1 Educator Perceptions of School-Based Mentoring: Wants, Needs, and Suggestions for the Future by Walter Michael Rosio A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION with an emphasis in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah Date of Defense December 14, 2023 Approved Clay L Rasmussen, Ph.D. Penée W. Stewart, Ph.D. Andrea Garavito Martínez, Ph.D. 2 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Abstract Increasingly, school districts have utilized school-based mentoring to address the growing academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs of adolescents in public schools. These programs primarily utilized licensed teachers to help facilitate school-based mentoring programs to reach a majority of the general student population. This study aimed to contribute to the literature by examining the perceptions of teachers on mentoring program effectiveness and general outlook by examining their beliefs, opinions, and suggestions for how to better shape school-based mentoring programs. This study revealed that most educators had a strong sense of mentoring program purpose and goals, which were congruent with mentoring best practices. Teachers who served as mentors also understood and complied with their outlined program expectations and responsibilities. While teachers had varied opinions on what the focus of their mentoring program should be (student social well-being or academics), all teachers agreed that mentoring as a general practice was overall beneficial for the general student population and overwhelmingly perceived the existence of their mentoring program as positive. However, teacher frustrations and criticisms of program applications persisted and should be a priority focus for educational leaders when considering future schoolwide mentoring program implementation. 3 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Acknowledgments I want to thank the professors at Weber State University's Moyes College of Education, including MEd Program Director, Dr. Louise Moulding for guiding and supporting me throughout my journey beginning as a student in the Graduate Certificate of Teaching program, and then later, as a graduate student by preparing me with the knowledge and skills to embark on this great task of conducting a masters level project. Additionally, I want to thank my project committee chair, Dr. Clay L. Rasmussen for being so generously accessible, communicative, and candid in providing feedback and guidance on how I could better shape my ideas on exploring the efficacy of mentoring in public schools. If I ever had a question or needed clarification, Dr. Rasmussen was always available to help in a timely and professional manner. I would also like to express my gratitude to my committee members, Dr. Penée W. Stewart for extending monumental patience, understanding, and compassion towards me as a (at times) struggling master of education student, and Dr. Andrea Garavito Martínez for providing an incredible depth of knowledge on qualitative research techniques and helping direct me throughout my project methods formulation – a critical factor that contributed greatly to the completion of this research project. Last, I want to thank Davis School District for allowing me to conduct this project with district employees and the teacher participants who so graciously volunteered their time, energy, and thoughts to this research. Without them, none of this would be possible and for that, I am grateful. 4 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Table of Contents Nature of the Problem......................................................................................................................7 Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs....................................................................................... 9 Non-Academic Benefits.....................................................................................................11 Academic Shortcomings.................................................................................................... 12 Program Variabilities & Discrepancies....................................................................................12 Variations by Grade............................................................................................................12 Outcome Discrepancies..................................................................................................... 15 Summary........................................................................................................................................ 17 Purpose...........................................................................................................................................18 Method........................................................................................................................................... 19 Participants...............................................................................................................................19 Instrument................................................................................................................................ 19 Procedures................................................................................................................................20 Data Analysis........................................................................................................................... 22 Findings......................................................................................................................................... 23 Research Setting.......................................................................................................................24 Demographic Question............................................................................................................ 25 Definition of Mentoring...........................................................................................................26 2. What does “mentoring” mean to you?........................................................................... 27 3. Based on your experiences and opinions, can you describe what an effective mentoring SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 5 relationship looks like?...................................................................................................... 28 4. Can you describe what the ideal mentoring relationship looks like between teachers and students?......................................................................................................................30 5. What are the goals of an effective mentoring program?................................................32 Perception of Mentoring Program at their School................................................................... 33 6. Now, let's talk about your school-based mentoring program. Can you describe the goals of the mentoring/advising program at your school?.......................................................... 34 7. What are the faculty expectations for the mentoring/advising program at your school?.. 37 8. How would you describe the level of teacher participation in the mentoring/advising program at your school...................................................................................................... 40 9. How would you describe the level of student participation in the mentoring/advising program at your school?.....................................................................................................41 Belief in the Efficacy or Effectiveness of the Mentoring Program..........................................43 10. In your opinion, does your school meet the expectations for an effective mentoring process between teachers and students? Why or why not?................................................44 11. What, if anything, would you like to see altered about your school mentoring/advising program and why?..............................................................................................................47 Additional Topics and Themes................................................................................................ 49 Amount of Teacher Training for the SBM Program................................................................ 50 Teacher Content Area Relationship with Mentoring Success..................................................52 Negative Teacher Experiences with SBM Programs............................................................... 54 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 6 Stressors, Frustrations, and Struggles................................................................................ 54 12. We have covered a lot of topics, is there anything else you'd like to mention?...........57 Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 59 Discussion of Findings.............................................................................................................60 The Implicit and Explicit Goals, Objectives, and Established Purpose of the Program....60 The Perceived Commitment or “Buy-In” From Participants in the Program....................63 Evaluation of Program Effectiveness and Feedback Based on Participant Perceptions....65 Limitations............................................................................................................................... 67 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 68 References......................................................................................................................................70 Appendix A....................................................................................................................................75 Appendix B.................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix C.................................................................................................................................... 80 7 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Nature of the Problem As a way to effectively meet the demands and challenges students bring with them into the classroom, school districts and invested community members across the world have turned to school-based mentoring (SBM) to address the growing academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs of adolescents (Ryan et al., 2002). SBM programs range from pairing at-need elementary and secondary-age mentees to peer, volunteer, or faculty mentors, facilitated primarily in the public school setting (National Mentoring Research Center, n.d.). These wide-ranging parameters and variabilities make targeting which sub-groups of students — those that are most likely to benefit from interventions facilitated through SBM programs — a challenge, requiring further research and academic deliberation (Schenk et al., 2019). A preliminary evaluation of SBM research on the absolute effectiveness of SBM programs, related to statistically significant academic outcomes, has been debated and critiqued from a general program effectiveness purview (Herrera et al., 2011). While beneficial for younger, middle school age groups, SBM programs (integrated with other services and strategies) have the potential to improve non-academic outcomes such as attendance, discipline referrals, and students' sense of connectedness (Gordon et al., 2013). Even these non-academic benefits may be neutral or less effective than initially realized, depending on student socioeconomic status, age, and other cultural factors (Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2009). Secondary academic outcomes, such as increased student self-efficacy (via teaching students more fully about self-regulated learning strategies) have the potential to see improvements as well, especially for at least one year – a widely accepted best practice standard (Nunez et al., 2012). Outside of direct improvement of academic outcomes, assessment of relationships between student mentees and volunteer mentors caution against SBM programs without proper 8 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING oversight and preparatory guidance as the effectiveness of SBM programs depends primarily on the positive relationship between mentor and mentee (Pryce & Keller, 2012). When the student-mentor relationship does not come to fruition and/or stagnates, this can lead to sub-par, and possibly harmful mentoring outcomes such as negative views of self-esteem and increased involvement in risky behaviors (Sparks, 2010). While prior research within the mentoring field has guided policymakers and leaders in K-20 education with best practices toward implementing SBM programs, the inherent problem in both quantitative and qualitative studies is the sheer number of discrepancies present throughout individual programs, including the populations examined, type of mentorship utilized, and disparities in both academic, behavioral, and social-emotional outcomes of participating students (Dubois et al., 2011). Despite the variability of efficacy outcomes within the literature, various mentoring programs continue to be implemented in places of learning as a panacea for solving the academic and behavioral challenges of students in public education. The sheer diversity of research within the field makes conclusive, confident statements about SBM effectiveness elusive at best, and a more thorough, frequent, and diverse examination is needed to appropriately direct the efforts that an adult mentor can provide for students in helping to improve their holistic educational experience. Therefore, this research intends to discover and explore the perceptions and beliefs that licensed educators have of SBM programs to better understand how K-20 leadership can support and refine program goals, practices, and outcomes for both adult and student participants in public schools. Literature Review SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 9 Effectiveness of Mentoring Programs SBM literature, examined broadly, advocates for the continued use and future implementation of mentoring programs in schools as additional support systems for students. Common themes emerge from the review, mainly that the purpose of current SBM research is to be a resource for future SBM program planning by guiding implementation and assessment. For example, Kimosa-Hawkins (2010) found that successful SBM programs are those that are well-planned from their inception and include an evaluative element of the program, typically in the form of a self-assessment. In agreeance, Smith and Stormont (2011) found that SBM can be a viable intervention for students at risk of social and academic failure so long as programs have the following: clear objectives; a targeted and specific population intended for support; and an appropriate infrastructure (i.e., places to meet, evaluation tools, etc.). They too stress the importance of utilizing research to guide program practices and conduct evaluative assessments to promote success and sustainability. Both Kimosa-Hawkins (2010) and Smith and Stormont (2011) examined SBM programs in the context of a traditional mentoring paradigm, meaning research on SBM was done on centrally implemented programs utilizing volunteer adult-student mentoring relationships. However, there exists a profusion of other mentoring strategies that have been utilized within SBM programs such as faculty-to-student and peer-to-peer relationships that can vary in practice and affect the intended outcomes of a SBM program. To better define, outline, and differentiate the diversity present throughout SBM programs, Karcher et al. (2006) developed a conceptual framework that they applied to their literature review examining SBM efficacy. This framework included the location of meetings (field-based, site-based, etc.), the nature of the mentor-mentee relationship (one-on-one adult-youth, cross-age peer, intergenerational, e-mentoring, group mentoring, etc.), and the goals SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 10 or activities that shape a program (Karcher et al., 2006). Karcher et al. (2006) concluded that careful attention to the elements that comprised their superimposed conceptual framework — mainly context, structure, and stated goals of the program — in addition to the general program elements of content, infrastructure, and dosage (length of time meeting and frequency) — will aide future efforts to develop and evaluate SBM programs. Complimenting the conceptual framework proposed by Karcher et al. (2006), Dubois et al. (2011) have led the way in examining mentoring program efficacy in the twenty-first century by conducting multiple meta-analyses of mentoring-based research to find commonalities, discrepancies, and limitations existent in the literature. Dubois et al. (2011) have examined mentoring program structures, practices, and to what extent the outcomes of these programs benefit youth in education. Their keystone 2011 meta-analysis of 73 mentoring programs evaluations targeted at children and adolescents from studies conducted between 1999-2010 found that mentoring can improve behavioral, social, emotional, and academic outcomes for at-need youth compared to non-mentored youth; however, effects were modest when compared to similar mentoring intervention experiences of the “typical young person” (Dubois et al., 2011). While the goal of these comprehensive meta-analyses is to examine how researchers have explored and examined mentoring programs, another desired outcome is to help guide K-20 educational leaders and policymakers to make better policy decisions based on the findings of these studies to benefit youth in their educational institutions. Dubois et al. (2011) implore educational leaders to implement the necessary evaluative tools and adhere to previously established program best practices to better refine and