 2008). The Council process was based on
communication methods used by indigenous people from around the world. Several
CHCS staff customized the process for educational settings and became trainers of
the Connections program they developed. The Community Harvest Foundation now
offers Connections training to other schools. During the grant period, mentors
attended an annual retreat with their mentees, but funding issues made this difficult
when the grant period ended.
Recommended Resources
As previously suggested, the Connections program and the Unity One
organization were highly recommended resources within the Community Harvest
mentoring program. Information on Connections training was available through the
Community Harvest Foundation’s Web site (Community Harvest, 2008). According
76
to the organization’s Web site, Darren (Bo) Taylor was the primary contact for Unity
One (Unity One, 2008).
Mentors recommended several books. One mentor recommended the book
Don’t Sweat the Small Stuff and It’s All Small Stuff by Richard Carlson to help kids
manage stress. Other books used with students included Makes Me Want to Holler
by Nathan McCall, a story about a Black man growing up in Los Angeles, and The
Alchemist by Paulo Coelho. Another mentor recommended the Seven Habits of
Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey. Several mentors also used newspaper
articles for discussion topics with mentees.
Summary for Community Harvest Charter School
The mentoring program at CHCS was created to support students in need of
additional attention and to help those students address barriers to their success. By
providing “multiple mentoring” opportunities for students, the mentoring program
positively impacted many students’ lives, both personally and academically. A
federal grant provided the resources for mentor training, group outings, and
community partnerships, and each of these components remained after the grant
funding ended. Overall, the mentoring program at Community Harvest Charter
School was an excellent example of educators searching for ways to support
students’ academic success and finding solutions through mentoring relationships.
Escondido Charter High School
Introduction
The history of Escondido Charter High School (ECHS) demonstrates the
translation of one man’s idea into a reality. In 1996, after 30 years of working within
77
Escondido’s high schools, “Coach” Dennis Snyder decided to take his ideas
regarding what he would do “if I was running a school” and turn them into action by
founding a charter school (personal communication, December 11, 2007). Within 4
months of applying for a startup charter through the Escondido Union High School
District, Snyder’s petition was approved and classes began.
The program began with about 30 students in a storefront rented through the
executive director’s credit card. Twelve years later, over 900 students attended a
modern campus with computer labs, a community theater, and a gymnasium
financed through bonds. The overall school organization, however, expanded to three
sites: two high schools and one elementary school. On the main campus, there were
two high school programs: a traditional classroom program and an Independent
Learning Program (ILP). The findings of this study focused on the ILP on the main
Escondido campus, although some data included were only available at the school
(and not the program) level.
State data reports indicated that the main campus student body included over
25% students of color from various ethnic groups during the 2006–2007 school year
(CDE, 2007), yet only about 1% of students qualified for free or reduced lunch or
were identified as English language learners. (Site records, however, indicated that
9% of students qualified for free or reduced lunch as of May 2007.) Approximately
485 of the 900 students were part of the ILP program. According to numerous staff
members, the high school program included students with a range of abilities. As the
program director explained, “We have really advanced students who would do great
anywhere. Then you just have your average typical student. And then we get the
78
students who have been bounced around traditional schools and may have gotten lost
in the shuffle” (personal communication, December 11, 2007). Teachers reinforced
how the ILP program reached a range of students, with one stating, “We get them all
and everywhere in between” (personal communication, December 11, 2007). Student
enrollment was based on parental choice to place the student at ESCH. According to
the program director, limited funds were spent on advertising for new students.
Although an advertisement in the local newspaper for the annual graduation
generated some student enrollment, most students came to ECHS via word of mouth.
When a parent enrolled his or her child in ECHS, the family chose the program,
traditional or ILP, in which to place the student.
A summary of school demographics and the charter status of ECHS are
presented in Table 2 below.
Table 2

Profile of Escondido Charter High School: Summary of School Demographics and
Charter Status

Variable Descriptor

Charter status Startup

Charter authorizer Escondido Unified School District

Year chartered 1996
Year opened for operation with students 1996

Grades served: current 9–12

Students served: current 905 (Approximately 485 students in
ILP)

79
Table 2, Continued

Variable Descriptor

Student population (from 2006–2007 CBEDS)
Ethnicity African American: 2% (22 students)
Asian: 2% (18 students)
Hispanic: 17% (151 students)
White: 73% (660 students)
Native American: 1% (13 students)
Pacific Islander: <1% (2 students)
Filipino: 1% (13 students)
Multiple/no response: 3% (26 students)
Special populations Free/reduced-price lunch: 1%
(12 students)
Students with disabilities: <1%
(6 students)
English language learners: 1%
(13 students)

Number of full-time administrators 3 (+ 4 office staff)
Number of teachers 48 full-time
Teachers in a collective bargaining unit No

Per-pupil spending $5,410

School address 1868 East Valley Parkway
Escondido, CA 92027

Type of school Site-based

Contact information Director: “Coach” Dennis Snyder
(760) 737-3154
dsnyder@echs.org
Web site www.echs.org

As articulated in its mission statement, ECHS focused on academic
achievement through a skills-based curriculum “that will provide the individual
student the opportunity to succeed both as a scholar and as a citizen” (ECHS School
Accountability Report Card, p. 2, see Appendix O). The school’s charter delineated
the objectives of improving pupil learning and “increasing learning opportunities for
80
all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for pupils who
are identified as academically low achieving” (ECHS School Charter, p. 1; see
Appendix P). The executive director and other interviewed staff members reinforced
the school’s emphasis on a back-to-basics philosophy. According to the executive
director, “We are an academic school. The goal is to prepare students to be ready for
college and equip them to be self-directed” (personal communication, December 11,
2007). Additionally, the program director stated, “We are a traditional, back-to-
basics school” (personal communication, December 11, 2007). Over the program’s
12 years of existence, this focus was complemented by a drive to continuously
improve. As the executive director emphasized,
[We] constantly consider, “How can we improve? How can we stay
focused?” If you don’t, it is very easy to be in a routine and just kind of exist.
I don’t want to have that happen. If you think a program or educational
strategy is good for kids, let’s try it. (personal communication, December 11,
2007)

In addition, the executive director explained that the program went beyond
academic achievement. One of the initial reasons the director started the charter
school was to move beyond “processing kids” to creating opportunities for one-on-
one time between ILP teachers and students (personal communication, December 11,
2007). Posters throughout the ILP building reinforced that academic achievement
was just one expectation for students. Other expectations identified on the posters
included being “technologically literate; effective citizens; effective communicators;
and responsible, self-directed adults”. According to those interviewed, the one-on-
one relationships built within the ILP supported the achievement of all these school
goals.
81
Mentoring Program Description
Mentoring at Escondido Charter High School was embedded in the year-
round individualized learning program (ILP). The ILP was an independent study
program in which students met weekly with a “teacher of record” for instruction and
assessment but completed the majority of their studies independently. Additionally,
the teachers at ECHS served as mentors to their students. Because mentoring
occurred informally within the weekly ILP sessions, rather than as a separate
program, understanding the structure of the overall program provided a context for
understanding the role of mentoring within the program. As part of the ILP, students
met weekly with their teacher/mentor for a 1-hour session that included academic
instruction, assessment, and relationship building. Each teacher was assigned to
teach and mentor 25–30 students. The academic instruction and assessment included
a weekly check of students’ independent written work, as well as a subject-specific
discussion. Students took one course at a time, during which they worked through a
system of packets and took computer-based assessments to demonstrate content
mastery at the end of the course. Each teacher was responsible for teaching and
monitoring student learning in content areas ranging from literature and science to
art; students could opt to take math through the math center, as this was often a
difficult subject to learn through the ILP.
Outside the weekly meeting with their teacher, students in the ILP engaged in
different levels of interaction at school. As previously mentioned, some students
attended classes in the math center; students could also complete coursework in the
computer center. Other students studied in available areas within the ILP center or in
82
the library. In addition, some students walked across the street and enrolled in
courses through Mt. Palomar, a local community college; there, students could
receive college credits in exchange for the cost of books. Participation in the school
sports programs was also a component of some ILP students’ days. Although these
resources were available on and around the campus to all ILP students, some
students only attended their weekly session with the mentor teacher and completed
their work at home. The program’s flexibility provided students the ability to meet
commitments outside of school, such as work or caring for siblings.
Mentoring component.
Although most of the weekly teacher–student sessions were focused on
academics, mentoring occurred through the conscious efforts of the teachers and the
one-on-one format. As the program director explained, during the meetings, teachers
didn’t just say, “‘Hey, sit down, open to page two. What is the capital of Paraguay?’
It is ‘Hey, how are you doing? What is going on?’ So there is a personal connection”
(personal communication, December 11, 2007). The intake coordinator described the
relationship built between the student and teacher as follows: “The teachers have that
hour every week to really develop a close relationship with the student. Over time,
students feel comfortable with the teacher. They share information about their home
lives they might not feel comfortable sharing with anyone else” (personal
communication, December 12, 2007).
Teachers also incorporated explicit relationship-building practices into
weekly sessions. Examples from the mentoring sessions the researcher observed
included a discussion of a student’s recent accomplishment, a student’s initiation to
83
share personal information, and a teacher’s inquiry into the health of a parent.
Several teachers used praise and humor during the sessions to connect with students.
One teacher was articulate about the relationship-building component of his work,
stating the following:
I reach out to students, find what their interests are. I don’t BMX bike, I don’t
skateboard. But if I can get them to talk about their interests, I get excited.
They get excited and then we go from there. I try to make education fun.
(December 11, 2007)

