Disruptive Behavior
The inception of disruptive behavior is found in children as early as preschool age (Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989 and Walker, 1995). Most researchers link this early inception of disruptive behavior to poverty, single-parent or surrogate-parent homes, violence, and drug and alcohol abuse (Patterson et al., 1992 & Kazdin, 1987). Patterson discusses a causal model that begins with such factors and ends with well rooted disruptive behavior patterns. First, the factors interfere with the development of healthy parenting routines. In view of that, unhealthy parenting routines and the negative social patterns associated with them lead to the onset of disruptive behavior patterns in children (Patterson et al., 1992), which the children then take with them to school. In schools, disruptive behavior can be evident as chronic behavior problems, social withdrawal, peer and teacher rejection, academic struggle, and/or chronic absenteeism, all of which are predictors of school failure, delinquency and dropout (Finn, 1993; Walker, 1995). The increasing number of students exhibiting these at-risk behaviors negatively impacts schools on several levels including school safety, school operation and education quality (Walker, 1995). This negative impact drives school personnel to seek interventions that reduce the occurrence of
…show more content…
at-risk behavior and reconnect students with their school culture. Mentoring is gaining credence as one intervention schools use with students who are at-risk for school failure. In mentoring, an adult is paired with an at-risk student with the goal of fostering a trusting and supportive relationship, where the student would otherwise have limited opportunities. The mentoring relationship affords students the chance to seek guidance, problem solve, and most importantly build self-efficacy and resiliency (Flaxman, 1992; Tobin & Sprague, 2000; Terry, 1999).
Schools that use mentoring programs report improvements in students’ school preparation, classroom behavior, peer interactions, and academic performance (Blum et al., 1993; White-Hood, 1993, King et al., 2002).
Some researchers also identify mentoring as a positive intervention for students who exhibit low self-efficacy (Tobin & Sprague, 2000 and Walker, 1995). Walker (1995) considers “building a positive relationship with antisocial students a first step in a strategy for positively influencing their behavior and self-efficacy” (p. 61). In short, promoters of mentoring see it as a proactive intervention to offset school failure for at-risk
students.
at-risk behavior and reconnect students with their school culture. Mentoring is gaining credence as one intervention schools use with students who are at-risk for school failure. In mentoring, an adult is paired with an at-risk student with the goal of fostering a trusting and supportive relationship, where the student would otherwise have limited opportunities. The mentoring relationship affords students the chance to seek guidance, problem solve, and most importantly build self-efficacy and resiliency (Flaxman, 1992; Tobin & Sprague, 2000; Terry, 1999).
Schools that use mentoring programs report improvements in students’ school preparation, classroom behavior, peer interactions, and academic performance (Blum et al., 1993; White-Hood, 1993, King et al., 2002).
Some researchers also identify mentoring as a positive intervention for students who exhibit low self-efficacy (Tobin & Sprague, 2000 and Walker, 1995). Walker (1995) considers “building a positive relationship with antisocial students a first step in a strategy for positively influencing their behavior and self-efficacy” (p. 61). In short, promoters of mentoring see it as a proactive intervention to offset school failure for at-risk
students.