support mentoring programs of all varieties. In the summary remarks of their meta-analysis study, Dubois et al. (2011) stress the SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 11 need for more collaboration between practitioners and researchers in a variety of increasingly complex mentoring models, as well as further examine mentoring practices for both positive and negative outcomes for youth across varying demographics and stages of development. Non-Academic Benefits The commonly agreed upon best practice for effective and successful mentorship as it relates to program duration is for mentors to meet with mentees for a minimum of three months, but ideally, for a year or longer (Kmosa-Hawkins, 2010). Length of time is not only needed to establish trusting relationships with mentees but also to promote effective engagement activities necessary to build connectedness conducive to a positive mentoring relationship. In a study of a faculty-led junior high SBM program, mentors who practiced active listening skills played games and shared food with mentees experienced more successful interactions than mentors who frequently had to initiate conversation or use guided icebreaker activities (Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2009). Mentees from the Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft (2009) study who met more consistently – establishing a better relationship with their mentors – had fewer office referrals than mentees who did not report a positive mentor experience. The frequency of meetings, as well as the amount of time spent meeting, contribute toward positive results for both adult mentors and student mentees alike. The standard practice suggests hourly meetings at least once a week to best foster positive mentor-mentee outcomes. For Italian youth (grades 6th-8th) in the community-based but school-facilitated Mentor-UP program, Marino et al. (2020) discovered positive increases in student-reported levels of self-esteem over a seven-month intervention period compared to a decrease in students who were not involved in the mentoring program; however, about levels of school connectedness, there was no significant change between participant or non-participant students. SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 12 Academic Shortcomings While SBM programs tend to yield positive outcomes for students related to non-academic behavioral and social-emotional support, the priorities and variations on overall program effectiveness mirror similar ambiguity across grade levels. Recent data analysis on the association between mentor and mentee perceptions associated with the quality of mentoring relationships, and how they may influence student academic success, challenges the modest academic outcomes as described by prior research. For example, in an examination of student (4th-8th grade) and mentor survey data from the U.S. Department of Education's Student Mentoring Program, Jablon and Lyons (2021) found significant associations between high mentor perception of the mentoring relationship quality and student academic outcomes in core subjects like Math, English, and Social Studies, with science being the exception. However, in comparison, an examination of a secondary age group-mentoring-focused SBM program by Chan et al. (2011) found little influence on a student's GPA, and that students who participated in the program did not earn higher grades than those who did not participate. Program Variabilities & Discrepancies Variations by Grade While formal mentoring programs have generally produced positive outcomes for youth, the settings in which facilitated mentoring takes place – along with their desired outcomes – vary across stages of student development. Evaluations of SBM programs have shown variations in effectiveness when accounting for different student age groups i.e., elementary, middle/junior high school, high school, and early college. In a qualitative study of elementary-aged students' perceptions of a one-to-one individualized mentoring program, Ryan et al. (2002) highlight the perceived value of a SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 13 school-facilitated mentoring program as reflected via interviews with program stakeholders: students, parents, teachers, and mentors. While students mentioned positively the academic assistance they had received at some point during their mentorship with a trusted adult, mentors had a somewhat more positive perception of their mentee's academic improvement than the student's teachers. They attribute this somewhat more positive perception as a factor of meeting frequency as mentors had a limited and less frequent time engaged with their mentees compared to more frequent evaluations from teachers and parents. While there are relatively few studies that have examined the transitional period between elementary and middle school, McQuillin et al. (2011) found no significant benefits related to non-academic outcomes such as school-connectedness, teacher connectedness, and school referrals during the first semester of first-year middle school students. Academic performance as it related to reading scores was negatively associated when compared to the treatment and non-treatment groups, before pre- and post-assessments. However, they caution against the immediate interpretation of their findings as the implementation of this transitional mentoring program was less than the typically recommended (best-practice guideline) intervention of up to one full academic year. However, other studies suggest that when administered appropriately in conjunction with other support services and strategies to middle school grade students, non-academic outcomes such as attendance, office referrals, and a sense of connectedness have the potential to help students in these transitional grades (Gordon et al., 2013). For high school programs, the objective of mentoring continues to focus on improving both academic and non-academic outcomes for older students, as well as exposing students to resources to support entrance into post-secondary processes related to college and career readiness. Where elementary and middle school mentoring programs rely primarily on SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 14 adult-to-student relationships, high school-aged students may benefit from peer mentoring. Having examined a unique cohort (peer-to-peer) mentoring model, Weiss et al. (2019) found positive outcomes of high school-aged students' perceptions of their academic success and experiences, facilitated through their relationship with their adult “Talent Advisors”. Weiss et al. also found positive effects from cohort mentoring and encouraged programs for older students to consider the positive effects of peer-to-peer relationships as a means to support peer-to-peer encouragement and accountability. Mentoring programs are also utilized at the post-secondary level in non-traditional two-year community colleges, traditional four-year universities, and graduate-level institutions; sometimes to great success in student satisfaction relative to accessing college services and effectively addressing academic concerns and questions (Clark, 1995). Although differing in mentoring subject areas from that of K-12 education – such as navigating institutional and administrative bureaucracy as well as academic and pre-professional support from faculty and staff – institution-based mentoring for young adults (age 18 and older) can also yield similarly positive (yet contradicting results) if programs are adequately calibrated to meet the needs of participants. Surveying both faculty mentors as well as first-year business school mentees on the effectiveness of how each meets the community colleges' program goals: to create a sense of connectedness to the college, facilitate access to college services, help clarify academic/personal goals, and identify areas of academic/personal difficulty; Bryant (1992) found that students perceived their mentoring experience as most helpful in establishing a sense of connectedness to their school as well as helping them utilize college services. Comparatively, faculty perceived student connectedness as low. A similar contradiction was found when examining student goals. SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 15 Compared to faculty perceptions (in which they had expressed student goals having been discussed in the mentoring relationship), mentees perceived faculty attention to goal setting and discussion as low. Echoing Dubois et al. (2011) sentiments which tend to yield more positive experiences for typically disadvantaged students, Bryant (1992) found that mentoring seemed to appeal to racial/ethnic minority students more than majority group white students who may not feel that they needed additional support services offered through the college. Similar contradictions of program efficacy can be seen via a case-study examination of student perceptions of a peer-to-peer institutionally facilitated mentoring program (undergraduate student mentees to graduate student mentors, which they developed in tandem with institutional oversight). Lyon et al. (2022) concluded after a series of focus group interviews, that while undergraduate students appreciated the program as it was “grounded in their unique interests and needs” – being developed and implemented by graduate students at the university – the lack of institutional support by faculty and administrative staff left young university students wanting for academic advice and other institutional planning supports. Much like in the K-12 setting, it is the variations in program context, structure, and stated goals that can hinder the potential effectiveness of a program if not fully recognized and formally evaluated by institutional facilitators, and the disparities between both mentor and mentee perceptions are more so apparent when examining programs in the secondary and postsecondary levels. Outcome Discrepancies While research has examined how student perceptions affect their mentored experience, other studies examine academic improvement, behavioral remediation, positive social-emotional change, or increased attendance rates as ways to assess the efficacy of SBM programs. Only the SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 16 most ambitious literature on the subject tackles' the multiple facets of a program. One foundational study, “Mentoring in Schools: An Impact Study of Big Brothers Big Sisters (BBBS) School‐Based Mentoring” — a year-and-a-half long random assignment impact study involving 1,139 students aged 9-16 across 10 cities in the United States — aimed to examine the impact the popular SBM program had on students' school-related attitudes (including problem behavior in and outside of school), academic performance, and personal well-being; the later encompassed social factors such as relationships with peers, family, and teachers (Herrera et al., 2011). In a parallel study of administrator and teacher perceptions of a BBBS-inspired mentoring program in Ireland, the informal settings that a peer-to-peer mentoring relationship can offer to middle school students go beyond the aforementioned goals of the program and can help to reinforce a school-wide culture of support in tandem with the primary program focus to assist middle school grade transition to high school (Brady, 2014). Another interesting way to assess program effectiveness is – after the mentor experience has ended – to evaluate students' views of their future, their life, and where they see themselves in it. For example, codified data derived from a seven-question multi-session focus group discussion of volunteer junior and senior high school students in Omaha, Nebraska resulted in three main themes used to assess program effectiveness: program relationships between staff and students, future careers, and college (Weiss et al., 2019). Issues that SBM programs decide to tackle vary greatly across geographic regions, cultures, and other student demographics. For SBM research and assessment, there is little academic consensus on how to determine the effectiveness of a program. With a range of evaluations and outcomes across multiple studies, perhaps the first question to ask when evaluating a mentoring program is “What makes an SBM program effective?”, and “How much 17 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING evaluative weight should be given to the number of students served or the quality of experiences received?” Program variability is the impetus to which researchers continue to implore educational leadership in implementing standardized evaluative tools to better focus and refine the future of SBM programs. Summary For many school districts across the country, SBM continues to be seen as a way to address the academic, behavioral, and social-emotional needs of students in K-20 education; however, the overall efficacy and generalized effectiveness of such programs have been heavily scrutinized and critiqued (Herrera et al., 2011). This is due in large part to how SBM programs are implemented throughout public education, being largely unstandardized in their goals and evaluative tools, particularly across a differing range of target population stages of development (i.e., elementary, secondary, and post-secondary) (Dubois et al., 2011). While SBM programs that have established clear objectives, targeted intervention populations, and an appropriate infrastructure can be a viable strategy for students at risk of social and academic failure (Smith and Stormont, 2011), the “typical young person” (that many SBM programs intentionally include) see modest (Dubois et al., 2011) to little positive effects comparatively (Chan et al., 2011). Throughout the literature, there is little academic consensus on how to determine the effectiveness of a program and evaluative criteria range widely from assessing student's views of their future (Weiss et al., 2019) to school-related attitudes, academic performance, and personal well-being (Kerrera et al., 2011). 18 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Purpose While discrepancies exist on the precise effectiveness that SBM can have on students, SBM continues to grow in popularity in public schools as a way to address both the academic and social-emotional needs of their student population. Educational institutions will primarily utilize licensed and credentialed faculty to help facilitate SBM programs as they are commonly integrated into the daily or weekly learning schedule (often as a homeroom or dedicated advising period) and are a way to reach a majority of the student population. Teacher voices are often left out of the conversation about helping shape program goals, determining the purpose of interventions, and providing substantive program evaluation and feedback. Therefore, it is the purpose of this study to better understand educator's beliefs, opinions, and suggestions for how to better shape school-based mentoring programs in the following areas: ● The implicit and explicit goals, objectives, and established purpose of the program. ● The perceived commitment or “buy-in” from participants in the program (colleagues and students) ● A personal evaluation of program effectiveness and feedback based on participant perceptions of their local SBM program. By illuminating the wants, needs, and suggestions for SBM programs by mentoring practitioners who are tasked with its daily implementation, it is the hope that the findings of this research can enable educational leaders and school administrators to better implement feedback for future program development to improve and refine SBM program efficacy and effectiveness. 