Another teacher concurred, noting, “We talk about social things that make students
feel comfortable and make school more fun, not just business” (personal
communication, December 11, 2007).
Structural elements to support relationship building.
Mentoring through building a relationship was facilitated by several
structural components of the program, including limited caseloads, access to
facilities, the assignments of students to teachers, as well as parent communication
and involvement. The caseload of about 25–30 students per teacher allowed teachers
and students to develop a mentoring relationship. According to the program director,
“Handling 40 students is just shuffling papers. You don’t really get time to meet with
them and build a relationship” (personal communication, December 11, 2007).
Furthermore, the intake coordinator explained, “Our teachers only see up to six
students a day, so they have time to work with the students” (personal
communication, December 12, 2007). This perspective regarding the value of a
limited caseload was shared by teachers and the executive director. As one teacher
stated, the one-on-one advising structure “allows you a much, much deeper
84
understanding of individual students than if they were simply faces in a crowd of 30
or 40” (personal communication, December 12, 2007).
Teachers’ offices supported the development of mentoring relationships.
Each office had a desk with a peninsula that allowed the teacher and student to sit
face-to-face, enabling clear communication and eye contact. In interviews, teachers
referenced personal items within their offices. The different artifacts, such as pictures
of students, maps, and posters, reflected the teachers’ different personalities. The
tone of observed sessions with students, likewise, reflected the artifacts and teacher
personalities. For example, a teacher with a military background discussed with a
student the Civil Air Patrol project they were working on together. The teachers’
offices, therefore, provided a setting that facilitated one-on-one discussions and set
the stage for students to develop personal relationships with teachers, an important
component of effective mentoring.
The personalities and interests of teachers were taken into account when
matching students with teachers to create a stronger mentoring relationship. The
intake coordinator, who determined student placements, stated that “I try to find out
what the teacher’s special interest is first. If the teacher’s interests match the student
and the teacher has a spot available, I will enroll the student with that teacher”
(personal communication, December 12, 2007). This effort was recognized by
several of the teachers and the program director; one of the teachers stated, “The
parents mentioned they wanted someone who could help the student open up. The
coordinator gave him to me; I consider that a compliment” (personal communication,
December 11, 2007). According to another teacher, gender was not a critical factor
85
in the matching process, so many pairings included males and females (personal
communication, December 11, 2007).
Duration of matches supported the development of mentoring relationships.
Once established, the matches lasted anywhere from 6 months to 4 years, with 2
years being average. The duration of the match depended on when the student
entered the program and the particular circumstances within the student’s life. For
example, one teacher was matched with a ninth-grade student and would work with
him for 4 years until he graduated. Another teacher had a student who worked with
him for half a year, but then started the new school year in the traditional school
setting; that student returned to the ILP mid-year, however. The student was placed
with the same teacher, rather than starting over with a new teacher. During the
observation, the student reinforced her bond with the teacher by saying, “I wouldn’t
have come back if I had a different teacher” (personal observation, December 12,
2007). For some students, however, the initial match did not work. In such cases,
students would be moved to another teacher. As the program director remarked,
“Sometimes there may be a personality difference. If we know the match isn’t
working, we will switch the student to another teacher” (personal communication,
December 11, 2007). The change of teacher could be initiated by either the student
or the parent.
Parental involvement emerged as a key component of the ILP during
interviews. According to one of the teachers, “We are strongly encouraged by [the
executive director] to promote parent involvement. I really believe in parents as part
of our team” (personal communication, December 11, 2007). Teachers shared how
86
they were available to parents in the office, via phone, and through e-mail.
Additionally, the program director explained the value of parent contact as follows:
“As long as you have open communications with the student and the parents, I think
that lessens so many problems” (personal communication, December 11, 2007). This
open communication supported the development of mentoring relationships.
Mentoring Program Goals and Theory of Action
During interviews, respondents offered their perspectives on the importance
of mentoring to accomplish the ILP goal of student achievement. Those interviewed
focused on the idea that connecting one-on-one with students improved students’
interest and connection to the program. In sum, mentoring was viewed as
instrumental to student attendance in school and engagement in learning, leading to
the ILP goals of increased student achievement and higher graduation rates.
As the program director explained, “I think if students know the teacher cares
about what they are doing and them, as individuals, that will help students buy into
the program” (personal communication, December 11, 2007). Furthermore, one
teacher described the development of the relationship and how this relationship
impacted instruction as follows:
Initially you feel like a blind man moving forward, because you are not quite
sure what you are dealing with. But as you get to know the student, they
come into focus and it’s a little easier. I find myself able to shape my
approach to that student, based on what he or she brings to the table.
(personal communication, December 11, 2007)

Another teacher summarized, “I really believe that a personal relationship is
important to educational success” (personal communication, December 12, 2007).

87
Program Implementation
History.
As noted earlier, the mentoring component at ECHS was embedded within
the Independent Learning Program, which the executive director started as part of the
school in 1996. The ILP started with 2 teachers but involved a program director and
12 full-time teachers during the 2007–2008 school year. Since the start of the charter
school, teachers had not chosen to be a part of a union.
Overall, the ILP was developed based on the executive director’s 30 years of
experience in education and was designed to do more than just “process” students
(executive director, personal communication, December 11, 2007). Through limiting
caseloads and implementing the previously mentioned strategies, staff involved with
Escondido’s ILP strove to create a place where students connected with teachers
one-on-one, which lead to more effective academic instruction. Over the years,
changes to the overall ILP program have been made based on staff member
feedback. One example of such a change was the math center, which was added
because many students were struggling with math and because not all teachers were
comfortable teaching the mathematics curriculum. Although some academic
elements of the ILP changed after 1996, the mentoring component did not experience
identifiable changes.
Challenges and lessons learned.
The main challenges to the ILP and the mentoring relationships developed
within it were related to the characteristics of staff and students. Several teachers
expressed difficulty in building a one-on-one relationship with students who would
88
not open up; for example, on teacher said, “Students who are somewhat quiet or
closed, I have difficulty with that, because I need them to open up and talk”
(personal communication, December 11, 2007). Another teacher explained a
situation in which two 16-year-olds who were living on their own dropped out of the
program; that teacher noted, “If the student has no connection with parents, it is hard
for them to develop connections with a teacher or other authority figures. It just
breaks my heart; these students just kind of drop off and out” (personal
communication, December 11, 2007).
Based on these challenges, the ILP staff accumulated lessons learned related
to hiring effective personnel and ensuring that students could be successful within
the ILP structure. Hiring teachers who could connect with high school students was
important to the executive director in order to reach a range of students. Consistent
student attendance was essential to the success of the program’s academic and
mentoring components however. Because of this, if a student did not consistently
attend his or her weekly meetings, a contract was established through a meeting
between the student, parent, and program director. According to the ILP master
agreement, students who did not show up for two sessions without valid reasons for
being absent or who missed three consecutive assignments over 3 school weeks
could be placed on a probationary contract with required weekly attendance (see
Appendix Q and R for the ILP master agreement and probationary contract). The
goal of this contract was to improve student attendance, and students who continued
to miss sessions or not complete assignments were required to leave the ILP.
89
For some students, this contract did not solve the problem, as the ILP
structure was not effective for them. As each interviewed individual expressed, the
ILP was not for all students. According to the program director, “There are always
students who need daily contact, the daily structure” available in a traditional
classroom setting (personal communication, December 11, 2007). Therefore, the
directors and teachers occasionally encouraged some students and their families to
attend a traditional instructional program, at ECHS or at a local non-charter high
school.
An additional challenge, not specific to the mentoring relationship, resided in
the ILP teachers’ ability to comfortably and knowledgeably teach students a range of
subjects. As the program director explained, “You need to be a jack of all trades, to
be able to teach many subjects” (personal communications, December 11, 2007). In
addition, one of the veteran teachers emphasized the importance of being organized
in monitoring students’ coursework and personal development. To address these
challenges, one of the teachers served as a mentor to other teachers, and the math
center was established.
According to the executive director, staying true to the program’s initial
philosophy was essential; he explained, “Make sure you have thought through what
your school philosophy will be and then make sure the people you hire also
understand your philosophy” (personal communication, December 11, 2007). He
also emphasized the importance of having board members who support the school
philosophy. Without this agreement in philosophy, hired teachers may not be able to
90
effectively work one-on-one with students, or board members could try to change the
program’s focus.
Evidence of Impact
The school’s test score data confirmed the effectiveness of the ECHS
program. Data from interviews and observations suggested this success was at least
partly due to the mentoring component of the ILP. Although the school’s academic
data were not specific to the ILP, the combined scores of the traditional and
independent study programs at ECHS suggested that both programs were succeeding
at levels higher than other schools in the area. The Academic Performance Index has
confirmed this conclusion for the last 5 years (CDE, 2006). Since 2003, ECHS had
been first or second in the district, and they have had a similar schools ranking of 10
for the last 3 years. The similar schools ranking suggested that when compared to
100 California schools with similar demographics, ECHS was one of the top 10
schools. ECHS also exceeded the statewide API goal of 800 in 2006 and 2007.
According to the 2006–2007 School Accountability Report Card, ECHS’s student
dropout rate was lower than the district’s and state’s, and its 86.3% graduation rate in
2005–2006 was higher than both the district and the state, which had 84.7% and
83.0% rates, respectively. Because of the range of school programs, it was difficult
to directly attribute the students’ academic success to the mentoring component of
the ILP; however, teachers strongly believed that the relationships they built with
students led to student success.

