The following op-ed was published by a leading researcher, Jean Rhodes, and it refutes the research that President Obama recently cited when he recommended cutting school-based mentoring.
Renewing public service in schools
School-based mentoring is one of the fastest growing forms of community service in the U.S, serving close to a million youth annually. One-on-one mentoring relationships not only provide millions of hours of needed services but can provide a powerful lens through which volunteers witness first-hand the pernicious effects of poverty on neighborhoods and schools, potentially mobilizing more sustained public support for student-friendly policies. School-based mentoring is thus an excellent example of the volunteerism President Obama called for in his recent national address. Yet the administration plans to cut federal funding for the Department of Education’s Student Mentoring program, even as the President calls for a “renewed sense of public service.” The decision to eliminate it rests in large part on a recent evaluation that showed that school based mentoring, as practiced by many programs around the country, failed to increased grades or test scores. But just two years ago another rigorous evaluation of school-based mentoring found that teachers reported the quality of the mentored students’ school work improved. How do we reconcile this difference? Is the government taking the right action?
To understand these apparently contradictory findings, it is important to note that the earlier evaluation answered the question: What effect does a well-run school-based mentoring program have? The second evaluation answered the question: What effect does the average school-based mentoring program have? Findings from both studies reveal that strong programs can improve academic performance, while programs that don’t incorporate best practices cannot. Interestingly, both types of programs have increased attendance.
So, should the government funding be pulled? Granted, many school–based mentoring programs, as they are currently operated, don’t increase grades. But, school-based mentoring was never designed to be a program that primarily improved academic achievement. Mentoring aims more broadly to keep children on a constructive responsible path (such as encouraging behaviors like coming to school and following the rules). Mentors are not supposed to be teachers but friends and role models. Even so, the earlier evaluation did show that well-run programs improved academic performance and behavior by the end of the school year.
These are tough times when tough unpleasant decisions must be made. But the government’s choice is not necessary all or nothing. Rather than zeroing school-based mentoring out of the budget, it could restrict its funding to programs that incorporate the best practices—the kind of programs that have been shown to produce results. Let’s take stock in what’s working and invest in strengthening models with the potential to make a difference. A strong infrastructure for service is now in place in thousands of American schools. Why not use it?
Policymakers, advocacy organizations, and funders have a critically important role to play in holding school-based mentoring to a higher standard. A shared vision of excellence and a commitment to scientifically-informed guidance and support will ensure that the many volunteers who have already been mobilized to serve our nation’s youth can become more effective agents of change.