19 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Method This study was designed as an inductive qualitative exploration into the insights and experiences of educators involved as facilitators for SBM programs. This study utilized an in-depth, semi-structured (open-ended) interview guide (Bryman, 2012, 469-497) to ascertain educator opinions of the following criteria: program goals and purpose; participant commitment (teacher and student); and program evaluation and feedback. Participants The participants involved in this study were all adult-age educators in northern Utah, currently employed by Davis School District (DSD). Educators were selected across various secondary-level public schools: junior high and high school. The selection method for participants in this study was purposeful and used both snowball and convenience sampling (educators located in DSD who assist in facilitating their local SBM program). All participants were licensed educators involved with their local SBM program for at least three years. The population size for this study was reflective of a case study consisting of seven voluntary participants. The semi-structured interviews with licensed teachers were conducted at the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year. No pilot interviews were conducted before the data collection phase. Instrument This study used a set of researcher-constructed interview questions/prompts in the form of an interview guide (see Appendix A) to uncover educator perceptions and beliefs associated with SBM programs with the research criteria. Interview questions were inspired by prior research of both Bradley and Gideon (2017) and Hopkins (2005) similarly examining mentoring programs of at-risk students and community college students respectively. The in-depth SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 20 interview guide was designed using the “funnel technique” of question formulation and application. Interview guide prompts began as intentionally broad to generate new, unanticipated insights regarding SBM programs, and became progressively more specific to ascertain personal educator perceptions of SBM criteria with program goals, participant commitment, and evaluation/feedback of their program (Leavy, 2017, 140). This method offered participants the opportunity to elaborate on their responses as they related to SBM without being unnecessarily constrictive or inappropriately guided. These parameters were considered to encourage participants to share their honest and genuine thoughts, opinions, and beliefs regarding their perceptions of SBM programs while still maintaining a conversational focus on appropriate SBM-related topics. Additional clarifying questions were asked as necessary throughout the interview process. Other relevant topical questions and themes were asked after the semi-structured interview to further uncover teacher perceptions of SBM programs and the wide range of perceptions generated from their experiences. Procedures Approval for this study came from the Weber State University internal review board (see Appendix B). After institutional approval, permission was obtained to conduct academic research with district employees within the Davis School District (see Appendix C). After research permissions were granted, interviews took place in a one-on-one, face-to-face setting. It was the preference and belief of the researcher that fully engage and conduct meaningful inductive, in-depth explorations of this topic, in-person rather than video interviews (e.g., Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams, etc.) were most appropriate for this study. However, one video interview was conducted as it was preferred by the participant due to convenience and accessibility. The setting for interviews was artificial and agreed upon with participant SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 21 convenience in mind. It was the goal of the researcher to conduct interviews in a setting that was most accommodating to the participant, in a professional environment (e.g., classroom, school conference room, etc.). The relationship between the researcher and the participants was professional and cordial. It was not the intent of this study to select participants with whom the researcher had a personal or direct professional relationship but to explore more deeply the variety of educator perceptions across different applications of SBM programs throughout Davis School District. The participant invitation process was purposeful and reflected both convenience and snowball sampling selection. After the interview, participants were asked to refer to the researcher names of other teachers who they thought would be willing to participate in the study. The researcher contacted potential participants via email, formally inquiring about their voluntary participation, and inviting them to schedule a time to meet for an interview. The researcher attached an electronic copy of the informed consent form and semi-structured interview guide for potential participants to review. After consent was obtained to participate, the researcher coordinated a meeting time and place with the participants, at their discretion, convenience, and availability. Interviews took place either after school day hours or during coinciding teacher preparation periods during the school day. Time expectations were explicitly stated to participants before the consent of participation was signed and the interview process began. After voluntary participation and consent to be audio recorded agreement forms were signed, (see Appendix B) the semi-structured interview audio recordings began. The total interview time recorded across all seven participants was approximately four hours and fifteen minutes, with the median interview duration lasting thirty-four minutes and twenty seconds. On average, the interview duration was SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 22 approximately thirty-five minutes. The shortest interview was approximately twenty-three minutes in length with the longest interview approximately fifty-eight minutes. Data Analysis Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed using an artificial intelligence-assisted software program (Sonix AI). The cost of service was provided by the researcher. Editing of the raw interview transcriptions was done for accuracy by the researcher. The researcher kept participants' identities confidential and anonymous by redacting personally identifiable information and replacing them with pseudonyms during data editing. For example, names were replaced with Participant 1, Participant 2, etc. and locations were generalized to either “junior high” or “high school”. Other potentially identifiable information, beyond the basic teaching experience demographic information asked in question #1 of the semi-structured interview, was redacted or coded to ensure confidentiality including specific SBM program names. Identifiable information about minors was redacted from the transcript and generalized for contextual purposes only to ensure confidentiality. The researcher was the only individual with access to the raw data interview recordings and their edited transcriptions. The method of data analysis was based on content, and coded for subsequent themes from participant interview transcriptions. Content analysis was completed by hand by the researcher. The researcher used in-vivo coding, utilizing the language and terminology of participants rather than predetermined researcher-prescribed codes, to reveal common themes within participant interviews. The processes for thematic data analysis included: data collection and familiarization, initial patterns/themes based on responses to semi-structured interview questions, review of themes across participant interviews, and then evaluation and finalization of themes. 23 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Findings This project intended to better understand educator's beliefs, opinions, and suggestions for how to better shape school-based mentoring programs in the following areas: ● The implicit and explicit goals, objectives, and established purpose of the program. ● The perceived commitment or “buy-in” from participants in the program (colleagues and students) ● A personal evaluation of program effectiveness and feedback based on participant perceptions of their local SBM program. To better illuminate the wants, needs, and suggestions for SBM programs of mentoring practitioners in public schools, the semi-structured interview questions were broadly categorized into the three areas most commonly found within SBM research: goals and purpose of the program, participant commitment within the program, and evaluation & feedback for future program improvement. These semi-structured interview questions with the corresponding research area framework are outlined below (see Figure 1). Figure 1 Semi-Structured Interview Questions (Appendix A) Demographic question 1. How long have you been teaching and how many years of experience do you have participating in a mentoring program? Personal definition of mentoring 2. What does “mentoring” mean to you? SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 24 3. Based on your experiences and opinion, can you describe what an effective mentoring relationship looks like? 4. Can you describe what the ideal mentoring relationship looks like between teachers and students? 5. What are the goals of an effective mentoring program? Perception of mentoring program at their school 6. Now, let's talk about your school-based mentoring program. Can you describe the goals of the mentoring/advising program at your school? 7. What are the faculty expectations for the mentoring/advising program at your school? 8. How would you describe the level of teacher participation in the mentoring/advising program at your school? 9. How would you describe the level of student participation in the mentoring/advising program at your school? Belief in the efficacy or effectiveness of the mentoring program 10. In your opinion, does your school meet the expectations for an effective mentoring process between teachers and students? Why or why not? 11. What, if anything, would you like to see altered about your school mentoring/advising program and why? 12. We have covered a lot of topics, is there anything else you'd like to mention? Research Setting The research study took place throughout the Davis School District (DSD). Davis School District is Utah's second-largest public school district by student enrollment (2024 Largest SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 25 School Districts in Utah, 2023) and is located in Davis County, Utah, north of the Greater Salt Lake metropolitan area. DSD contains 96 total schools (64 middle/junior high schools and 12 high schools) with a total enrolled population of 74,486 students. Within the Davis School District, 99.3% of teachers are fully licensed, and 88.1% have three or more years of teaching experience. The student-to-teacher ratio is higher than the state average, at 24:1 and the district has 76 full-time counselors on staff (Davis School District - U.S. News Education, 2023). Demographic Question The researcher believed that identifying educator experience as part of this study could factor into establishing greater validity, credibility, and legitimacy of findings on teacher perceptions of SBM programs within the Davis School District. In addition, the researcher believed that keeping participants' identities confidential would build trust and create an interview environment conducive to honest responses when sharing their perceptions of their local SBM program. The only demographic information collected was directly related to participants' experience working as a licensed educator and their years involved as mentor facilitators in an SBM program. This was intended to better frame the perceptions of teacher participants in a wider educational context without risking confidentiality. To further protect participant confidentiality, race, gender, or age was not a consideration for the data collected in this study, and the names of locations and SBM programs were generalized. The greatest commonality between participants was their status as veteran educators, meaning all teachers interviewed were fully licensed by the Utah Board of Education (having at least three years of teaching experience) and had been involved with an SBM program for at least three years. On average, participant teaching experience was 22.5 years with experience involved in a SBM program average of just over 9 years. The median teaching experience was 26 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 19 years. The median SMB program experience was 9 years. While only one participant had not been involved with an SBM program during the concurrent school year, all participants had prior experience with a SBM program as mentor facilitators in some capacity during their previous teaching experiences. Table 1 Years of Teaching and Years of Participating in a Mentoring Program Participant Teaching Experience (Years) Involvement in SBM (Years) 1 29 6 2 11 9 3 30 10 4 19 3 5 31 20 6 18.5 3 7 19 14 Definition of Mentoring To conceptually frame teacher perceptions on SBM, it was the belief of the researcher, in tandem with the funneling method of question composition, to explore at a broad level participants' perception of mentoring, regardless of its application specific to the teacher-student mentor relationship. Participants articulated their values and commonly held beliefs on mentoring before being asked program-specific questions. This helped to establish the SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 27 foundation on which to frame and further thematically recognize commonalities and differences throughout the interview process. 2. What does “mentoring” mean to you? The common thematic qualities between all participants in how they described “mentoring” as a concept, was the role they saw themselves as mentors. Participants frequently defined their role as “guides”, “advocates”, “helpers” and “supports” for the students they were expected to mentor. Participants stressed the importance of knowing that their students had a trusted, caring adult in the building who would assist them in directing and providing feedback to grow as individuals, not only on a social-emotional level but also academically. Without directly reflecting on their experiences with their own SBM programs, all participants had a generally positive perception of the idea of mentoring as a concept. Mentoring to me is usually helping just a smaller group of kids than your normal group of students that you would have. Just trying to help them be successful – know that someone cares about them, (and) is there to help them because they're scared of talking to all of their teachers. - Participant 7 …in a broader sense, sort of the spirit of the thing is connecting with them and making sure that they have an advocate at the school, somebody that they can go to that they trust. - Participant 2 For me, mentoring is all about providing guidance, being an example, and helping kids – I don't know if, 'see their own future' is the right way to put it – but to see their own potential and capabilities and start to figure out who they really are… -Participant 5 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 28 So, mentoring as a concept to me is you understand the student's goals and direction and values. You understand their strengths. Even sometimes their weaknesses or their drawbacks, and you know how to guide them to successful pathways. - Participant 3 3. Based on your experiences and opinions, can you describe what an effective mentoring relationship looks like? All participant responses paralleled their concepts of mentoring with what an effective mentoring relationship should look like between the adult mentor and the student mentee. Regarding students' emotional well-being and academic success, common themes of “caring”, “support”, and serving as the “trusted adult in the school building” mirrored their conceptual beliefs with their ideal expectations of the teacher-student mentoring relationship. Many participants expressed that the mentoring relationship be reciprocal, meaning that there was an expectation not only for the teachers and their role as a mentor but the students and their role as a mentee as willing participants in the mentoring relationship. Participants also expressed that it was important that students knew the extent to which the teacher cared enough about their well-being to inquire about their lives outside of school and that students could utilize them as a resource for personal success and advocate on their behalf. I think that a huge piece of mentoring with students is them understanding that you're genuine and that you care about (their) learning…- Participant 6 The most effective mentoring relationships that I've had with students is that they know that I care. Basically, it looks like I talk to them almost every day. I talk to them whenever I see them in the hall. I ask them questions. They've told me a little bit about things coming up and I check in with them… - Participant 7 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 29 You want to be someone that the students trust, somebody that they feel comfortable coming to. I think you've got to get to know them on more than just what they're doing in class and their classroom behavior. So, I think an effective one – you do have some conversations about what they like and what they do – things they do outside of school, as well as the classes that they're taking and what their grades are and where they're kind of heading. - Participant 4 ...and then once they know that, 'oh, that person, I think they kind of care about me.' Then they'll open up a little bit further and ask you for help with different things that they're struggling with, usually not like school things, but like family things. And if it goes in the family direction, we can direct them to the counselors. - Participant 7 There was also a consistent emphasis on the boundaries that adult educators needed to establish to build an effective mentoring relationship with students. Somewhat unique to the position are the professional distinctions that educators are asked to negotiate as they are put in the position to serve as both emotional and academic support for the general population of students across the school district. Many participants made the distinction that their role as a mentor had formalized professional boundaries which were different and distinct from any kind of informal “friendship” similar to what students may experience with their peers. I would call it a professional relationship. We're not here to be their buddies. We're here to help out. We're here to help build them. We're here to help them discover who they are. We're here to help them see their potential. But we're not here to be their buddies. And we can still have fun and joke and do things together. But there are some lines that just, I think professionally, shouldn't be crossed. - Participant 5 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 30 I think an effective one is you strike that balance between like, I'm not there to be your buddy, but I'm also not there to always like because you don't have a content attached right? I don't have to be your teacher. I can be more of a mentor. - Participant 1 While some participants equated their role as a mentor to a “coach” or surrogate paternal figure, the professionally minded expectations for how that role looks in the day-to-day interactions with student mentees were explicitly reinforced throughout the interview. I think an effective mentoring program should honestly sort of function as a surrogate parent for students, you know, sort of an extra caring adult that has their eyes on a student's academic success or failure and is checking in with them and helping them to succeed. And when I