91
Program benefits for students.
The findings of this study suggest that the mentoring component of the ILP
greatly benefited students. Benefits for students included high school graduation,
college entrance, the acquisition of life skills, and behavior changes. As one teacher
stated, “There is a lot of success in this program; many of these students were not
doing well in the traditional setting and they excelled here” (personal
communication, December 12, 2007). Referencing graduation pictures on his wall,
the teacher identified former students who had graduated with almost enough units
for an associate’s degree, including one who was attending medical school.
Among the teachers interviewed, all felt the one-on-one relationship was
especially important for at-risk students. As a mentor noted, “The student who would
normally slip through the cracks . . . has gotten the personal attention of the teacher
on a weekly basis throughout high school” (personal communication, December 12,
2007). Other teachers agreed; some students would not have completed high school
without the one-on-one relationship with a teacher. In addition, one teacher
connected the teacher–student relationship to positive outcomes beyond high school
by noting, “Students take that one-on-one connection with them into the world of
work. They are able to connect with their supervisor and, in personal relationships,
with a partner” (personal communication, December 11, 2007).
Positive changes in student behaviors during the program were observed by
both teachers and parents. According to the program director, one mother shared that
her daughter’s behavior had significantly improved since starting in the ILP. The
director indicated that the student had “one of the worst discipline records I’ve ever
92
seen, from her previous high school” (personal communication, December 11, 2007).
One teacher stated that parents and students came back to thank him for opening the
students up to the world, noting, “I have had parents come in and say that their child
came out of his shell. He now connects with the world. He no longer is isolated”
(personal communication, December 11, 2007). In addition, one teacher described
the following change he witnessed in a student:
A kid, who the previous week had been hunched down in his chair with his
collar jacked up trying to hide, was enthusiastic about our conversation about
skateboarding. I never could have had that conversation with him in a normal
classroom. (personal communication, December 11, 2007)

As is evident in the interviews, the staff clearly felt they made a difference based on
feedback from students, parents, and the state’s testing program.
Program benefits for teachers.
Staff members also identified personal benefits of the ILP and the one-on-one
relationships they developed with students; according to teachers, seeing the growth
in students was one of the greatest benefits. One teacher referred to some students
who initially struggled to write complete sentences, saying, “It is amazing how just a
little bit of success can pull them along and get them moving on the path to success
in education” (personal communication, December 12, 2007). Another teacher
shared the satisfaction of seeing a student develop self-confidence over the 3 years
they worked together. “Obviously, it is not your child, but you have seen them grow.
You take pride in that,” the teacher noted (personal communication, December 12,
2007). Another teacher expressed the rewards of connecting with a student, saying,
When you give your heart and your soul and being to a student, what do I get
out of it? A reward that is psychological: from parents who say thank you; a
93
student that comes up to me and shakes my hand; a student who gives me a
hug; . . . a student who comes back after 7 or 8 years to let me know how
things are going. (personal communication, December 11, 2007)

Overall, the benefits of the one-on-one work with students lay in the success of
students and the small gestures of gratitude from students and parents.
Resource Requirements
At ECHS, no funding was allocated directly to the mentoring program
because it was fully integrated into the ILP. Therefore, resource requirements were
identified at the school and ILP levels. After receiving initial funding from the
executive director, ECHS relied on public and private funding sources. State funding
supported the school’s daily operations, and approximately $26 million in bonds
funded the construction of the main campus (ECHS SARC, see Appendix O). The
campus had traditional classrooms, a theater, a gymnasium, the math center, and a
separate building with an office for each ILP teacher. The only facility that
specifically supported the mentoring component of the program was the ILP
teachers’ office arrangement, which ensured close proximity to other ILP teachers
and facilitated face-to-face interactions through the peninsula desk.
According to the executive and program directors, the overall school budget
was allocated based on the needs of each program each year. As the executive
director explained, “I ask both the ILP and traditional program directors, ‘What are
your needs? What are your wants? Put in a request.’ We try to meet all those needs.
Then we get to the wants” (personal communication, December 11, 2007). During
the 2007–2008 school year, ECHS’s operating budget of approximately $6,591,927
was split into the following major expenditures: 61% for salaries and benefits; 13%
94
for instructional supplies, of which approximately 2% was for technology and 8%
was for textbooks; and 2% on conferences and professional development. According
to the ILP director, ILP expenditures in 2007–2008, outside of salaries, were
primarily for instructional supplies.
The combination of independent study and the traditional program at ECHS
allowed flexibility in spending. Average Daily Attendance (ADA) for independent
study students was based on the hours of work completed by each student, not just
the 1 hour for the weekly meeting. No ADA was generated by the math center
teachers, however, as each student can only generate ADA under his or her teacher
of record. Independent study programs, therefore, were more cost effective than
traditional programs, as funding was generated for work done beyond the direct
services provided. The cost savings at ECHS were used to fund the math center
teachers and to support various elements of the traditional program (program
director, personal communication, December 11, 2007). The differences in teachers’
salaries compared to the local district could also have contributed to the school’s
ability to offer varied programs. According to the school’s 2006–2007 School
Accountability Report Card (SARC), in 2005–2006 mid-range teachers earned over
$17,000 less per year than their counterparts in noncharter district schools (2008).
Veteran teachers earned over $37,000 less.
Staffing.
The ILP staffing remained focused on student needs despite changes over the
course of the program. Originally, teachers were not required to have a credential,
and the executive director purposefully hired people from outside the public school
95
system because he “wanted them to have the mentality of thinking outside the box”
(personal communication, December 11, 2007). Even after credentialing in charter
schools became required, the director focused on hiring energetic people who “could
really get kids excited about their subjects” and could relate to high school students.
Support services to teachers and administrators were provided through
various administrative positions shared by the ILP and traditional programs on the
same campus. The executive director oversaw the entire school program, and two
program directors (ILP and traditional) directly managed their specific programs.
Four office personnel supported both the ILP and traditional programs by handling
administrative tasks such as parent communications. One administrator coordinated a
range of programs, including testing and special education student plans, for both the
ILP and the traditional programs. Because of the integration of the programs, it was
difficult to distinguish these individuals’ contributions to the effectiveness of the
mentoring component of the program. The intake coordinator did have a direct
impact on the program, however, through her role in placing students with teachers.
The intake coordinator, a non-credentialed employee, worked with parents
interested in enrolling their students in ILP. Her responsibilities included reviewing
the student’s credit plan and program expectations. In addition, the coordinator she
managed all enrollment paperwork, chose a teacher for students, and established the
initial appointment with the teacher.
Professional development.
Within the ILP, there had been no explicit mentor training. When the
program director reflected on professional development for mentors, he stated, “I
96
don’t think we have ever done anything focusing on how you build a relationship. It
is almost taken for granted. You are here with them. This is what you do. It gets
passed on between people” (personal communication, December 11, 2007). He also
stated that one teacher had asked for training for dealing with various personality
types, but he had not yet followed up on the request.
There was, however, informal professional development that occurred among
ILP staff members. The newest teacher on staff indicated that her peers were always
open to help and give guidance about working with specific students. Over the
course of 2 days at the site, the researcher observed teachers going to one another
with questions. The proximity of ILP teachers’ offices and the collaborative
atmosphere supported an informal yet strong professional development network
among teachers.
Recommended Resources
When asked about which resources they would recommend to others wanting to
establish a similar program, teachers only named academic resources, such as a
specific math curriculum. Even when prompted for resources specific to mentoring,
no additional recommendations were made. The program director stated that he may
incorporate information regarding personality types into mentor professional
development, but he would have to seek out resources for this topic. The only
resource identified regarding connecting with students was the book The First Days
of School by Harry Wong, which the executive director referenced.
97
Summary for Escondido Charter High School
The mentoring program at ECHS was embedded within the Independent
Learning Program at ECHS since the programs creation in 1996. Although it was not
a formalized mentoring program, teachers developed a mentoring relationship with
students by creating personal connections during their weekly meetings. These
relationships built throughout the students’ high school program. By providing these
weekly personal connections the mentoring program positively impacted many
students’ lives, both personally and academically. Overall, the informal mentoring
program at Escondido Charter High School demonstrated the power of connecting to
enhance student personal and academic growth in an independent learning structure.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to share findings regarding the
implementation of mentoring programs at two California charter schools.
Information from interviews, observations, and various site documents provided a
description of each program, as well as implementation details. Despite the variances
in the mentoring programs at Community Harvest and Escondido Charter High
School, findings from each site attested to the positive impact of mentoring on
student achievement. Chapter 5 will synthesize the findings from the two schools by
addressing the original four research questions, and will provide recommendations
for future research, as well as educational practice and policy reform.

