Teacher and Peer to Peer Mentoring

¶ … Constraints in School Advisory Programs

In an era of high stakes testing and increasing calls for educator accountability for academic outcomes, identifying opportunities to use existing resources to their maximum advantage has assumed new importance and relevance today (Phillipo & Stone, 2013). A growing body of research confirms the importance of school advisory programs in achieving improved academic outcomes, but these initiatives are also characterized by a number of constraints that must be taken into account in order to achieve optimal results. To determine the facts, this paper reviews the relevant literature concerning school advisory programs to identify current theories, explanations, proposed relationships among constructs, as well as existing gaps in this body of knowledge. In addition, a discussion concerning the contradictions, inconsistencies, and ambiguities regarding the findings that emerged from the research concerning school advisory programs is following by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

School advisory programs in junior and middle schools have a lengthy history dating back nearly a century and a half (Weilbacher & Lanier, 2012). More recently, school advisory programs have been implemented at the elementary school level and are continued throughout a student's academic career (Wielbacher & Lanier, 2012). These are important advances because the relationship between educators and students is an integral component of promoting academic success, but many students experience a degradation of this relationship when the transition between elementary and secondary schools (Van Ryzin, 2010).

In response, a growing number of secondary schools have implemented advisory programs wherein an educator/advisor periodically meets with small groups of students throughout the school year (Van Ryzin, 2010). Likewise, Wall (2012) reports that advisory programs are also consistent with the goals set forth in the Developmental Designs for Middle School initiative. A study by Borgeson (2009) found that mentored students generally benefited from the process and many experienced improved academic outcomes as a result. n addition, Benson and Poliner (2013) cite the value of the low-key environment in which school advisory programs are administered as one of their major strengths. This strategy is also congruent with the recommendations of the Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development. In this regard, Miglin, Hurd and Al-Bataineh (2015) report that, "Advisory programs were developed with the belief in mind that all adolescent students should have at least one adult at school acting as the student's advocate" (p. 1).

In truth, the argument could be made that given the rigors of the academic process today, young learners need all of the advocacy they can get at school (Shulkind & Foote, 2009). The research to date confirms that advisory program result in improved academic outcomes as well as a host of other positive features, including a positive learning environment, improved teacher-student relationships and peer-to-peer interactions, providing students receive the training they need to exercise these responsibilities appropriately (Miglin et al., 2015). In sum, school advisory programs are used for a number of reasons, including: (1) to promote students' sense of belonging within the school (2) to assist students in the development of self-understanding (3) to assist students in the development of effective interpersonal relationship (4) to guide students in decisions related to future growth.(Rotenberg, 1994, p. 72).

Although there is a growing consensus concerning the value of advisory programs at all educational levels, there are also some constraints and ambiguities related to their administration that make formulating truly effective approaches a challenging enterprise (Johnson, 2013). For example, a survey of 5,300 school counselors conducted by Gewertz (2011) found that fully 90% of the respondents reported two specific goals (i.e., ensuring that all students have access to high-quality education and that they graduate well-equipped for college and careers) should be the main priorities for their schools, but fewer than 40% reported that their schools fully embraced these priorities. In addition, far too many schools are overlooking the importance of peer mentoring initiatives as part of their overall advisory programs (Cohen, 2012). In this regard, a study by Wilkins, Ruddle, Paitsel, Duffield and Minch (2014) the peer-to-peer advisory programs used by some West Virginian school districts in the form of school clubs have also proven effective in reducing their dropout rates.

Many students today also experience a wide range of mental health issues that can benefit from advisory programs, but many schools have tended to overlook the centrality of these issues in their advisory programs to date (Phillippo & Kelly, 2013). There are some proven steps that can help improve the quality of advisory programs for even a diverse group of students with mental health issues, though, including the use of database decision-making tools and automated identification systems (Gruman, Marston & Koon, 2013). Similarly, the Fast Track Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) program described by Bierman, Coie, Dodge, Greenberg, Lochman, McMahon and Pinderhughes (2010) has been used to good effect to provide young learners with advisory services beginning in elementary school and continuing through high school. Likewise, a study by Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor and Schellinger (2011) also describes the importance of primary through secondary school advisory programs such as the social and economic learning (SEL) programs used in a growing number of American schools.

In addition, advisory programs should be designed to address the different types of needs that prevail in a given school, making the need for ongoing planning, design and development an essential component of school advisory programs (Galassi, Gulledge & Cox, 1997). In some cases, gender-specific (Weilbacher & Lanier, 2012) or mentoring relationships that are based on mutual compatibility between teachers and students provide superior outcomes (Greenlee, 2010). Similarly, a study by McClure, Yonezawa and Jones (2010) also found that higher levels of personalized mentoring services translated into improved academic outcomes, school culture and student engagement.