say a surrogate parent I don't mean a surrogate parent in (the way) you have somebody now to care for you the way a parent cares for you. I mean, you have somebody to be responsible for your academic success in a way that your parent may, for whatever reason, not be able to handle.” - Participant 2 Some describe it as the coach in the building, some like kind of the 'mom', I'm your 'mom' here at school. And I think that works for a lot of teachers. But for me, it's that idea that I'm your advocate here in the building and looking at that whole person, not only grades but citizenship and kind of outside of school. - Participant 1 4. Can you describe what the ideal mentoring relationship looks like between teachers and students? While the researcher intended to broaden the preceding question to encompass a larger conceptual scope than just adult-student mentoring, participant responses to both questions #3 and #4 were similar in content and reflected both their ideal expectations for an effective mentoring relationship between teacher and student. For example, emphasizing the importance SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 31 that both parties were committed to participating in the mentoring process. Despite the overlap in responses, some participants did broaden their perceptions to include specific student expectations that included “respect”, “honesty” and self-reflection. Mutual respect, genuine interests. An awareness that we're all trying to work towards the same goal. Um, it's very hard to make that happen if both parties aren't involved. - Participant 5 I think the role of the student is… well, I think they need to be reflective of their own desires, their own direction. I think they need to be honest with themselves and with you. If they come to a point where what they've been doing and (what) you've been helping them (with), they should feel confident and comfortable in coming to you and saying, 'listen, I want a new direction' and you can help them that way. - Participant 3 Another common theme between participant responses to student expectations in a mentoring relationship was building a connection that goes beyond the traditional classroom dynamic of teacher and student; redefining on a deeper level a personal affirmation of mutual interest, caring, and trust. Between teachers and students, it looks like teachers actually working with a group of students and being interested, asking them how you can help them…Just being involved, asking questions, checking back up on the student usually is what I've seen most teachers do in mentoring situations. - Participant 7 I think they have more than just that connection. There's a bond (being built) there that's more than just, 'You're a student. I'm a teacher.' There's some sort of connection. Participant 4 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 32 Students need to understand that you care about who they are as a person…. Like they have to know that you care about who they are and that you care about what you're doing and can see the value personally for that kid. - Participant 6 They recognize when we have high standards and we know that it's important and we know – they get the message that they are important enough, that we have the standards, and we're not just going to pat them on the head and say, 'you know, we'll see you.' - Participant 5 I think the first thing is, there needs to be some trust. I think you have to build some trust. Some camaraderie. Some similar ground I think you have – you're asking them to risk. So I think there has to be some risk in the relationship. I think the real goal of a good mentoring program is to help teenagers figure out where they're at now and what their next step is. - Participant 3 All participant responses reflected their ideal mentoring relationship which reinforced their foundational base for “mentoring” as a concept established in question #2. 5. What are the goals of an effective mentoring program? Participants expressed what they considered the ideal goals and purpose of an effective mentoring program to be. One consistent theme throughout the interview process was the varying degrees participants expected a SBM program should serve in addressing student social-emotional well-being, and the development of other “soft skills” such as interpersonal relationship and communication skills; compared to what extent a SBM program should be used as a resource for schools to address student academic needs during the school day and remediate content knowledge/skills. While no participants fully ignored the importance of one aspect of mentoring over the other, participants recognized that both played a role in an effective SBM SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 33 program. Commonly, the emphasis was placed on first addressing student social-emotional well-being as the primary responsibility of a program, which begets academic improvement. However, there was a spectrum of preference as to the scope of participants considered the purpose of mentoring to be. This sentiment was further exemplified in participant responses to question #11 on ways in which participants would like to amend or change their current SBM program at their school. Number one, that every kid has a mentor and that that mentor knows every kid and knows their strengths and knows their weaknesses – knows where they're at academically. And I think a strong program has a sense of purpose. - Participant 1 If I was in charge of the world, with my kids here, I think if we focused a little bit more on life skills and team building … and the emotional health, and the healthy habits for becoming a functional adult person: how to talk to people and how to ask questions and how to organize things and being a part of a group. From my experience, if those kinds of things are going well, they translate into better academic stuff. - Participant 5 Perception of Mentoring Program at their School As participants established their ideal concept of the mentoring relationship and identified their expectations and goals for an effective mentoring program, the researcher intended to further explore how participants compared their ideal perceptions of mentoring with their experiences with their local SBM programs in secondary schools throughout Davis School District. SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 34 6. Now, let's talk about your school-based mentoring program. Can you describe the goals of the mentoring/advising program at your school? As participants discussed their own SBM programs, another common theme emerged alluding to the level of perceived teacher-held autonomy compared to the degree of prescriptive practices and policies of some SBM programs. As defined by the researcher for this study, the level of prescriptivity is the degree to which a formal authority has outlined or dictated the expectations and responsibilities of the teacher in how they should facilitate their role as a mentor within the SBM program. The degree of prescriptivity ranged from low, which implied greater teacher autonomy in how they facilitate their role as a mentor in their program, to high – meaning there are expected actions or curriculum that needed to be administered by the mentor to meet the goals formally outlined by their SBM program, and therefore a loss of overall perceived teacher autonomy. For example, highly prescriptive programs typically included interview prompts for student check-ins and formalized procedures for tracking data, such as the frequency of meetings between mentor and mentee that teachers were expected to meet. Highly prescriptive programs also had a period during the school day intended for mentoring/academic support and established explicit student expectations for setting goals and tracking academic progress during the prescribed mentoring time. Low prescriptivity programs did not have a formalized system or set period of mentoring, and student expectations of the mentoring experience was at the discretion of the teacher. Moderate prescriptivity included a formalized time during the regular school day, but did not have a formalized program for teachers to follow, allowing teachers greater autonomy and choice in how they utilized their mentoring time with students. 35 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Throughout the interview process, participants often outlined the basic structures of their local SBM programs including frequency of meetings, length of meetings, and level of prescriptivity as expressed by each participant. This information is outlined in Table 2 (see below) and is provided to compare to best mentoring practices established in prior research by Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft (2009). Noted across participants from the Davis School District, that mentoring or advisory periods have also served as a way to disseminate information including school-wide announcements and other school-related business related to the general student populace or a specific grade of students. This has disrupted and altered the time that teachers have in their dedicated mentoring or remedial periods reflected below. Table 2 Participant SBM Program Structure Participant Length Frequency Prescriptivity Dedicated Time During School Day 1 50 minutes 4-days/week High Yes 2 Undefined School-wide Low No 3 30 minutes 4 days/week Moderate Yes 4 35 minutes 4 days/week High Yes 5 30 minutes 4 days/week High Yes 6 30 minutes 2 days/week High Yes 7 55 minutes 1 day/week Low No SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 36 As participants described the goals of their SBM programs that they help facilitate, many expressed similarly varying degrees of perceived importance on the focus between student social-emotional needs and academic improvement. This is reflective of participant responses on how they viewed the expected goals of mentoring programs presented in question #5. Kind of the whole like scope of the school is that we are all mentors to all of our students. It's not really a specific structured program as much as it's like a school-wide attitude about how we handle it. - Participant 2 I think within the last few years, the big stress has been students need somebody to connect with them. So the message has been our goal is to have teachers connect with students. But then at the same time the goal seems to be moving towards a much more structured expectation of what we're doing in the class, and that you're supposed to help them pass their classes. - Participant 3 In my opinion, I have seen more success from mentoring programs that work on relationships and students and life skills and those kinds of things than I have from a mentoring program that says, 'hey Johnny, you're still missing something.' And, you know, if it's all academic, maybe you get the numbers, but you're going to miss a lot of the other stuff and have other problems…. I think if we focused on team building and the emotional health and the healthy habits for becoming a functional adult person: how to talk to people and how to ask questions and how to organize things, and being a part of a group. From my experience, if those kinds of things are going well, they translate into better academic stuff. - Participant 5 For participants 6 and 7, the focus of their SBM program was primarily on academic improvement for students, these respective programs' goals were centrally SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 37 structured around providing teachers time for reteaching and student remediation of content knowledge and skills. There was less emphasis on student social-emotional wellness activities like formalized check-ins administered through a program interview prompt, but more teacher autonomy in how they chose to accomplish the goals related to academic improvement. 7. What are the faculty expectations for the mentoring/advising program at your school? When describing the expectations for themselves and other faculty who serve as mentors in their SBM programs, the theme of perceived teacher autonomy varied widely depending on perceived program prescriptivity, as continued from question #6. Participants outlined both program expectations for faculty and how they decided to facilitate their role as mentors during their mentoring period or dedicated advisory time. As far as teacher responsibilities, I would say it's just that it's that idea that the way we described it this year is that it's an academically minded workplace. So what kids do in that time is really up to them, as long as it's an academically centered focus…. And so you notice when they're not there. You notice when things aren't, you know, their grades are slipping. You're that person to catch them before anybody else might catch them. - Participant 1 With my kids the other day, I brought a cake for the August and September birthdays. This is the second year I've had most of them. I let them choose what they want to do. They're supposed to be working on schoolwork. A lot of times as we get closer to midterm, I'll really push a little more on the, 'All right, what assignments are you missing?', but I really focus on, 'I want you to know I like you and that you can come to me if you need help.' - Participant 3 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 38 In tandem with advocating for and supporting student emotional and academic success, many highly prescriptive programs track mentor-student interactions in the form of formal personal and academic check-ins. These check-ins are individualized to the student and last approximately ten minutes. For participants in these highly prescriptive programs, the expectation is to try and complete one check-in per student at least once a month for a cohort of approximately 25-30 students. You know, we cut down – we moved our advisory period to the end of the day, and we cut it down to a half an hour, which is what it was before, when we did social skills and that kind of thing. For an academic focus, especially where they want us to do the very prescribed check-ins, that's maybe 3 or 4 a day, and that's if you're not helping kids or answering questions or (proctoring) tests and all of that kind of stuff. - Participant 5 For participants 3, 4, and 5, faculty expectations as mentors included teaching lessons attached to their SBM program curriculum as a “method of communicating a lot of expectations” like lessons on social-emotional skills and other “soft-skills” focused education. The lessons they're giving us, they're very simple. And they want us to do – there's like 30 – I can't remember how many they are. But it's basically every other week. And then there's an activity they want us to do pretty much every other week. And then in between that, it's homework time and the check-ins. So it's pretty open as far as what the teachers want to do and much more structured than it was last year, which was pretty much just 'you have this class, do something with it.' - Participant 4 Due to the nature of proximity and relationship building inherent in the mentoring process, participants expressed the obligation they have to assist and direct students to other services in the school such as mental health or crisis prevention provided through the school's SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 39 counseling office. In some cases, having relayed a student's situation to a district social worker, or support students by helping them access social services such as obtaining food, clothing, and in some cases temporary housing through their local district-supported Teen Center. It's very much like check-in with kids. Be the eyes and the ears of the school. These kids are considered “at risk”. Many of them (are) disadvantaged in a lot of different ways. I do a little community building, getting-to-know-you thing that just takes two minutes at the beginning of class, just so that I'm checking in with kids a little bit…Be the eyes and ears, know what's going on. Listen. Report like crazy anything that comes your way. Make sure everybody's in on the loop with it. - Participant 2 For participants 6 and 7, their expectations in their SBM programs were primarily focused on academic remediation and improvement, which coincided closely with expectations established for teachers during district-wide two-hour late starts on Wednesday mornings for secondary schools. The first hour is devoted to faculty, department, or PLC (professional learning community) meetings, while the second hour is at the teacher's discretion to be used for remedial purposes or to offer students an opportunity outside of classroom instructional time to take missed assessments. While students are not assigned to these SBM programs, they are selected and invited by teachers to accomplish academically focused activities during these dedicated time periods. So the expectation is that every single week, on my (advisory) period, I will call in between 15 to 25 or 30 students and that I will have some kind of reteaching going on – not a homework period. If they just need to do homework, they could do that in their regular (advisory) class. - Participant 6 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 40 Our advising program here is that we have Late Start Wednesdays and we try to take care of all of the student's needs on late start Wednesday. So we're not assigned a certain group of students per se, but they are in our classes. So every Wednesday I have students that were absent and missed a test so that they can come and take a test, or some kids just come in and say, 'can I sit in here and do homework? Yes, yes you can.' Just a safe place to be even if it's just doing homework. But it's been really great because I've never once not had students in my room on a Wednesday morning. - Participant 7 8. How would you describe the level of teacher participation in the mentoring/advising program at your school For the researcher, these reflections were important to understand how perceptions of faculty participation could be indicative of the perceived effectiveness in meeting the explicit goals set out in a SBM program. All participants expressed their compliance with the expectations established by them for their SBM programs. All participants participated in their SBM program. No one admitted to outright non-compliance about their perceived expectations and responsibilities as a mentor facilitator, although some expressed concern about not meeting their expectations as a mentor, noting these as areas of personal improvement. To some degree, most participants commented on how they perceived how other faculty participated in the program and how their colleagues met expectations in their school's SBM program. Commonly, this also reflected near-total compliance. Only a minority of participants perceived faculty as non-compliant in meeting their expectations and participating in their school's SBM program. I think the teachers are (go) above and beyond here, which is so interesting because it's not structured and it's not a checklist of things that, you know, we have to do SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 41 or that we're expected to do, but people go all out. I mean, like, weirdly all out for these kids. And it's, I mean, it's just they just want to do it. - Participant 2 I think it's a lot like students. You have 10% who don't do anything. Who don't bother. I do think that's harder to do when you're going to keep them year after year. I am hard pressed to think of a teacher who shouldn't be a teacher. Do you know what I mean? Like who doesn't like kids, who doesn't – I can think of maybe 1 or 2 – and so for the most part, I feel like teachers are doing what they feel is best for their mentoring class. Participant 3 I would say we're my guess would be 80% of teachers really take it seriously and try their best to do a good job. I think there's still that handful that treat it like a prep period and just let the kids do whatever they want. But even when I hear about a teacher who never has any structure, if you ask the kids, some of those kids would be like, 'I love my mentor teacher, (they're) great!'