98
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusions
Summary of the Chapter
The purpose of this study was to uncover promising practices in the area of
one-on-one adult mentoring within the charter school setting. The findings from two
California charter schools, Community Harvest Charter School (CHCS) and
Escondido Charter High School (ECHS), demonstrated that educators at each school
experienced benefits and challenges, similar to findings from the literature reviewed
in Chapter Two. In addition, both schools revealed unique uses of resources for
mentoring and differing structures of the mentoring sessions. This chapter will
compare findings from CHCS and ECHS with the literature reviewed in Chapter
Two, organized by the original four research questions. This chapter concludes with
recommendations for future research, as well as for educational practice and policy
reform.
Connections to Prior Research
Research Question One: How do charter schools use adult mentoring to improve
student achievement?
Since both schools were chosen for this study based on their high
achievement and each school had a range of programs, a finding of causation
between mentoring and student achievement was not possible. However, individuals
at CHCS and ECHS, as well as the literature, stated that the individual attention of
mentoring leads to student achievement. API data demonstrate this achievement at
each school. Both schools ranked as a top 10 school when compared to 100 similar
99
schools in 2006; ECHS maintained this ranking since 2005. While CHCS has not
reached the 800 API level of expectation that ECHS surpassed, CHCS grew over 100
points in their API score from 2004 to reach a score of 700 in 2006. Both schools
surpassed federal AYP expectations.
As identified in Chapter Two, one-on-one mentoring correlates with
increased attendance, decreased discipline referrals, and other positive outcomes that
contribute to academic achievement (see Figure 1). Faculty at both CHCS and ECHS
shared that giving students one-on-one mentoring kept students in school, providing
students the opportunity for achievement. In addition, a teacher at ESCH identified
that the one-on-one mentoring provided the opportunity to adjust instruction to
individual student needs.
Factors that contribute to achievement.
Beyond the value of the one-on-one interaction of mentoring, each school’s
mentoring program incorporated several components identified in the literature to
contribute to student achievement. At ECHS attention to these program components
distinguishes their informal mentoring program from general relationship building
within the ILP setting. The four components found in each program were: duration
of matches, matches based on shared interests, relationship building, as well as
parent involvement.
Duration of matches was consistently correlated to academic achievement in
the literature. Specifically, Rhodes (2002) recommended that matches last at least
one year. While some studies such as Herrera (2004) and Rhodes (MENTOR, n.d.)
found that school-based programs had shorter duration of matches, this was
100
generally not the case at CHCS and ECHS. Mentors at each school averaged over a
year working with students and often followed students through four years of high
school. Some mentoring relationships at CHCS continued into college. As identified
in the literature and found at each school, longer matches allowed mentors to build
strong relationships with mentees. According to the literature, it is this relationship
that leads to stronger academic achievement. By utilizing staff members at each
school, who are generally stable from year to year, matches lasted, providing
mentoring the opportunity to impact student achievement.
When matching students with mentors, Herrera et al. (2000) and Sipe (1996)
found that interests were a key factor to support longer, more productive
relationships. Both CHCS and ECHS strove to match students and mentors by
interests. In addition, student needs and mentor skills were utilized. For example, at
CHCS one mentor had experience with family gang issues and therefore worked
with students facing similar issues. At ECHS, a closed and shy student was placed
with a mentor who was effective in opening students up. Discussions with students
and parents provided information on specific student needs to support the matching
process at both schools. In addition, CHCS utilized surveys, completed by both
mentors and students. Other matching characteristics like gender or ethnicity, which
were identified in the literature as being non-relevant, were not used at either school.
Although both schools included academic components with their mentoring
program, their programs also included opportunities to build a relationship, in line
with literature findings. As Spencer and Rhodes (2005) found, having fun and
enjoying each other’s company was an important characteristic of mentoring
101
activities. By interacting with their mentees through a variety of means and
activities, mentors at CHCS created numerous opportunities to build a relationship
with their mentees. For example, CHCS mentors utilized electronic communication,
attended students’ sports events, and took mentees to dinner with their families to
build a relationship. At ESCH the hour with students was primarily academics,
however, the time taken by the teachers/mentors to discuss students’ interests and
lives each week, built the relationship with students over time. Both past research
and the mentors interviewed for this study stated that connecting with students
personally, not just academically, engaged students and reduced the incidence of
student drop-out.
Parent involvement provided indirect support for the mentoring relationship.
In their mega-study, Dubois et al. (2002) found parent involvement a key factor
contributing to positive outcomes from mentoring programs. Both ECHS and CHCS
included expectations for mentors to maintain open communication with parents.
Communication occurred through calling parents, meeting with them, and some
mentors at CHCS made home visits. Mentors utilized parent involvement to ensure
students attended mentoring sessions and to deepen their understanding of the
students.
In summary, the charter schools studied used mentoring to improve student
achievement by building a relationship with students. Previous research found that
relationship building correlates with improved student achievement. Maintaining
matches over several years, creating matches by interest, focusing on more than
102
academics, and working with parents helped to build this relationship and led to
student achievement.
Research Question Two: How are resources used to implement adult mentoring
successfully?
Resources needed to implement mentoring programs successfully include
staffing, professional development for mentors, as well as ongoing support and
monitoring of mentors and students. Findings from the literature identified specific
recommendations in each area which correlated with improved student achievement.
This section addresses how these recommendations match each school’s mentoring
program, as well as the methods of funding used by each program.
Staffing served as a key resource in mentoring programs. While individuals
with different backgrounds served as mentors, the literature identified the
effectiveness of individuals from “helping professions” such as teachers. In Dubois
et al.’s (2002) mega-study, mentors from such professions built stronger
relationships with students as well as positively impacted student attendance. At
CHCS individuals from a range of professions served as mentors, but many mentors
were teachers. Only teachers served as mentors at ECHS.
In the area of professional development for mentors, the literature
recommended training on how to work with students and the use of a developmental
style to connect with students (Rhodes & DuBois, 2006; Langhout et al., 2004; Sipe,
1996). Developmental style included a focus on building relationships, allowing
students input, and helping them set limits for themselves. The two sample schools
were in sharp contrast with one another regarding professional development for
103
mentors. The use of Connections at CHCS provided a strong foundation for mentors
and incorporated strategies in the literature. Each individual at CHCS emphasized
the importance of the Connections training in working successfully with students.
Connections sessions observed by the researcher revealed the power of these
strategies in building relationships with students as well as giving students tools for
expressing themselves.
The application of this in-depth training at CHCS contrasted sharply with the
lack of mentor training provided at ECHS. However, several components of the
overall program at ECHS served as informal professional development. As
previously mentioned, staff hired at ECHS were expected to possess strong skills in
relating to students which aligns with the developmental style of mentoring. New
teachers at ECHS also were assigned a veteran teacher who mentored them for the
first several months. This support focused primarily on academic and organizational
issues, but also included information on how to relate to students. In addition,
mentors at ECHS utilized their colleagues to build skills in working with challenging
students.
Support systems for mentors were found in the literature to support longer
matches between mentors and mentees (Sipe, 1996). Longer mentoring matches
consistently correlated to positive outcomes such as increased school attendance and
improved student grades (Cavell & Smith, 2005; Jekielek et al., 2002; Rhodes, 2002;
Tierney et al., 1995). Jekielek et al. explained that mentors need someone to talk to
when they are struggling with a student. At CHCS the executive director served as a
resource for mentors to discuss areas of student success and concern. In addition,
104
mentors met both formally and informally to discuss challenges, offer support to one
another, and develop solutions to address common concerns. During the grant,
CHCS program coordinators also supported mentors. As previously stated, ECHS
utilized a mentor teacher to support new teachers. This individual served fewer
students in order to have time to work with other teachers. Ongoing support at ECHS
also occurred through communication among mentors and was assisted by their close
proximity to each other within the building.
The mentoring programs at both charter schools required limited physical
resources. Offices at ECHS provided a consistent meeting place for mentors and
students, in line with recommendations in the literature. CHCS utilized classrooms
for meetings, however, during the school day, mentors had to search for a place to
meet with a mentee. Interestingly, this was not identified as a challenge by the
interviewees.
Funding for the mentoring programs was integrated into the base
instructional program, initiated from a grant, or came from mentors themselves. At
ECHS the mentoring program was fully embedded into the instructional program,
requiring no additional funding. In addition, the independent study structure at ECHS
provided funding to support programs beyond the weekly instructional sessions. The
use of grant funding allowed CHCS to establish a foundation of training which
continued beyond the grant. In addition, mentors and students experienced the value
of group outings, a program component mentors began funding when the grant
income ended. These continued efforts contradicted concerns expressed by M.
105
Garingger, of the National Mentoring Center, regarding sustainability of mentoring
programs beyond the grant period (personal communication, 2007).
At both charter schools, resources for the mentoring programs were
embedded in the overall school program. The use of teachers as mentors provided
individuals with the skills for successfully working with students. The accessibility
of these resources was an advantage of school-based programs. Professional
development and ongoing support for mentors varied significantly between the two
schools, indicating that the levels of training needed to successfully implement
mentoring may vary by the type of mentoring program and student needs within the
program. For example, the students at CHCS faced greater social challenges than
those at ECHS, including gang violence and the impact of poverty, so mentors at
CHCS may have needed a broader range of strategies to make mentoring successful.
Research Question Three: What challenges have charter schools faced when
implementing adult mentoring and how were the challenges addressed?
The literature identified maintaining mentoring relationships for at least a
year (Herrera, 2004) and ongoing funding (Rhodes, 2002) as potential challenges for
schools implementing mentoring programs. CHCS faced both of these challenges
and also struggled with student engagement in the mentoring program. Mentors at
ECHS only identified student engagement as an issue. These differences may be due
to the differences in how integrated the mentoring program was with each school’s
instructional program.
Both schools stated that student engagement posed a challenge however the
literature only identified this issue in relationship to students with significant
106
personal problems (Jekielek et al., 2002). While both charter schools strove to
address the challenge of student engagement by hiring strong mentors and effectively
matching mentors and students, both schools also utilized their charter status to place
pressure on students and parents to stay engaged in the mentoring program. Since
charter schools can place conditions on student enrollment, both schools made
involvement in the program a condition of continued school enrollment for some
students. When students were not attending mentoring sessions, school staff met with
the parents and student to explain that the student needed to attend the mentoring
program or they would be dropped from school enrollment. ECHS utilized a contract
as part of this process (see Appendix R).
The literature stated that maintaining mentoring relationships was an issue for
many school-based programs (Herrera, 2004). Not only did longer relationships lead
to stronger outcomes, but ending relationships early was negatively correlated with
student attendance and other positive mentoring outcomes (Carvell & Smith, 2005).
However, ECHS did not face this issue since teachers, who served as mentors, met
with students year-round and from one grade to the next. The use of teachers as
mentors also assisted CHCS in maintaining a core group of adults who maintained
mentoring relationships from year to year. However, the mentoring program at
CHCS included outside mentors who were not as consistent over time as staff
members.
The literature recommended training mentors and providing ongoing support
to improve mentor retention (Sipe, 1996; Herrera, 2004). Since CHCS provided
extensive training and ongoing support, this might have helped them to retain
107
mentors and increase the duration of their matches, but it did not fully address the
issue of finding sufficient numbers of mentors. The executive director at CHCS was
constantly looking for potential mentors. During the grant, she assigned this
responsibility to one of the program coordinators. Developing a partnership with
outside agencies, like Unity One, served as one solution. As already noted, utilizing
teachers was another effective solution.
Similar to the issue of maintaining mentoring relationships, funding
challenges differed at each school site dependent on the extent to which mentoring
was integrated with the base instructional program. At both CHCS and ECHS, the
integration of mentoring into the base program provided an effective solution for
funding issues. However, at CHCS funding through the grant was used for initial
training and many outings for students and mentors. When the grant ended, some
activities were no longer offered, but additional costs for other activities were
absorbed by the mentors. Training for mentors became embedded in the school
program since school personnel became Connections trainers.
Overall, the challenges faced at CHCS that were not the same challenges as
ECHS. At CHCS the mentoring program included many components outside the
regular instructional day, whereas the mentoring at ECHS was completely embedded
in the regular instructional day. As discussed above, the program at CHCS addressed
more difficult issues due to the needs of the students and therefore may have needed
a more extensive program. At both charter schools integration of the mentoring
program within the school’s base program addressed several challenges typically
108
faced in mentoring programs. Mentoring was viewed as integral to education and not
as extra-curricular or curriculum for a few students.
Research Question Four: What evidence exists that adult mentoring has resulted in
positive educational outcomes?
As identified in research question one, student achievement is one positive
outcome associated with the mentoring programs at both CHCS and ECHS. Previous
research also found a correlation between mentoring and positive educational
outcomes including increased school attendance, grade-to-grade promotion, and
academic credits earned, as well as resiliency development and decreased discipline
referrals (Cavanagh, 2007; Flaxman & Ascher, 1992; Tierney et al., 2000). Not all of
these benefits were found in the programs studied. However, interviews at each
school revealed that the mentoring programs were successful at keeping students in
school and decreasing discipline referrals.
Mentors at each charter school consistently credited their mentoring program
with keeping students in school and assisting students with planning for college. One
mentor at CHCS stated that students may not have made it through high school or
gone on to college without the mentoring program. Several mentors at ECHS
discussed students who likely would not have completed high school without the
one-on-one mentoring relationship they built. One mentor explained that the personal
attention provided at ECHS kept students from slipping through the cracks. Another
mentor said, “There is a lot of success in this program; many of these students were
not doing well in the traditional setting and they excelled here” (personal
109
communication, December 12, 2007). In addition, the drop-out rate for students at
ECHS was lower than both the state and district rates.
Another positive educational outcome of the mentoring program at each
charter school was reduced discipline referrals for students. Although specific
referral data was not available for either charter school, interviewees shared
examples of students who had overcome discipline issues. At CHCS, the executive
director explained how one student with a history of family gang involvement and
severe discipline problems was expelled. However, a mentor continued to work with
the student. According to the executive director the student returned to CHCS
because of the mentoring he received. Former mentor program coordinators at CHCS
also stated that surveys completed during the grant demonstrated a reduction in the
use of drugs and gang activity among mentees. At ECHS, mentors and the program
director shared similar examples of students who struggled with discipline problems
before entering the one-on-one program and now the students’ negative behaviors no
longer interfered with their education.
Implications
Findings from the case studies at CHCS and ECHS, as well as a review of
past research, suggest that mentoring programs effectively connect students to
school, including at-risk students. Implications from these findings indicate a need
for continued funding to establish mentoring programs. However, issues of
effectiveness and sustainability must receive attention at the federal and site levels.
Continued mentoring research is also needed regarding the variances in school-based
mentoring programs, related implementation details, as well as the value of
110
embedding mentoring programs within the school program, rather than as separate
programs.
Policy and Practice
Federal level recommendations.
Since 2002, the federal Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS)
granted over $200 million to mentoring programs across the nation (OSDFS, n.d.).
Understanding the current structure of the OSDFS grant program is important when
considering the recommendations presented here. Over 500 mentoring programs
received between $50,000 and $450,000 for a three-year period from the OSDFS.
Most grants were between $100,000 and $200,000. Grant applicants needed to
address areas found in research that positively correlate with student achievement.
These areas included: identification of ongoing support for mentors, methods for
establishing matches that last more than 12 months, as well as expectations for the
frequency of meetings. Data complied by the OSDFS regarding each funded
mentoring program included changes in student GPA, the number of matches that
lasted at least one year, and student attendance (OSDFS, 2007). As previously
mentioned, each of these elements was identified in past research to contribute to
student achievement. Results from the 2005 funding cohort were generally positive;
however, programs demonstrated a significant variance in outcomes regarding
student achievement and attendance. For example, over 80% of mentees in one
program had improved attendance and GPA, compared to less than 4%
demonstrating these positive outcomes in another mentoring program. While these
111
results can not be directly attributed to the mentoring programs, such discrepancies
raise concerns regarding the effectiveness of some types of mentoring programs.
To strengthen the impact of mentoring programs two areas need attention:
professional development for mentors as well as external monitoring and support for
programs. As identified in literature, professional development has been correlated
with an increase in the duration of mentoring matches (Sipe 1996; Jekielek et al.,
2002). Duration, in turn, correlates with improved student achievement and other
positive outcomes of mentoring (Cavell & Smith, 2005; Jekielek et al., 2002;
Rhodes, 2002; Tierney et al., 1995). In addition, as occurred at CHCS, an investment
in professional development can lay a foundation of knowledge that continues
beyond the grant, providing sustainability to the program.
It is worth noting that the OSDFS grants do not have clear expectations for
professional development. Based on previous research and this study, federally-
funded programs ought to include professional development that teaches mentors
specific strategies for building relationships with students. The use of personal
experiences was one strategy used by CHCS mentors, learned in the Connections
training. An extensive list of recommended strategies is beyond the scope of this
study, but further research needs to investigate specific strategies used within a broad
range of effective mentoring programs. In addition to specific strategies, programs
need to identify a source of ongoing professional development to support the
sustainability of the program. For example, CHCS utilized teachers to train new
mentors even after the grant ended, allowing similar training for new mentors. By
establishing clear criteria for professional development, new OSDFS programs
112
would be able to create effective professional development plans and ultimately
more successful mentoring programs.
The second recommendation for federal funding is the use of support systems
for mentoring programs not demonstrating positive educational outcomes. The
OSDFS grants provide mentoring programs with recommendations, resources, and
even direct support through the Mentoring Resource Center. However, accessing
these resources is optional to programs. Rather than continuing to fund struggling
programs, direct support from the Mentoring Resource Center should be required for
schools not meeting established annual goals. This support might include attention to
professional development and the source of mentors, in order to not only improve the
program during the grant, but also to develop a program that will be sustained
beyond the grant. Programs that do not spend time and other resources to establish
good matches should be reviewed carefully, since short-term matches have a
negative impact on students.
School level recommendations.
Embedding mentoring within a schools’ overall educational program
addresses some of the effectiveness and sustainability challenges of mentoring
programs, including funding and the duration of matches. At ECHS embedding
mentoring within the weekly instructional session supported regular meetings and
often resulted in relationships that lasted over two years. In addition, funding the
program was not a challenge, since hiring teachers, who all served as mentors, was
part of the regular school operations.
113
CHCS embedded the mentoring program by utilizing school personnel to
coordinate the program and teachers to serve as mentors. In addition, Connections
sessions were incorporated into the regular school week and the after-school study
hall provided time for individual mentors to meet with students. While the mentoring
program at CHCS included outside activities such as group and individual meetings
between mentors and students, it was not viewed as an outside program. Similar to
ECHS, CHCS mentoring relationships often lasted more than two years. Therefore,
schools initiating new mentoring programs ought to consider utilizing school staff as
mentors and including time within the instructional day for mentoring. Such
structures embed mentoring within the overall school program. However, attention
should be paid to potential teacher burn-out when utilizing teachers as mentors.
Since both school studied were schools of choice, the use of teacher in other settings
may lead to teacher burn-out or meet resistance by teachers.
Future Study
A challenge of this study was the potential disconnect between ECHS and the
initial intent of the study. While the study was intended to focus on mentoring
strategies for students from poverty, ECHS served few students from poverty. In
addition, ECHS’s mentoring was embedded in their independent study program,
making it difficult to distinguish between actions of caring teacher and the
development of mentoring relationships. However, independent study programs
serving greater numbers of students from poverty have the opportunity to capitalize
on the one-on-one structure of their weekly sessions by attending to mentoring
elements, as ECHS did. By giving attention to mentoring components such as
114
duration of matches, time for personal discussions, and matching by interest,
independent study programs can incorporate mentoring relationships to enhance their
academic work with students. Therefore, the match between ECHS and this study
may not seem explicit; however, the potential for application does exist.
Continued research should further address the challenges found in this study.
Distinctions should be developed between mentoring that occurs within independent
study programs, similar to ECHS, and programs involving multiple components
within and beyond the regular instructional day, like CHCS. Developing a
classification system regarding school-based mentoring programs could provide a
foundation for additional research. In addition, classification would facilitate analysis
of mentoring strategies and help new programs determine the strategies that best fit
their context. Over 500 programs, established through the OSDF, provide a broad
pool of programs to study.
In addition, future research should address the implementation of mentoring
programs at the elementary grades. Currently, the majority of mentoring resources
and research focus on middle and high school students. While some elementary
programs and related research exists, limited information is available regarding their
implementation and effectiveness. If it is confirmed, as identified by Cavell & Smith
(2005), that elementary programs influence student achievement at the middle and
high school levels, then further research on elementary programs would suggest
ways to support early intervention for students through mentoring.