. And I was like, 'well, you know, they feel a need for someone somewhere.' - Participant 1 I think that our administration has made it very clear that participation is not optional. But like “this is like what you are doing”. So I haven't heard of anyone who's like, 'nope, I'll never (call into advisory) a kid. Like I'm not doing it.' - Participant 6 9. How would you describe the level of student participation in the mentoring/advising program at your school? Overall, perceptions of student participation in SBM programs across participant responses similarly reflected mostly positive compliance. Generally, participants who help facilitate highly prescriptive and structured SBM programs, with dedicated time during the school day, reported higher levels of student engagement compared to less structured SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 42 implementations of SBM. This may be in part due to the expectations that students are expected to attend this dedicated time during the school day as these highly prescriptive programs are treated as “classes” within the existing school schedule. Students are assigned a teacher and attendance is taken during that dedicated time. However, another explanation for explaining differing levels of student participation came from another theme that emerged from participant responses: how the perceived application of mentoring should be differentiated to address the wide range of student age populations and accompanying mental maturities. Descriptions of student “buy-in” in participation in mentoring activities ranged from “super high student engagement” (Participant 2) for older, higher at-risk/at-need students, to less participation for older students (high school seniors) and younger secondary students (e.g., seventh graders). they're kind of hungry to have any kind of adult recognition, and so they're ready like they're ready to have that connection. - Participant 2 Last year seventh graders just did not care. It was only 25 minutes last year, and they were just like, 'it's not enough time to do anything.' And so most of them refused to actually work. They were off task. They kept telling me they had nothing to work on, and then when I'd actually pulled them over, we look(ed) at their grades, they'd have all F's, so this year I feel like it's going better. They're more willing to be on task and to work. Participant 4 Most teachers who have seniors, they'll eventually have maybe 20% of the class show up. And I do think that's a natural progression. I don't think seniors see the value in it. That said, there's probably stuff we could do – I don't know though, because it's really in their junior year that you need to be talking about scholarships. You need to be talking SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 43 about college, and you need to talk about ACT (American College Testing) and all of that kind of stuff. They really have that prepared by senior year. - Participant 3 However, not considering age or grade differences, most participants expressed a seemingly realistic perception of how secondary school students may view SBM programs generally. If we took it away, I don't know how many kids would cry about it. But I think the majority appreciate the time. Most would look and think, 'I like that I have somebody I can talk to and somebody that checks in on me,' whether they admit it or not. Participant 1 If I ask, they do. They'll listen and be respectful and sometimes that's all it takes is that somebody cares. But, no, I feel like I don't know that they like it, I don't know that they would miss it. Does that make sense? I don't know that they'd miss mentoring. Participant 3 For less prescriptive programs that do not necessarily have a dedicated period or structure, participants expressed periods of non-participation throughout the school year, “at the beginning, I was probably getting about two-thirds of the kids called for remediation” (Participant 6). Optional remediation was also less attended, depending on the time during the school year which was described as highly attended towards midterm or end of the term, compared to the beginning of the year or start of a new school term where there is less immediate need for academic support. Belief in the Efficacy or Effectiveness of the Mentoring Program After establishing participants' conceptual foundations on mentoring; reflecting on implicit and explicit goals, objectives, and established purpose of the program; as well as SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 44 outlining their perceived commitment or “buy-in” from participants in the program, participants were asked to express their perceptions and opinions through an informal evaluation of program effectiveness and feedback based of their local SBM program. The final set of semi-structured interview questions was intended to uncover educator wants, needs, and suggestions on how to improve SBM programs based on their shaped beliefs and perceptions from their mentor facilitator experience. 10. In your opinion, does your school meet the expectations for an effective mentoring process between teachers and students? Why or why not? About half of participants interviewed agreed that their SBM fully met their expectations for an effective mentoring program, while the other half agreed only partially. The discrepancy again reflected the theme of program focus between student social-emotional support and academic improvement. Teacher beliefs of program effectiveness were shaped in large part by participant perceptions about the implicit and explicit purpose/goals of the program and program emphasis on student social development or academic improvement. I would say yes. I think we do everything in our power to set it up as best we can and take feedback from – maybe not as much from kids, that we've really adjusted based on their needs – but definitely teachers' needs. And every year (ask) 'how can we make this easier for teachers? How can we make this more beneficial, help them understand it more?' So I think there's constantly a desire to make it better. So I do, I think it is very effective. And it does accomplish what it's meant to do and meant to be. - Participant 1 I think this is as effective as it could be at this school, because we are allowed a lot of autonomy. So I think because teachers are allowed to connect with students the way SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 45 they best connect with students, with their personalities and their design. I do think it's probably the best it's going to be. - Participant 3 I think yes, in the, just about every teacher knows just about every student whether or not they have them in their class or not. And they have a lot to say about them… It serves a purpose because then they step up in really getting to know the kids. I think it doesn't work as well, maybe as the really structured mentoring program in that I'm not checking their grades in every class. I'm not having those kinds of conversations, and so I don't know if it's extending into the academic sphere, which I still like. I still come back to that. I'm still a stickler on that. So I mean, in some ways it's succeeding phenomenally and in other ways I'm like, oh, like there's something maybe not quite clicking there. Like maybe we've lost sight of the academics. - Participant 2 I do think they are meeting the needs of the students right now. So I feel like many of the teachers don't have anything else to compare it to. So not seeing what mentoring could be, I think maybe if you're going to compare it to all the other schools, you would say, 'is this really true mentoring?' But to not have had that experience at this school, I think teachers would say we're being effective. - Participant 7 One participant expressed the importance of the mentoring process, and the value that mentoring can provide for young people, but did not think their SBM program was meeting their expectations for an effective mentoring program. Right now I would have to say no. And I don't think it's because people don't have good intentions. We have an administration that is great and they care about kids. We have teachers that are great and care about kids. We do have a lot of kids who really do want to learn and do well, but somehow we have found ourselves in a situation where the SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 46 program we're using and the training that we've had and the framework that we have to administer it, they're just not cooperating right now. - Participant 5 Considering participant interviews were conducted at the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year, two perceptions of programs were unique in that they were established within the last academic year. While both participants had prior experience working with SBM programs during their teaching career, the extent to which they could responsibly express feedback on their current SBM program was limited. As a school? I don't know if I can answer the school part of that. I think there's definitely teachers who are not effective with it and don't really have the vision and understanding of what it is. I mean, definitely nowhere near that ideal. I definitely think I have a long way to go with the relationship building and things. But I think I've made a good start, and I think there's a lot of potential this year – I do like some of the assignments. But I do think the administration is really trying to make it effective and make it something. And they say that they get a lot of positive feedback from parents and students. There's a lot of students that complain too and I've had some people say they think it's just a waste of time. - Participant 4 I think it's so hard to be like, 'yes, that's totally effective.' We don't have the data yet on it because it's so new. I would say we are at least on the road to effectiveness, so much better than I've seen in the past. I would say it was not very effective when it was just a homework period. I think the kids very rarely used it for homework. I think that we weren't trying to accomplish anything SEL wise. And so it was like, if you were doing that, guess it was a bonus. So compared to last year to this year, I would say 100% very effective. We're moving in the right zone. - Participant 6 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 47 11. What, if anything, would you like to see altered about your school mentoring/advising program and why? Reflective of previously outlined participant expectations for successful mentoring programs – as well as their critical feedback that targeted fewer effective implementations that they perceived did not meet program purpose or goals – participants offered their suggestions and alterations for future program improvement. These changes as outlined by veteran educators included: a greater need for administrator oversight and an increase in teacher accountability (suggested in the form of a mentor-observations and performance survey), an increase in teacher mentoring training, a call for more structure in low-prescriptive programs, adjust mentoring frequency based on grade (more frequent for younger students, less frequent for older), and the flexibility to move students to different mentors who may have incompatible personalities and could hinder establishing a personal mentoring connection. If I could change anything, more training for teachers and more administrative awareness of what's really happening during mentoring, I think they hear the kids who don't like their mentor and want to get a new mentoring teacher, right? But to actually get in and see what's happening, which would be my complaint of teaching in general. Administrators just don't know what's happening. So I think that would be one more understanding and then just more training and more – and this is terrible as a teacher to say this – but more, what's the word I want, accountability for teachers. - Participant 1 I would change the progression, which would probably be really, really hard. But somehow I would like to see – the seniors can move on and that sophomores can have a little more direction. The only other thing I would probably change is there are times when a student just does not connect with you and they're pretty strict about keeping them SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 48 in their mentoring class. I don't think it should happen frequently, but I think there are occasions when a student does need somebody new. And it can be done kindly. It can be done diplomatically…that's what I would say. - Participant 3 Probably the biggest thing I would like to see is having assigned students and maybe basing it off of when they are a sophomore. Assigning them just so that you could follow them and they might not have your classes the next couple years after that, but I think having them in class their sophomore year, in a class you teach, helps you build the relationship quicker than if it's just randomly assigned. - Participant 7 I think it would be really good to have enough time during advisory to check in with students to print their progress reports at least and pass out their progress reports to them and have a conversation with 1 or 2 kids every day about what's happening in their classes and have it be structured. - Participant 2 I like structure. So, having those very specific expectations like, 'this is what you should be doing. This is how to do it.' I think they've made some good improvements this year. I don't know enough about how to make it effective. I think they could do more with maybe getting some of that buy-in and having – but at the same time that's more meetings and we're all meeting-ed out. - Participant 4 One participant suggestion included a school-wide program philosophy shift away from a purely academic focus, to one that focused more on social-emotional wellness and communication skills for students. I would want to return to the framework that I saw be very successful. I think if we restructured our advisory time so that its focus was not so much on the academics, but on 49 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING building kids. With a focus, you know? When we organized it around our mission and belief statements, it was concrete. - Participant 5 Additional Topics and Themes Questions that were not outlined in the original semi-structured interview guide, but were inquired by the researcher during participant interviews (when identified as subject topics that occurred frequently), were asked at the end of the formal guided interview process. These additional topics and themes are listed below. There were three additional topics that the researcher felt necessary to further outline for this study: the amount of teacher training received in facilitating their role as mentor, the relationship between the content area of the teacher and how effective the mentoring relationship is, and the negative perceptions of SBM programs based on the teachers experience in their current SBM program. Figure 2 Additional Topics and Themes Topic Themes Page Levels of ProgramPrescriptivity Low, moderate, high level 32 Sense of Teacher Autonomy Low degree, high degree 32 Spectrum of Application of Seventh graders (Middle/Junior High), 40 Mentoring Frequency Based on Sophomores, Juniors, Seniors (High School) Student Grade Amount of Training for Teachers for No training, very little training, moderate SBM Program amount based off prior experience Relationship of Teacher Content Not correlated, possibly correlated, highly Area with