115
Conclusion
At a time when NCLB pushes school personnel to focus on academics,
educators need to remember that their hard work proves useless when students do not
attend school. In addition, disruptive students can reduce the impact of instruction
for all students. By effectively implementing mentoring programs, schools can
increase students’ opportunities to learn by keeping them in school and reducing
discipline problems. One key finding reinforced through this study is the need for
mentoring programs to focus on building personal relationships with students, not
just targeting academic needs. As the research shows, this focus on building personal
relationships translates into positive educational outcomes, including increased
student achievement.
Embedding mentoring programs into the schools’ base program offers
solutions to implementation issues of funding and the duration of matches. However,
continued research is needed regarding implementation practices and variances
across school-based mentoring programs. Programs funded by the OSDFS provide a
wide base of programs to study.
This study’s findings and conclusions offer meaningful information regarding
implementation of school-based mentoring programs. By publicizing these findings
and conclusions through USC’s web-based Compendium of Promising Practices, this
information has the potential to inspire and guide educators to implement mentoring
programs that connect students to school and lead to improved student achievement.
116
Bibliography
Anda, D. (2001). A qualitative evaluation of a mentor program for at-risk youth: The
participants’ perspective. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 18 (2),
97-117.
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 (2), 95-113.
Baker, D. B. & Maguire, C. P. (2005). Mentoring in historical perspective. In D.
DuBois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 14-29).
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Pastorelli, C. (1996). Multifaceted
impact of self-efficacy beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development,
67, 1206-1222.
Bardach, E. (2003). Creating compendia of “best practice”. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 22, 661-665.
Beegle, D. M. (2006). See poverty…Be the difference! Tigard, OR: Communication
Across Barriers, Inc.
Benard, B. (2004). Resiliency: What we have learned. San Francisco: WestEd.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (n.d.) High schools for the new millennium,
imagine the possibilities. Retrieved May 2, 2006, from
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/downloads/ed/edwhitepaper.pdf
Brewer, D. J. & Ahn, J. (2007, May). What do we know about teachers in charter
schools? Paper presented at the meeting of National Charter School Research
Consensus Panel, Los Angeles, CA.
Brewer, D. & Wohlstetter, P. (2005, Fall/Winter). Charter schools come of age. USC
UrbanEd, Los Angeles, CA: Rossier School of Education, 15-19.
Brown, R. S. (1995). Mentoring at risk students: challenges and potential. Ontario,
Canada: Toronto Board of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 391138)
Buckley, K. & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to
practice. Educational Policy, 17, 317-342.
Buddin, R. (2006, August). Assessing the effectiveness of California charter schools
(Testimony No. CT-264). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
117
California Department of Education. (March 2006). 2006 Academic performance
index growth report. Retrieved March 2, 2007, from
http://api.cde.ca.gov/APIBase2006/2006Grth_st.aspx
California Department of Education (n.d.). Funding results. Retrieved June 29, 2007,
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/fo/r1/pcsgpdis05result.asp
Cannata, A., Garringer, M., MacRae, P., & Wakeland, D. (2005). Making the grade:
A guide to incorporating academic achievement into mentoring programs
and relationships. Folsom, CA: Mentoring Resource Center.
Cavanagh, S. (2007, January). Citizen schools: An after-hours adventure. Education
Week, 26(19), 1 & 15.
Cavell, T. A. & Smith, A.M. (2005). Mentoring children. In D. DuBois & M.
Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 160-176). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Center for Education Reform. (2007). Charter schools. Retrieved March 2, 2007,
from
http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=stateStats&pSectionID=15
&cSectionID=44
Center on Educational Governance. (2007). Charter school indicators. Los Angeles:
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education.
Community Harvest Foundation. (2008). Retrieved April 26, 2008, from
www.communityharvestfoundation.org
DuBois, D. L., Holloway, B. E., Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. (2002). Effectiveness
of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal
of Community Psychology, 30 (2), 157-197.
DuBois, D. L. & Karcher, M. J. (Eds.). (2005a). Handbook of youth mentoring.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
DuBois, D. L. & Karcher, M. J. (2005b). Youth mentoring. In D. DuBois & M.
Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 2-11). Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
EdSource. (2006, May). California’s charter schools: How are they performing?
Mountain View, CA: Edwards.
EdSource. (2007, June). California’s charter schools: Measuring their performance.
Mountain View, CA: Crane & Edwards.
118
Flaxman, E. & Ascher, C. (1992). Mentoring in Action: The efforts of programs in
New York City (Report No. UD 029 050). New York, NY: Institute for Urban
and Minority Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED354291)
Grossman, J. B. & Johnson, A. (1999). Assessing the effectiveness of mentoring
programs. In Contemporary issues in mentoring. (pp. 24-46). Philadelphia,
PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Hansen, K. (2007a). One-to-one mentoring: Literature review. Philadelphia, PA: Big
Brothers Big Sisters.
Hansen, K. (2007b). School-based mentoring study: Phase 1 report 2003-04 school
year (Effective practices). Philadelphia, PA: Big Brothers Big Sisters.
Hansen, K. & Corlett, J. (2007). School-based mentoring match activities and
relationship quality. Philadelphia, PA: Big Brothers Big Sisters.
Herrera, C. (1999). School-based mentoring: A first look into its potential.
Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Herrera, C. (2004). School-based mentoring: A closer look. Philadelphia, PA:
Public/Private Ventures.
Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., Feldman, A. F., McMaken, J., & Jucovy,
L. Z. (2007). Making a difference in schools: The Big Brothers Big Sisters
school-based mentoring impact study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private
Ventures.
Herrera, C., Sipe, C. L., & McClanahan, W. S. (2000). Relationship development in
community-based and school-based programs. Philadelphia, PA:
Public/Private Ventures.
Holland, S. H. (1996). Project 2000: An educational mentoring and academic support
model for inner-city African-American boys. The Journal of Negro
Education, 65(3), 315-321.
Jekielek, S. M., Moore, K. A., Hair, E. C., & Scarupa, H. J. (2002). Mentoring: A
promising strategy for youth development. Washington, DC: Child Trends.
Karoly, L. A., & Panis, C. W. (2004). The 21
st
century at work: Forces shaping the
future workforce and workplace in the United States. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.
Lake, R. J., & Hill, P. T. (Eds.). (2005) Hopes, fears, and reality. Seattle: University
of Washington.
119
Langhout, R. D., Rhodes, J. E., & Osborne, L. N. (2004). An exploratory study of
youth mentoring in an urban context: Adolescents’ perceptions of
relationship styles. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 293-306.
Malloy, C. L. & Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools: What
is the appeal for teachers? Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 219-241.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Defining resilience. American Psychologist, 56(3), 22-238.
MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. (2003). Elements of effective practices
(2
nd
ed.). Alexandria, VA: MENTOR.
MENTOR/National Mentoring Partnership. (n.d.). School-based mentoring.
Retrieved August 31, 2008, from
http://www.mentoring.org/access_research/school_based/
Mentoring Resource Center. (2005, April). Fact Sheet #1: Promoting academic
achievement through your mentoring program. Retrieved April 24, 2006,
from http://www.edmentoring.org/pubs/factsheet1.pdf
Mentoring Resource Center. (2007). Web Seminar #2: Research on mentoring
relationships and activities. Retrieved May 21, 2007, from
www.edmentoring.org/pubs/ws2_supplement1.pdf
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morrow, K. V. & Styles, M. B. (1995). Building relationships with youth in program
settings. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Murphy, J. & Shiffman, C. D. (2002). Understanding and assessing the charter
school movement. New York: Teachers College Press.
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS). (2007). Number of charter
schools and students in the 2006-07 school year. Retrieved June 16, 2007
from http://www.publiccharters.org/content/publication/detail/2182
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005). National Assessment of
Educational Progress: 2005 Assessment results [Data file]. Available from
Institute of Education Sciences Web site, http://nces.ed.gov
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2006). Student effort and educational
progress: High school sophomores who left without graduating within 2
years. [Data file]. Available from Institute of Education Sciences Web site,
http://nces.ed.gov
120
Ojai Foundation. (n.d.) Mission. Retrieved July 20, 2008 from
http://www.ojaifoundation.org/Content/org_mission.php
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. (n.d.). FY 2004 mentoring programs abstract.
Retrieved July 15, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/dvpmentoring/184B04grants.doc
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. (2007). Performance: Individual grant
results. Retrieved July 15, 2008 from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/dvpmentoring/performance.html
Pajares, F. (1995, April). Self-efficacy in academic settings. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
Proposed changes to federal education law get mixed reviews. (2007, February 12).
EdCal, p. 6.
Rhodes, J. E. (2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s
youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rhodes, J. E. & DuBois, D. L. (2006). Understanding and facilitating the youth
mentoring movement. Social Policy Report, 20(3), 3-19.
Shaul, M. S. (2004). Student mentoring programs: Education’s monitoring and
information sharing could be improved. (US General Accounting Office Rep.
No. 04-581). Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.
Sipe, C. L. (1996). Mentoring: A synthesis of P/PV’s Research: 1988-1995.
Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
Spencer, R. & Rhodes, J. E. (2005). A counseling and psychotherapy perspective on
mentoring relationships. In D. DuBois & M. Karcher (Eds.), Handbook of
Youth Mentoring (pp. 118-132). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
SPI focuses on closing achievement gap in annual address. (2007, February 12).
EdCal, p. 3.
Swanson, C. B. (2004) Who graduates? Who doesn’t? Retrieved on February 21,
2007, from Urban Institute Web site:
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410934
121
Tierney, J. P., Grossman, J. B., & Resch, N. L. (1995). Making a difference: An
impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters. Philadelphia: Public/Private
Ventures.
United States Department of Education. (2003, January). Bush announces new $300
million mentoring program for disadvantaged children. Retrieved February
20, 2006 from
http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2003/01/01302003a.html
United States Department of Education. (2004a). A guide to education and No Child
Left Behind. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Secretary, Office of Public
Affairs.
United States Department of Education. (2004b). Innovations in education:
Successful charter schools. Washington, DC: Office of Innovation and
Improvement.
United States Department of Education. (2004c). Four pillars of NCLB. Retrieved
February 22, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html
Unity One. (2008). Retrieved on April 20, 2008 from www.unityonenow.com
White House. (2006, October). Fact sheet: The NCLB Act: Challenging students
through high expectations. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061005-2.html
Wohlstetter, P. & Chau, D. (2004). Does autonomy matter? Implementing research-
based practices in charter and other public schools. In K. Bulkley & P.
Wohlstetter (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What’s happened and
what’s next? (pp. 53-71). New York: Teachers College Press.
Wohlstetter, P., Griffin, N. C., & Chau, D. (2002). Charter schools in California: A
bruising campaign for public school choice. In S. Vergari (Ed.), The charter
school landscape (pp. 33-53). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Wohlstetter, P. & Kuzin, C. A. (2006). USC’s compendium of promising practices:
innovations in charter schools. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from
http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/projects.html#compendium
Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R, Briggs, K. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United
States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9, 331-356.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
122
Ziebarth, T., Celio, M. B., Lake, R. J., & Rainey, L. (2005). The charter schools
landscape in 2005. In R. J. Lake & P. T. Hill (Eds.), Hopes, Fears, & Reality
(pp. 1-20). Seattle: University of Washington.
Zimmer, R. & Buddin, R. (2005). Is charter school competition in California
improving the performance of traditional public schools? RAND Working
Paper: WR-297-EDU, Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
123
Appendix A