Mentoring Success correlated 48 50 50 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Negative Experiences of SBM Key terms: “stress”, “frustrate”, “struggle” 52 Programs Amount of Teacher Training for the SBM Program As outlined in the literature on SBM programs, one major factor that can affect the success and sustainability of any mentoring program to help youth is the degree to which mentors are adequately trained and prepared to meet the expectations presented by the program (Dubois et al., 2011). While it was not the initial intent of the researcher to focus on teacher perceptions of mentor training, as there was not a question associated with the topic of faculty training, it was a common theme that emerged through the interview process. The amount of mentor training that participants received ranged from no formal training to minimal formalized group training in faculty meetings, to informal mentoring training gained only through their “on the job” experience as both teachers working with students in the classroom. I think there's a ton of resources out there and we can (use) and we tell the new teachers like, 'hey, go here, do this, look at this.' But they don't. Because as teachers, it's the bottom of my list of things to do, because I've got to be in class in ten minutes and I've got to know what I'm talking about. So I think the resources are out there in the years we've done it, we've changed our, like the program itself. The program used to do a lot of mentoring training, and they don't do that as much for new teachers as they used to. They focused more on the academic side of the (program) and why we do check-ins, or why we do checkpoints and projects, and they leave that up to the administration now. And I don't think the administration understands how important training the teachers in mentoring is. - Participant 1 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 51 Originally, when we shifted to mentoring, I spoke quite openly about the fact that I think most teachers need training in mentoring, in being a mentor – how to mentor students. I think for some people it comes naturally. After 30 odd years of doing different things (advising clubs, coaching, etc.), you get so you know how to read kids and you know how to do that mentoring. But there are teachers who don't ever have those experiences. They just have a classroom experience. So, I do think that some training needs to happen. Some like 'bring people in and teach us what mentoring is,' but also some PLC training. - Participant 3 Not really. Like I said, the lessons we're doing they did a whole training on kind of background information about that program. And then they did these really brief, 'when you do the lessons, this is kind of what you're talking about and what you're focusing on.' So there was a little bit of training with that. But on actual mentoring, my experience with that all comes from my old school. - Participant 4 We did. But it wasn't all the faculty… – I don't think it was the same thing for everybody. We have new faculty that I don't think have ever been trained in it, and so I think that's part of the reason why we have differing amounts of success and why it's not really happening the way I don't think anybody intends it to. Because we're not all pulling the same direction. We're not all focused, you know? – nobody likes to go to meetings, but I would rather go to a meeting where everybody gets on the same page and we all have the same training, then find ourselves trying 15 different things and finding out that 14 and a half of them don't work. - Participant 5 Most of the training came through faculty meetings, and I had done it at the junior high for a couple of years before I went to (the high school), and they were trying SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 52 different things. So for three years it was all a different type of mentoring, and we always were trained at the beginning of the year for a couple of hours in our days back. What they were hoping it would look like, what they thought they had it set up to do, and then as you went throughout the year, you're like, 'yeah, no, this doesn't work.' Or 'let's tweak it', so they'd make tweaks for the following year. And so I felt like I had some training that way. - Participant 7 Teacher Content Area Relationship with Mentoring Success Another unintended subject topic based on teacher perceptions of SBM programs was whether there was a relationship between a teacher's content area and the effectiveness of their ability as mentors. This subject of exploration emerged early in the interview process. The researcher believed this topic warranted further exploration and asked subsequent participants to share their thoughts on the topic. While most participants shared their limited agreement that there may be some merit to the idea that the content area of a teacher is indicative of the effectiveness of their mentoring relationships with students, most disagreed with the idea that what you teach reflects your ability to be an effective mentor practitioner. The most commonly compared content areas were between the humanities (e.g., English, history, and the fine and performing arts) and STEM (e.g., math, science, computer science (technology), etc.). The common perception here was mostly attributed to the idea that as a teacher of the humanities, the subject content is more conducive to exposing students and teachers to vehicles that allow making connections with students on a more personable level. Teachers in the humanities were therefore perceived to be more comfortable with building human relationships, in part due to their experience exploring the human condition and issues that could more easily help establish a meaningful connection with SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 53 students, ergo, making them better facilitators of building mentoring relationships with students. Despite this perception, most participants rejected this idea fundamentally contributing one's success in mentoring to personality, willingness to want to mentor, and experience working with students. I find that social studies and English teachers don't don't struggle as much because the content has always been very much, 'We're going to discuss and we're going to talk about feelings and we're going to debate and blah, blah, blah.' Whereas I find math and science teachers seem to struggle because their content is they've – they don't talk about the emotions of math, you know? It's like, 'no, we're going to do this for ten minutes, we do this for 30, you do this.' The answers are very clear. So I find those teachers really struggle. - Participant 1 No. Not really… I do think, I do think your math teachers feel, because they always feel so much pressure to get through their math, and it builds and builds and builds. I think they, more than most teachers, resent the taking of their time and would probably like some more effective kind of tutoring to go on in that period. And we've tried that. We tried having kids be allowed to go where they needed to go, and that just is chaos. - Participant 3 I don't know, I like the idea of mentoring. I know when it was introduced to me, I really, I thought it was a good idea. So like I said, I don't know that I've really had that experience where this was super effective, but I still really like the concept of it. So I feel like I'm more willing to try than some of the other teachers. I don't know if it has anything to do with the subject, but I think some of it is just more of my personality. - Participant 4 I would say my short answer would be no. I think that teachers in any subject can SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 54 be a good mentor. Now, if you ask me, 'do they all do that in the same way?' I would say no. It would make sense that artistic kids would respond to things from the art teacher better than they would from the math teacher. It would make sense that kids who just really click with their math and really like how the math teacher does it, are going to click with them more than they would say with the PE coach, right? And the PE coach is going to reach kids that other teachers aren't going to necessarily click with. Participant 5 I think either personality can make it work. As long as kids understand exactly where you stand on their ability to learn and your job to facilitate that and how badly you want them to be able to get what they want, right? I think that that matters. And I think I've seen it in every subject area. I've seen a teacher who's good at it. And in every subject teacher area, I've seen a teacher who can't pull it off. - Participant 6 I don't know if it's a misconception on my part because I would agree and think, 'oh yeah, humanities definitely lends itself more (to mentoring).' But I've seen math and science really connecting with kids too. - Participant 7 Negative Teacher Experiences with SBM Programs Stressors, Frustrations, and Struggles While it was not the intent of the researcher to exclusively seek participants who had an overall positive perception of SBM programs, the common theme for teachers interviewed was that there was a highly positive perception of mentoring as a concept, with varying degrees of agreement to their experiences with SBM programs they helped facilitate in relation to program purpose, goals, and implementation. Therefore,the researcher intended to illuminate some of the negative perceptions of SBM to provide a more complete understanding of teacher perceptions SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 55 on SBM programs throughout Davis School District. Three key words most commonly used by educators to express negative perceptions from their experiences included: “stress”, “frustration”, and “struggle”. Some of these negative perceptions have been outlined throughout an examination of the interview questions prior, such as in relation to the relationship between teacher content area and mentoring success as well as how to differentiate frequency of instruction to different grades/age groups of students. I find teachers that already are coaches in another sense, struggle to then become a coach in a mentoring sense. I find my PE teachers really struggle. My band teachers really struggle because they have a group of kids that they're already working with and already making connections with and already doing those same things with. So then they have these random kids, and they feel like, 'I don't have anything in common with them. What would I talk to them about?'- Participant 1 Another common area of concern, in the immediate sense, was in relation to the expectations that teachers manage mentoring/advisory time and student behaviors in tandem with facilitating their role of mentor for individual students in a group setting. The long-term perception of having to manage additional responsibilities of mentoring, for participants in both low and highly prescriptive programs, also contributed to feelings of frustration, stress, and struggles in how teachers self-perceived their value and success as educators. Overall, these perceptions of dissatisfaction may contribute negatively to the overall effectiveness, longevity, and sustainability of SBM programs if teachers feel a loss of job satisfaction due to this perception of not meeting mentorship expectations. We had an hour, and it was – it stressed me to no end because, you know, while you're talking to these kids and having this great moment, like all hell is breaking loose SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 56 out there and oh my gosh, yeah, I oh stressed me out. So not that kind of time but like enough time to have it be regular and , and to check in academically and be like, 'how are you doing with your classes?' and, and things like that. - Participant 2 One of my big struggles with the mentoring program is that I'm supposed to be doing these check-ins and working with the students one on one, but then these guys are supposed to be working, and so kind of helping them be on task while I'm trying to meet with (them). So kind of balancing that, I feel like the check-ins take forever and that takes – to get through all of them – takes a lot of time. - Participant 3 You know, I spend two minutes with a kid, I get 15 kids and that slows things down. And, you know, again, you've got kids who do need help with stuff, and, 'Hey, I've got this problem,' or, 'my computer is not working,' and all the little things that go along with that. And that doesn't include the classroom management stuff that you've got to do because it's like, 'Hey, Johnny, it's time to sit down,' or, ' you've been chatting a little too much. It's time to focus back at work.' It's frustrating when we feel like we have expectations out there that there is no way we can meet. That's just frustrating. And so not only are we not happy, but I don't think the kids are happy about it. And that's a hard place to be. And if I was a new teacher, this experience would make me think that I'm just a horrible, awful teacher – (That I) picked the wrong profession (and should) go out and be an accountant or something like that. - Participant 5 I was teaching at (a different high school) at the time, and there were a lot of people who were not fans of the fact that all of a sudden now, 'I have this other job to do,' you know what I mean? They were really frustrated about it, and I always felt like for the program to really work; number one, you do have to get some element of teacher buy-in, SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 57 right? Because you can create as many minutes in a teachers room as possible and if they are just mad that there's kids in there and they're not happy to be figuring out what's going on with them, I think that will kill any program. I kind of watched it a little bit, kill programs. - Participant 6 12. We have covered a lot of topics, is there anything else you'd like to mention? While question #12 was intended to allow participants to expound on topics explicitly presented in the formal interview guide, it instead served as a way for participants to finalize their thoughts about mentoring and their perceptions of their SBM program in a closing statement format. This served to emphasize what each participant had felt were the most important ideas from their responses which were then reiterated at the end of the interview process. While teacher perceptions of program specific implementations, policies, and expectations tended to be in disagreement with their own perceptions of effective mentoring practices, each participant emphasized the value that they saw in having some time of mentoring program available to the general population of students at their school. “If you like kids, you'll make it work. If you don't, it'll be pure torture.” - Participant 2 I love the idea of it (mentoring). I think it has a lot of potential. I feel like they could do a lot more with giving us resources to be more effective. - Participant 4 I think for veteran teachers that the world is very different. Like the world is different than it was 20 years ago, and that kids need a safe place to be, and that checking in with them is not should isn't a task like it's like it should be. And just letting their personality guide it I think helps. - Participant 1 Teachers are meant to be mentors. None of us get into this job for the money. If they do, they're stupid and shouldn't be here. Teachers are the kind of people that we live SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 58 on the 'warm-fuzzies.' We think we're doing something noble and good. So when that kid goes, 'now I get it!' It's like we ride that wave for the next three weeks until it happens again, and that's what keeps us going. So mentoring kids, mentoring students, it's kind of like in our blood. If we're meant for this profession, that's a part of who we are. I think the programs that are out there are well meaning, you know? I think they're trying to solve legitimate problems and fill legitimate holes. But (even) in the best of times you're never going to find one thing that works for everybody. And I think that's the danger of these prepackaged programs. - Participant 5 To me, it's one of the best parts of this job… I feel like I went to a place where my potential to make a difference in a kid's life was maybe a little higher… This is a place where, like, I can be a game changer – that mentoring can really impact (students)... To me, the best thing in the world is when a kid comes back after a year or two and is like, 'yeah, I'm in college,' and that makes all the difference in the world to me. That's what I love about mentoring. - Participant 6 I think it works. I think it helps students. I've had students that they probably never would have graduated if they hadn't shown up to mentoring and knew that I cared about them because I would run into them around town and they would be like, 'Hey, I did that assignment. I'm going to pass that class now!' So they knew. I think it helps have less kids fall through the cracks. I do like it, and I think it needs to be a happy medium between unstructured and very prescribed. I think it's super important to help kids. Every student needs to know that they have an adult that cares. And it'll make all the difference in the world for them. - Participant 7 59 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Discussion This research study aims to contribute to the SBM research by examining one particular implementation in context of the variety of increasingly complex mentoring models and mentoring practices. This research aims to examine both the positive and negative outcomes for youth across varying demographics and stages of development as presented by Dubois et al. (2011), as well as the perceptions of teachers (who serve as the primary facilitators of SBM programs) on program effectiveness and general outlook. The research sets to accomplish this through a better understanding of educator's beliefs, opinions, and suggestions for how to better shape school-based mentoring programs in the following areas: ● The implicit and explicit goals, objectives, and established purpose of the program. ● The perceived commitment or “buy-in” from participants in the program (colleagues and students) ● A personal evaluation of program effectiveness and feedback based on participant perceptions of their local SBM program. By illuminating the wants, needs, and suggestions for SBM programs through an inductive qualitative in-depth interview case study of seven veteran educators, who also serve as daily mentoring practitioners, the findings of this research can enable educational leaders and school administrators to consider teacher perceptions and feedback for future SBM program development and continue to refine, improve, and implement towards better SBM program efficacy and effectiveness. SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 60 Discussion of Findings While research on mentoring programs in public schools has primarily focused on at-risk/at-need students, it is the goal of findings from this research to broaden the discussion to SBM programs that are intended to serve the general population of students in public secondary schools. Prior research also tends to neglect the impact that SBM programs have on older students, like juniors and seniors in high school, with a greater emphasis on younger students in middle school or junior high to high school. Very little research has been done at the qualitative level in uncovering the thoughts, beliefs, opinions, and perceptions of SBM from the teacher's perspective. As adult-student mentoring becomes increasingly popular across the country, it is imperative that educational leaders and policymakers understand the perceptions of those who are most often asked to serve as the practitioners of SBM programs – many of them with multiple years of experience – to improve and guide the implementation of such programs in public schools. While research on SBM examines the perception of students and their parents in determining the effectiveness of SBM programs, it is the goal of this project to illuminate teacher perceptions – often the ones being asked to serve in this mentoring role – in a meaningful way and further contribute to nuanced discussion surrounding the overall efficacy/effectiveness research of SBM programs. To best provide answers to those questions, there were three key research areas explored throughout the interview data collection process. The Implicit and Explicit Goals, Objectives, and Established Purpose of the Program All participants were able to articulate their perceptions of the explicit and implicit goals of their SBM program as well as program purpose, even for programs characterized as “low-prescriptivity”. One of the greatest points of separation between participant interviews was SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 61 the spectrum on whether their SBM program goals and implementation should focus on emphasizing the social-emotional needs of students or their academic improvement. Participant responses further confirmed the current disparities within SBM research in examining to what extent “non-academic” and academic benefits students experienced from mentoring programs (Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2009). It is important to note that participant perceptions of goals and purpose varied even for highly prescriptive programs that shared a similar structure. This was in part due to the variable of perceived teacher autonomy that, while described as limited for many participants, was still present to some degree in their mentoring experience. Participant responses suggested that these programs, while highly prescriptive in what teachers should be doing, did not have higher levels of perceived accountability, allowing for more teacher autonomy in how they mentored their students. This may also explain the degrees in which teachers saw themselves, and their peers, as meeting program goals. The structure of SBM programs, described by participants, met some of the aspects of the conceptual framework of an effective mentoring program presented by Karcher et al. (2006) in terms of structure and dosage. Even “unstructured” programs were established with a dedicated period within the typical school week to facilitate some type of mentoring intervention for students – whether for academic improvement or personal check-ins focused on building mentoring relationships. Program structure was generally reflective of best practices presented by Kmosa-Hawkins (2010) in terms of program duration – that participant SBM programs are happening concurrently within the school year (approximately 8 months, or one full academic year) – but falls short in terms of the best practice dosage of one-hour long meeting once per week (Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft, 2009). Participant check-ins with students typically last SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 62 around 10 minutes per student once a month and to apply that level of school-wide dosage considered best practice would require intensive time and financial resources which would be impractical for the general student population. Further exploration of the subject needs to be concocted in context of a school-wide program application to better understand if this more frequent, but less dosage, reflects similar social and academic outcomes for secondary school students. Participant responses were partially reflective of the research conducted by Smith and Stormont (2011) who found that SBM can be a viable intervention for students at risk of social and academic failure so long as programs have the following: clear objectives; a targeted and specific population intended for support; and an appropriate infrastructure (i.e., places to meet, evaluation tools, etc.). All participants were able to articulate the purpose and goals of their SBM program, whether they agreed with them or not. While participants expressed that there could be more support for teachers in how they can feel better supported by administrators, program infrastructure was present in the program platform, dedicated time during the school day, and meeting place (typically the teachers' classroom). The major diverging factor from participant perceptions and the findings of Smith and Stormont (2011) is that participant SBM programs are intended for the entire student body, regardless of if they need more academic or social-emotional targeted interventions. This school-wide, general population approach may alter teachers' perceptions of program effectiveness as some participants stated that students may not “need” mentoring to improve their academic performance, and this was reflected in part by the degree of student participation in the program and extent to which students connect with their assigned mentor or be a willing participant in building the mentoring relationship. This similarly reflects the findings of Dubois et al. (2011) on the limited extent to which SBM programs may SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 63 benefit “the typical young person” compared to specifically targeted populations of students deemed higher at-risk/need in social-emotional or academic failure. The Perceived Commitment or “Buy-In” From Participants in the Program Overall, participants' responses reflected positive perceptions of both high faculty and student participation in their SBM programs. Participants perceived only a minority of teachers in their schools as being non-compliant with their SBM program. The theme of differentiating frequency and intensity of mentoring by age or grade level emerged as a concern about student participation, with younger students and older students needing differing degrees of intervention throughout their public school experience, and was reflected as an area of concern within the literature. This is somewhat congruent with the findings of Weiss et al. (2019) who found that high school-aged students may benefit most from peer-to-peer mentoring compared to adult-to-student mentoring relationships for younger populations in middle school; contributing in large part to high school SBM program objectives that tend to focus on improving both academic and non-academic outcomes and providing students the resources to support entrance into post-secondary processes related to college and career readiness. Other studies suggest that when administered appropriately in conjunction with other support services and strategies to middle school grade students, non-academic outcomes such as attendance, office referrals, and a sense of connectedness have the potential to help students in these transitional grades (Gordon et al., 2013). This idea was most closely reflected in the responses from Participant 5 who advocated for a greater need on social-emotional skills and an emphasis on school connectedness through commonly held beliefs outlined by the school's mission statement, and who was critical of the school environment which to they had deteriorated since shifting away from non-academic outcomes, to academic improvement. SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 64 Prior research reflects as well the importance of building better mentoring relationships, as outlined by Jablon and Lyons (2021) examining the academic benefits of SBM on 4th-8th grade students, they found significant associations between high mentor perception of the mentoring relationship quality and student academic outcomes in core subjects like Math, English, and Social Studies, with science being the exception. Related to how building better relationships could improve academic performance, Participants reflected on the more informal activities that coincide with best practices for establishing meaningful and healthy mentoring relationships. In a study conducted by Converse & Lignugaris/Kraft (2009) of a faculty-led junior high SBM program, mentors who practiced active listening skills, played games, and shared food with mentees experienced more successful interactions than mentors who frequently had to initiate conversation or use guided icebreaker activities. This sentiment was also reflected in the criticism by participants of highly prescriptive SBM programs that encouraged templated formalized check-ins compared to less formal relationship-building strategies. However, comparing the academic improvements of both participating and non-participating students in secondary school focused SBM programs, Chan et al. (2011) found little influence on a student's GPA, and that students who participated in the program did not earn higher grades than those who did not participate. Participants expressed that while the social-emotional benefits of relationship building are perceived as overall positive, there were sentiments of how that could better translate to academic success and improvement. While this is not an empirical study on examining the results of student academic improvement, participant sentiments reflect the shortcomings to the extent that SBM programs have on academic success. SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 65 The topics of age differentiation and extent to which a strong mentoring relationship can improve student academic success, should be an emphasis of consideration for future research, as prior research has rarely focused on the possible benefits (or ways in which older students, like seniors and juniors) could benefit from mentoring with an alternative focus. Exploration of the comparative benefits between 7th graders and high school seniors could better guide program purpose, goals, and implementation including the varying degrees of dosage and frequency as suggested by Participant 3. In addition to examining the level of student participation in SBM programs, participants expressed the sentiment that the success of any SBM program relies on the full commitment of faculty members to be willing participants and comply with clearly defined goals and expectations of the program. However, how that may be accomplished was varied as some participants stated a need for less structured guidance (more autonomy), while others felt more comfortable knowing their expectations as mentors and appreciated the idea of greater structure within the program, a common theme throughout the research. Evaluation of Program Effectiveness and Feedback Based on Participant Perceptions While research in the field has examined how student perceptions affect their mentored experience, other studies examine academic improvement, behavioral remediation, positive social-emotional change, or increased attendance rates as ways to assess the efficacy of SBM programs. This research intends to examine these types of criteria from the teacher's perspective and fill the research gap between student and other stakeholder perceptions. Responding to questions related to participant perceptions of program effectiveness, positive or negative teacher opinions were highly dependent on their conceptual foundation for what an effective mentoring program should look like, and what an effective mentoring SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 66 relationship should be. However, all participants recognized the value of mentoring as a concept and believed in the efficacy of mentoring as a way to support students in public schools. While some participants emphasized the importance of building connections to encourage academic improvement, others placed greater importance on building those relationships to teach and reinforce appropriate social-emotional skills. For current and future SBM programs, the challenge is to reconcile these varying teacher perceptions into a clear and directed program purpose and then build an infrastructure that allows teachers the opportunity to make positive connections with students to work towards those goals. Another factor in assessing the effectiveness of SBM programs is the variability of teacher and student personalities and how any incongruencies may affect mentoring relationships. Most participants were invested or had enough experience mentoring in their SBM programs to comfortably offer feedback and suggestions on how they would improve the mentoring program at their school. While it was not the initial intent of the researcher to focus on teacher perceptions of mentor training, it was a common theme that emerged through the interview process and was reflected by participants as a way to improve their SBM programs. Again, while some suggested a higher degree of structure in implementing this training, others were averse to the idea of more prescriptive elements in how they should mentor. One participant's suggestion to increase SBM program effectiveness reflected Kimosa-Hawkins (2010) findings on how to establish successful SBM programs which included an evaluative element of the program, typically in the form of a self-assessment. The participant's suggestion of encouraging administrators to establish a higher degree of teacher accountability in the form of a performance evaluation/survey more closely echoes findings by Dubois et al. SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 67 (2011) who implore educational leaders to implement the necessary evaluative tools to support mentoring programs of all varieties. Another unintended discovery was the negative perceptions teachers had of their SBM programs and that while the concept of mentoring was universally perceived as a benefit for all students, teachers were critical of specific aspects of mentoring programs. The most common frustration/stressor is the additional expectation and responsibilities of addressing the needs of the individual mentee, with the behavioral management of other students in the classroom group setting. Examining how teacher willingness to participate in a prescriptive program, meaning to what degree teachers accept the responsibilities that are being asked of them as mentors in addition to their duties as content area teachers, and how that may affect the overall success of an SBM program, is a subject that warrants further research. Limitations This research is limited in its ability to generalize findings to a larger population, as only seven participants were selected from a limited geographic area and their perceptions of SBM programs. This research was intentionally narrow in how it collected and reported other demographic characteristics like participant age, gender, and race. These characteristics were not taken into consideration for this study to create a higher degree of trust and candor by protecting participant confidentiality. The perceptions and opinions of less experienced teachers may have different perceptions of SBM programs that could contribute to the future successful implementations of SBM programs. To fill a gap in the research, this study also did not seek voices from administrators, parents, or students (community stakeholders) of SBM and instead focused only on teacher perceptions. Snowball sampling may have also led to a more positive bias towards SBM and a SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 68 propensity for participants to have similar experiences by association (redundancy), as many participants who recommended others had personal and professional prior relationships at one point in their teaching careers with each other. It was also not the intent of this research to critically examine or admonish any particular SBM program and to protect participant confidentiality, specific program titles were omitted. Further specified and directed research is needed to reveal perceptions of specific programs that are often divisive within the educational community. Conclusion This study of teacher perceptions of SBM effectiveness revealed that most educators know and have a strong sense of project purpose and goals. The expectations for teachers serving as mentors were understood and compliance within their SBM programs was high in meeting the additional role they serve at their school. Participants, while having a range of opinions on the focus of SBM (the degree to which they should focus on social-emotional wellness or academic improvement) all agreed that mentoring as a practice is an overall benefit for students and overwhelmingly perceived the existence of a SBM program as positive for the general student population. However, frustrations and criticisms exist regarding how SBM programs are implemented and should be a priority focus for educational leaders in public education. The researcher believes that critical feedback and expressions of dissatisfaction derive from the deeply held beliefs of the efficacy that a mentor has on a young person's educational experience. Teacher negative perceptions alluded to the conclusion found in prior research that dissatisfied mentors will lead to poorer mentoring relationships and negatively affect student experience in the process (Sparks, 2010). To address these concerns, educational leaders should consider best practices of providing additional mentoring training for teachers so their levels of personal SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 69 professional job satisfaction can fully meet their expectations, as well as including an evaluative element to provide constructive feedback and support to help teachers improve their mentoring practice to help sustain an effective mentoring program. 