Mentoring Resources

Organization Resources Web site
Big Brother Big
Sisters
Research,
volunteer
opportunities
www.bbbs.org

Harvard School
of Public
Health
Inspiring
stories
www.hsph.harvard.edu/chc/wmy2007/index.html
MENTOR/
National
Mentoring
Partnership
Effective
Elements of
Mentoring
Programs,
Research
Corner by Dr.
Rhodes
www.mentoring.org

Mentoring
Resource
Center
Supports
OSDFS
mentoring
grant
recipients
www.edmentoring.org
Mentoring
USA
Practical
resources for
mentors
www.helpusa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=
MUSA_Homepage

National
Mentoring
Center
(Northwest
Regional
Educational
Laboratory)
Mentor
exchange list
serve, research
resources
online and for
loan
www.nwrel.org/mentoring/index.php

124
Appendix B

Content of Compendium: Types of Data to be Collected

Goal of PP

Description of PP

Theory of Action for PP

Implementation Details:
¾ History
¾ Time (start-up/planning time; time PP has been in place)
¾ Lessons learned (benefits, challenges, next steps for sustainability)
¾ Evidence of impact

Resource Requirements:
¾ Budget information
¾ Staffing (level and type of staff expertise needed)
¾ Facility/space
¾ Professional development/training
¾ Other (e.g., technology)

Supporting Documents and Materials (printable in PDF format):
¾ Lessons plans
¾ Parent contracts
¾ Video to support PP
¾ Staff development manuals
¾ Evaluation reports (data demonstrating results of PP)

Recommended Resources for Additional Information:
¾ Books
¾ Articles
¾ Web sites
¾ Sources of technical assistance
¾ Potential funding sources
125
Appendix C
126
Appendix D
127

128

129
Appendix E

Triangulation Across Data Sources

Data Sources
Nomination
Form
Principal
Program
Coordinator
Mentors
Mentoring
Sessions
Documents
Research questions
Types of Data (from compendium content template)
PSI OSI
Type of collection
D I I I I O D
1. How do charter schools use adult mentoring for at-risk students to improve student achievement?

Description of promising practice X X X X X
Goal of program X X X X
Theory of action X X X X
History X X X X X X

2. How are resources used to successfully implement adult mentoring for at-risk students?
Time (start-up/planning time; time PP has been in place) X X X X
Budget X X X
Staffing (level and type of staffing expertise needed) X X X X
Other: Resources used by mentors X X X
Facility/space X X X
Professional development & training X X X
Guiding Documents X X X X
3. What challenges have charter schools faced when implementing adult mentoring for at-risk
students? How were the challenges addressed?

Implementation/Lessons learned: Challenges X X X

130
Nomination
Form
Principal
Program
Coordinator
Mentors
Mentoring
Sessions
Documents
Research questions
Types of Data (from compendium content template)
PSI OSI
4. What evidence exists that adult mentoring for at-risk students has resulted in positive educational
outcomes?

Evidence of impact X X X X X
Lessons learned: Benefits, contributing success factors X X X X X
Sustainability X X X X

D = Documents I = Interview O = Observation PSI = Pre-site interview with principal OSI = Onsite interview with principal

131

Appendix F

Pre-Site Telephone Interview-- School Principal

School Name: ______________________ Date: _____________

Name of Interview Subject: __________________________________________

Researcher: _______________________________________________________

Start Time: ______ End Time: _______ Total Time (minutes): ______

[Introduction]
I am working with the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of
Education. We are studying promising practices in California charter schools.
Through a nomination process, your school was selected as having with one-on-one
adult mentoring with at-risk students. The purpose of this interview is to learn more
about mentoring at your school and to schedule a site visit at a time this fall when it
is convenient for you.

The information from this research will be incorporated into a Web-based
compendium of promising practices. The website is hosted by USC’s Center on
Educational Governance. The goal of the compendium is to spread new knowledge
and innovation about promising practices to inspire educators to improve school
performance.

By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the annual
California Charter Schools Association conference; a certificate to display at your
school; and publicity in the media, including statewide and local press releases.

This preliminary interview should take only around 5-10 minutes. Is now a good
time? (If not – when would a better time be to talk with you?) Do you have any
questions for me before we begin?

A. Background- Laying the Foundation

1. How long have you been the principal at this school?

2. Would you tell me about your background and previous experience in
education?

3. How long has this school been using the ______________________
mentoring program?

132
4. Who else on campus is involved with the ____________________ mentoring
program?
[Probe for lead teachers, teachers, parents]

B. Scheduling and Logistics

5. I am planning to visit schools some time this fall, in October or November.
The visit will last no more than two days and I would like to speak with you
again, along with the other people you mentioned who are involved with the
mentoring program. If possible, I also would like to observe a professional
development session related to your mentoring program and a few mentoring
sessions.

a. What month and days are best to visit your school?
b. Will it be possible to attend a professional development session
related to
your mentoring program during the visit?
c. Will I be able to observe a few mentoring sessions during my visit?

6. Who should I speak with about arranging the visit and scheduling interviews?
I can [send, fax, or email] a list of people I would like to interview during my
visit, along with a scheduling grid.

For future contacts, is it best to communicate with you by phone, or do you
prefer fax or email?
FAX: _______________________
TEL: ________________________
EMAIL: _______________________

[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. I will send the scheduling grid to
[PERSON] in the next day or two, and if it can be returned to me by [DATE],
that would be very helpful.

I look forward to visiting your school on _____________, and will plan to contact
you the week before to confirm the visit and interview schedule. Again, thank you
for participating in USC’s Compendium.

133
Appendix G

On-Site Interview-- School Principal

School Name: ____________________ Date: _________________

Name of Interview Subject: _________________________________________

Researcher: ______________________________________________________

Start Time: ______ End Time: ______ Total Time (minutes): ______

[Introduction]
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are studying promising
practices in California charter schools. Through a nomination process, your school
was selected as having success with one-on-one adult mentoring of at-risk students.
The purpose of this interview is to learn more about the mentoring program at your
school.

The information from this research will be incorporated into a Web-based
compendium of promising practices. The website is hosted by USC’s Center on
Educational Governance. The goal of the compendium is to spread new knowledge
and innovation about promising practices to inspire educators to improve school
performance.

By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the annual
California Charter Schools Association conference; a certificate to display at your
school; and publicity in the media, including statewide and local press releases.

This interview should take around 60 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

A. Theory of Action and History
1. Can you briefly describe the ______________________ mentoring program at
your school?

2. What is the goal of the _____________________ mentoring program?

3. Please tell me about the history of the ________________ mentoring program at
your school.
(Probe: How/why did it get started, who were the people initially involved in
developing the mentoring program?)

134
4. Can you tell me a little about your role as principal with respect to the mentoring
program?

5. Who have been the main people involved with the planning and implementation of
the ______________________ mentoring program?

6. In your opinion, what factors have contributed to the successful implementation of
the mentoring program?

7. How do you think that the ____________________ mentoring program will lead
to school improvement and higher student achievement?

B. Implementation Details
8. How long has the _____________________ mentoring program been in place at
your site?

9. How much start up/planning time was needed to implement the program?

10. How much planning or collaboration time on a monthly basis is needed to
maintain implementation of the mentoring program?

11. What do you see as the next steps for ensuring sustainability of the mentoring
program?

12. How do you know the ___________ mentoring program is making a difference?
[What is the evidence of impact?]

13. What are the benefits of implementing your mentoring program?
(Probes: Benefits for students, staff, administrators, parents)

14. What are the challenges of implementing the mentoring program?
(Probes: Challenges for students, staff, administrators, parents)

15. What lessons have you learned by implementing the _______________
mentoring program?

C. Resource Requirements
16. How much of your budget is spent on the _________________ program?

17. What is the level of staff expertise required with respect to the ______________
mentoring program?

18. What facilities are needed to carry out the program?

135
19. How much professional development time has been devoted to implementing the
______________ mentoring program?

20. Do you think the training/professional development that has been conducted
meets the needs for people to implement the mentoring program effectively?
(Probe: What other types of PD do you think would be helpful to effectively
implement promising practice?)

D. Recommended Resources for Additional Information
21. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing the
_________________ mentoring program?

22. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing the
program?

23. Are there any websites that have been helpful to you in learning about the
mentoring program?

24. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful to you in
implementing the ______________ mentoring program?

25. Additional comments:

[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are invaluable for
my research.

136
Appendix H

On-Site Promising Practice Lead Interview Protocol

School Name: ________________________ Date: _____________

Name of Interview Subject: ___________________________________________

Position: ___________________________________________________________

Researcher: ________________________________________________________

Start Time: ______ End Time: _______ Total Time (minutes): _______

[Introduction]
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are studying promising
practices in California charter schools. Through a nomination process, your school
was selected as having success with one-on-one adult mentoring of at-risk students.
The purpose of this interview is to learn more about the ________________
mentoring program at your school.