70 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING References 2024 Largest School Districts in Utah. (2023). Niche. Retrieved December 3, 2023, from https://www.niche.com/k12/search/largest-school-districts/s/utah/ Bradley, Allison and Gideon, Wilnic, (2017). Teacher Perceptions on the Utilization of School-Based Mentoring as a Targeted Intervention for Secondary Students Identified as At-Risk. Student Theses, Dissertations, Portfolios and Projects, 6. https://spiral.lynn.edu/etds/6 Brady, B., Dolan, P., & Canavan, J. (2014). What added value does peer support bring? Insights from principals and teachers on the utility and challenges of a school-based mentoring program. Pastoral Care in Education, 32(4), 241-250 https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1080/02643944.2014.960532 Bryant, D. W. (1992). Student responses to a community college faculty mentoring program. Community College Review, 20(1), 48. Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). OUP Oxford. Chan, W. Y., Kuperminc, G. P., Seitz, S., Wilson, C., & Khatib, N. (2020). School-based group mentoring and academic outcomes in vulnerable high-school students. Youth & Society, 52(7), 1220–1237. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1177/0044118X19864834 Clark, C. (1995). Innovations in the mentoring process. Equity & Excellence in Education, 28(2), 65. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1080/1066568950280210 Converse, N., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B. (2009). Evaluation of a school-based mentoring program for at-risk middle school youth. Remedial and Special Education, 30(1), 33-46. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1177/0741932507314023 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 71 Davis School District - U.S. News Education. (2023). U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved December 3, 2023, from https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/utah/districts/davis-district-102472 DuBois, D. L., Portillo, N., Rhodes, J. E., Silverthorn, N., & Valentine, J. C. (2011). How effective are mentoring programs for youth? A systematic assessment of the evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(2), 57–91. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23074587 Gordon, J., Downey, J., & Bangert, A. (2013). Effects of a school-based mentoring program on school behavior and measures of adolescent connectedness. School Community Journal, 23(2), 227-250. Heim, A. B., & Holt, E. A. (2022). Perceived social and academic roles of peer mentors in a pre-health college program. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 30(5), 584–605. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1080/13611267.2022.2127257 Herrera, C., Grossman, J. B., Kauh, T. J., & McMaken, J. (2011). Mentoring in schools: An impact study of Big Brothers Big Sisters school‐based mentoring. Child Development, 82(1), 346-361. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01559. Hopkins, R. A. (2005). Mentoring community college faculty and staff: Balancing contradictions of informal program components and formal program structure. Community College Review, 32(4), 40–59. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1177/009155210503200404 Jablon, E. M., & Lyons, M. D. (2021). Dyadic report of relationship quality in school‐based mentoring: Effects on academic and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Community Psychology, 49(2), 533–546. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1002/jcop.22477 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 72 Karcher, M. J. (2008). The study of mentoring in the learning environment (SMILE): A randomized evaluation of the effectiveness of school-based mentoring. Prevention Science, 9(2), 99. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1007/s11121-008-0083-z Karcher, M. J., Kuperminc, G. P., Portwood, S. G., Sipe, C. L., & Taylor, A. S. (2006). Mentoring programs: A framework to inform program development, research, and evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 34(6), 709-725. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1002/jcop.20125 Komosa-Hawkins, K. (2010). Best practices in school-based mentoring programs for adolescents. Child & Youth Services, 31(3-4), 121-137. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1080/0145935X.2009.524477 Laco, D., & Johnson, W. (2017). “I expect it to be great... but will it be?” An investigation of outcomes, processes, and mediators of a school-based mentoring program. Youth & Society, 51(7), 934-960. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1177/0044118X17711615 Leavy, P. (2017). Research Design: Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed Methods, Arts-Based, and Community-Based Participatory Research Approaches (1st ed.). Guilford Publications. Lyon, K. A., Holroyd, H., Malette, N., Greer, K., & Bartolic, S. K. (2022). Owning the conversation: Mentor and mentee perceptions of student-led peer mentoring. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 30(1), 65–83. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1080/13611267.2022.2030187 Marino, C., Santinello, M., Lenzi, M., Santoro, P., Bergamin, M., Gaboardi, M., Calcagnì, A., Altoè, G., & Perkins, D. D. (2020). Can mentoring promote self-esteem and school connectedness? An evaluation of the mentor-UP project. Psychosocial Intervention, 29(1), 1-8. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.5093/pi2019a13 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 73 McQuillin, S., Smith, B., & Strait, G. (2011). Randomized evaluation of a single semester transitional mentoring program for first-year middle school students: A cautionary result for brief, school‐based mentoring programs. Journal of Community Psychology, 39(7), 844-859. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1002/jcop.20475 National Mentoring Research Center. (n.d.) Mentoring in schools. Meeting students where they're at. | NMRC. National Mentoring Resource Center. Accessed March 27, 2023. https://nationalmentoringresourcecenter.org/resource/school-based-mentoring/. Núñez, J. C., Rosário, P., Vallejo, G., & González-Pienda, J. A. (2013). A longitudinal assessment of the effectiveness of a school-based mentoring program in middle school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(1), 11-21. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.10.002 Pryce, J., & Keller, T. E. (2012). An investigation of volunteer‐student relationship trajectories within school‐based youth mentoring programs. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(2), 228-248. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1002/jcop.20487 Ryan, S., Whittaker, C. R., & Pinckney, J. (2002). A school-based elementary mentoring program. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 46(3), 133-138. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1080/10459880209603358 Schenk, L., Sentse, M., Lenkens, M., Nagelhout, G. E., Engbersen, G., & Severiens, S. (2020). An examination of the role of mentees' social skills and relationship quality in a school‐based mentoring program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 65(1-2), 149-159. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1002/ajcp.12397 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 74 Smith, C. A., & Stormont, M. A. (2011). Building an effective school-based mentoring program. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(1), 14-21. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1177/1053451211406544 Sparks, S. D. (2010). Time and stability are seen as key ingredients for school-based mentoring. Education Week, 30(4), 12–13. Weiss, S., Harder, J., Bratiotis, C., & Nguyen, E. (2019). Youth perceptions of a school-based mentoring program. Education and Urban Society, 51(3), 423-437. https://doi-org.hal.weber.edu/10.1177/0013124517722830 75 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Appendix A Semi-Structured Interview Guide Demographic questions 1. How long have you been teaching and how many years of experience do you have participating in a mentoring program? Personal definition of mentoring 2. What does “mentoring” mean to you? 3. Based on your experiences and opinion, can you describe what an effective mentoring relationship looks like? 4. Can you describe what the ideal mentoring relationship looks like between teachers and students? 5. What are the goals of an effective mentoring program? Perception of the mentoring program at their school 6. Now, let's talk about your school-based mentoring program. Can you describe the goals of the mentoring/advising program at your school? 7. What are the faculty expectations for the mentoring/advising program at your school? 8. How would you describe the level of teacher participation in the mentoring/advising program at your school? 9. How would you describe the level of student participation in the mentoring/advising program at your school? Belief in the efficacy or effectiveness of the mentoring program 10. In your opinion, does your school meet the expectations for an effective mentoring process between teachers and students? Why or why not? SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING 11. What, if anything, would you like to see altered about your school mentoring/advising program and why? 12. We have covered a lot of topics, is there anything else you'd like to mention? 76 77 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Appendix B Informed Consent WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY INFORMED CONSENT IRB STUDY #AY22-23-317 Educator Perceptions of School-Based Mentoring: Wants, Needs, and Suggestions for the Future You are invited to participate in a research study of educator perceptions on school-based mentoring programs. You were selected as a possible subject because you are an educator in the Davis School District who has been involved in facilitating a component of an adult-to-student mentoring program in your school. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. The study is being conducted by Walter Rosio, a Masters of Education student at Weber State University in the Moyes College of Education. It is funded by the investigator, Walter Rosio. STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to better understand educator beliefs, opinions, and suggestions for how to better shape school-based mentoring programs in the areas of program goals, participant commitment, and program effectiveness for secondary schools within the Davis School District. NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: If you agree to participate, you will be one of five to seven subjects who will be participating in this research. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY: If you agree to be in the study, you will do the following things: ● ● ● ● Participate in a one-on-one interview relating to educator perceptions of your school's mentoring program. Agree to have responses recorded (audio only) as part of the interview process. ○ If circumstances prevent an in-person interview, but the participant would still like to take part in the study, online (video-recorded) interviews may be conducted with participant approval. Respond to questions related to your teaching and mentoring experience as an educator in the Davis School District. ○ Participants will be assigned a coded name upon completion of the interview to protect anonymity. The length of the interview will be dependent on participant engagement, but the total time commitment is estimated to be between thirty to sixty minutes. ○ Only one interview per educator is intended for this study. SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING ● ● ● 78 ■ There will not be a follow-up interview. The time and location of the interview will be decided in collaboration with the researcher. ○ Time and location are intended to be in a setting convenient for you, the participant, at a time that is least disruptive for you. Interviews will be transcribed using an Artificial Intelligence auto transcription software program: Sonix (https://sonix.ai/researchers). The investigator will be the only person with access to the transcribed interviews for data analysis. This study will take place over the Fall semester of the 2023-2024 academic school year. ○ Interviews will begin in August of 2023 and conclude by December of 2023. RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: For face-to-face research, the risks include the possibility of being infected by the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) or other communicable diseases. Examples of possible risks include: ● The risk of participating in the interview is being uncomfortable answering the questions. ● The risks of possible loss of confidentiality. ● Other risks that are currently unforeseeable. BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY You will not receive payment for taking part in this study. ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: The only alternative to taking part in this study is to not participate. COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY There is no cost to you for participating in this study. In the event of physical injury resulting from your participation in this research, necessary medical treatment will be provided to you and billed as part of your medical expenses. Costs not covered by your health care insurer will be your responsibility. Also, it is your responsibility to determine the extent of your health care coverage. There is no program in place for other monetary compensation for such injuries. However, you are not giving up any legal rights or benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. If you are participating in research that is not conducted at a medical facility, you will be responsible for seeking medical care and for the expenses associated with any care received. CONFIDENTIALITY Efforts will be made to keep your personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Your identity will be held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published and databases in which results may be stored. The investigator is the only one who will have access to audio recordings. Audio recordings will be destroyed at the conclusion of the research study by January 31st, 2024. 79 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State University Institutional Review Board or its designees, the study sponsor, and (as allowed by law) state or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [for FDA-regulated research and research involving positron-emission scanning], the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [for research funded or supported by NCI], the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [for research funded or supported by NIH], etc., who may need to access your medical and/or research records. CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS For questions about the study, contact the investigator, Walter Rosio, at 801-663-6591 or the researcher's mentor, Dr. Clay Rasmussen at 385-333-9060 For questions about your rights as a research participant to discuss problems, complaints, or concerns about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee IRB@weber.edu. VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled. Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations with Weber State University. If you choose to withdraw from the study before completion, researcher notes and audio recordings will be destroyed and information shared by the participant will not be published. Orderly termination will occur within one week of notification from the participant to the investigator. SUBJECT'S CONSENT In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study. I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in this study. Subject's Printed Name: Subject's Signature: Date: (must be dated by the subject) Printed Name of Person Obtaining Consent: Signature of Person Obtaining Consent: Date: 80 SCHOOL-BASED MENTORING Appendix C