The information from this research will be incorporated into a Web-based
compendium of promising practices. The website is hosted by USC’s Center on
Educational Governance. The goal of the compendium is to spread new knowledge
and innovation about promising practices to inspire educators to improve school
performance.

By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the annual
California Charter Schools Association conference; a certificate to display at your
school; and publicity in the media, including statewide and local press releases.

This interview should take around 60 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

A. Theory of Action and History
1. Can you briefly describe the ________________ mentoring program at your
school?

2. What is the goal of the program?

3. Please tell me about the history of the mentoring program at your school.
(Probe: How/why did it get started, who were the people initially involved in
developing the practice?)

137
4. Can you tell me a little about your role as lead teacher with respect to the
_____________ program?

5. Who have been the main people involved with the planning and implementation of
the mentoring program?

6. In your opinion, what factors have contributed to the successful implementation of
your mentoring program?

7. How do you think that the mentoring program will lead to school improvement
and higher student achievement?

B. Implementation Details
8. How long has the ___________________ mentoring program been in place?

9. How much start up/planning time was needed to implement this program?

10. How much planning or collaboration time on a monthly basis is needed to
maintain implementation of the mentoring program?

11. What do you see as the next steps for ensuring sustainability of the mentoring
program?

12. How do you know the ____________________ program is making a difference?
[What is the evidence of impact?]

13. What are the benefits of implementing the ________________ mentoring
program?
(Probes: Benefits for students, staff, administrators, parents)

14. What are the challenges of implementing the mentoring program?
(Probes: Challenges for students, staff, administrators, parents)

15. What lessons have you learned by implementing the mentoring program?

C. Resource Requirements
16. How much of your budget is spent on the ________________ program?

17. What is the level of staff expertise required with respect to the mentoring
program?

18. What facilities/technology are needed to carry out the mentoring program?

138
19. How much professional development time has been devoted to implementing
your mentoring program?
20. Do you think the training/professional development that has been conducted
meets the needs for people to implement mentoring effectively?
(Probe: What other types of PD do you think would be helpful to implement
mentoring effectively?)

D. Recommended Resources for Additional Information
21. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing the mentoring
program?

22. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing your
mentoring program?

23. Are there any websites that have been helpful to you in learning about
mentoring?

24. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful to you in
implementing your mentoring program?

25. Additional comments:

[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are invaluable for
my research.

139
Appendix I

On-Site Mentor Interview Protocol

School Name: ____________________ Date:__________________

Name of Interview Subject:_________________________________________

Position:_________________________________________________________

Researcher: ______________________________________________________

Start Time: ______ End Time: _______ Total Time (minutes): _____

[Introduction]
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I am working with the University of
Southern California’s Rossier School of Education. We are studying promising
practices in California charter schools. Through a nomination process, your school
was selected as having success with on-on-on adult mentoring of at-risk students.
The purpose of this interview is to learn more about the _______________
mentoring program at your school.

The information from this research will be incorporated into a Web-based
compendium of promising practices. The website is hosted by USC’s Center on
Educational Governance. The goal of the compendium is to spread new knowledge
and innovation about promising practices to inspire educators to improve school
performance.

By participating in this study, your school will get recognition at the annual
California Charter Schools Association conference; a certificate to display at your
school; and publicity in the media, including statewide and local press releases.

This interview should only take 30-40 minutes. Do you have any questions for me
before we begin?

A. Evidence of Impact
1. What has been the impact of the _______________ mentoring program on
students?
(Probe: How do you know?)

2. What has been the impact of mentoring on parents?
(Probe: How do you know?)

3. What has been the impact of the mentoring program on teachers?

140
(Probe: How do you know?)

4. What has been the impact of the mentoring program on mentors?
(Probe: How do you know?)

5. What has been the impact of the mentoring program on other
constituents/stakeholders (e.g., investors, community groups etc.)? (Probe: How do
you know?)

6. Was any system for measuring the success of your mentoring program adopted
during the planning stages?

7. Are you aware of any research studies that confirm the impact of the mentoring on
student achievement? If yes, may we please have copies?

B. Lessons Learned
8. What benefits have you experienced as a result of implementing mentoring?
(Probes: Benefits for students, mentors, staff, administrators, parents)

9. What challenges have you experienced while implementing your mentoring
program?
(Probes: Challenges for students, mentors, staff, administrators, parents)

10. Have there been any efforts to improve the effectiveness of the mentoring
program? If yes, explain.

11. What efforts have been made to help sustain the mentoring program at your
school?

12. What future steps are needed to ensure the sustainability of your mentoring
program?

13. What recommendations would you make to other educators that are thinking
about adopting a mentoring program?

C. Recommended Resources for Additional Information
14. Are there any books that have been helpful to you in implementing the mentoring
program?

15. Are there any articles that have been helpful to you in implementing your
mentoring program?

16. Are there any websites that have been helpful to you in learning about
mentoring?

141

17. Are there any sources of technical assistance that have been helpful to you in
implementing the mentoring program?

18. Additional comments:

[Closing]
Thank you very much for your time. Your comments and insights are invaluable for
my research.

142
Appendix J

Mentoring Observation Protocol

School Name: ____________________________ Date: ________________
Mentor’s Name: _______________________ Observer: ____________
Location: _______________________________ Grade Level: _________
Time Started: _____ Time Ended: ______ Total Time (minutes): ____
Number of Participants Observed: __________________
Indicate Language(s) Used for Activity:
English □ Spanish □ Eng/Span. Combo □ Other □ ________________

A. Classroom Environment
1. How does the arrangement of the setting support mentoring?
(location of room, seating, other furniture, proximity to other students/mentors,
etc.)

2. What resources in the setting support mentoring?
(presence of school staff/aids/parents, technology, books, learning manipulatives,
etc.)

B. Academic Lesson
3. What is the intended purpose of the mentoring session?
(as written or stated by mentor)

4. What is the structure of the mentoring session?
(pairs, multiple pairs)

5. Explain the sequence of events and distribution of time during the mentoring
session.

6. Describe the mentor-student interactions observed.

7. Describe the student-student interactions observed. (if any)

8. List (and collect copies) of pertinent resources from the session.
(handouts, mentor references)

9. Additional notes

143
Appendix K

Document Checklist

School Name: _________________ Date of Scheduled Site Visit: __________

Promising Practice: _________________________________________________

Researcher: ________________________________________________________

Document Type

Document Title

Retrieval Date
Charter (Petition):

Renewal Petition

Policy Documents Related to
Mentoring Program ( e.g. memos,
program guide)

Handbook
(Faculty, Staff, Mentor, Student,
Parent)

Program Evaluations
(Related to Mentoring)

Other Assessment Data
(Related to Mentoring)

Other Documents
(Related to Mentoring)

144

Appendix L

Community Harvest Charter School

School Charter

July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2012

Submitted to LAUSD Board of Education

(This is partial document do to the length of the original document, 117 pages. Only
the portions relevant to this study were included in this appendix. For the entire
document, contact Community Harvest Charter School at 1-323-373-2000.)

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182
Appendix M

Community Harvest Charter School

Mentoring Program Grant Application

July 7, 2004

Submitted to U.S. Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools

(This is an incomplete document. Despite multiple attempts to get the entire
document from the school site and the OSDFS, only the following pages were
available for use.)

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207
Appendix N

208
Appendix O

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226
Appendix P

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238
Appendix Q

239
Appendix R

240
Appendix S

241

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the present study was to uncover promising practices in the area of mentoring, specifically implementation of one-on-one adult mentoring with students within the California charter school setting. A case study approach formed the theoretical framework for this study. Research questions guiding the study included: How do charter schools use adult mentoring to improve student achievement? How are resources used to implement adult mentoring for students successfully? What challenges have charter schools faced when implementing adult mentoring and how were the challenges addressed? How do key adults perceive the impact of the mentoring program on mentees and mentors? What other evidence exists to support these perceptions?

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Investigating promising school leadership practices in two California charter schools

PDF

Through the eyes of art: uncovering promising practices in arts-themed learning in California charter elementary schools

PDF

School leaders' use of data-driven decision-making for school improvement: a study of promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

Investigating the promising practice of teacher evaluation in two California charter schools

PDF

A study of promising practices in two California charter schools: using technology to increase parent involvement

PDF

Writing across the curriculum: exploring promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

A community struggling to create a charter school: a rural case study

PDF

The integration of academics into career-technical education in two California charter schools

PDF

The factors present in an outperforming charter middle school: a case study focusing on promising practices, school leadership, and cultural norms

PDF

BTSA mentors: the costs and benefits to mentors and their fidelity to constructivist practice

PDF

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

PDF

Preparing our nation’s youth for success in the 21st century: a case study on the implementation of globalization in educational practices and curriculum

PDF

Globalization in curricular elements and instructional practices in California schools: A case study

PDF

A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement

PDF

Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school

PDF

A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California

PDF

Parent compacts in urban charter schools: an exploration of contents and processes

PDF

Scaling up charter management organizations: understanding how policies, people and places influence growth

PDF

A case study of factors related to a high performing urban charter high school: investigating student engagement and its impact on student achievement

PDF

Leading the way: the effective implementation of reform strategies and best practices to improve student achievement in math

Asset Metadata

Creator Maxwell, Melanie Sue (author)

Core Title Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/09/2009

Defense Date 09/15/2008

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag charter schools,High School,mentoring,OAI-PMH Harvest,promising practices,youth mentoring

Place Name California (states), educational facilities: Community Harvest Charter School (geographic subject), educational facilities: Escondido Charter High School (geographic subject)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Wohlstetter, Priscilla (committee chair), Gothold, Stuart E. (committee member), Kliewer, Jennifer (committee member)

Creator Email mmaxwell@rusd.k12.ca.us,msmaxwel@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1973

Unique identifier UC1215229

Identifier etd-Maxwell-2504 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-152377 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1973 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Maxwell-2504.pdf

Dmrecord 152377

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Maxwell, Melanie Sue

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu