This article was downloaded by: [University of Waikato]

On: 13 July 2014, At: 21:31

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Variables Predicting Students' Problem Behaviors

a b
Nancy L. Weishew & Samuel S. Peng
a
Temple University
b
U.S. Department of Education
Published online: 15 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Nancy L. Weishew & Samuel S. Peng (1993) Variables Predicting Students' Problem Behaviors, The Journal
of Educational Research, 87:1, 5-17, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.1993.9941160

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1993.9941160

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Variables Predicting Students’
Problem Behaviors
NANCY L. WEISHEW
Temple University
ABSTRACT Data from the 1988 National Education
Longitudinal Study (NELS:88) were analyzed to identify vari-
ables related to five types of student behavior: misbehavior, vio-
lent behavior, substance abuse, preparedness for class, and
classroom behavior. It was found that, while variables not under
school control (such 8s students’ family background, school
control, and grade span) are important predictors of student be-
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
havior, some school practices and policies me also significantly
awciated with student behavior, Specifically, schools with
high-achieving and interested students; drug/alcohol-free envi-
ronments; disciplined, structured environments; positive cli-
mates; and involved parents have fewer behavior problems. Im-
plications for school practices and suggestions for future re-
search are discussed.
A lthough dwindling finances, declining enrollments,
and poor student achievement were cited as the
most serious problems facing our schools, a survey of
2,000 administrators revealed that 37% considered disci-
pline to be a serious problem (Brodinsky, 1980). In addi-
tion, Feitler and Tokar (1982) reported that 58% of
teachers they sampled ranked students who continually
misbehave as the Number 1 cause of job-related stress.
School administrators and teachers are not alone in their
concern over student misbehavior; the 1990 Annual Poll
of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools (as
well as many prior such polls) revealed that American
adults give the highest priority to the goal of freeing every
school in America from drugs and offering a disciplined
environment conducive to learning (Elam, 1990).
These studies and research suggest a reciprocal causal
relationship between achievement and behavior (Baker,
1985; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Coleman, Hoffer, & Kil-
gore, 1982; DiPrete & Peng, 1981; Dryfoos, 1990; Gad-
dy, 1988; Lloyd-Smith, 1984; Merton, 1968; Myers,
Milne, Baker, & Ginsburg, 1987; Purkey & Smith, 1983;
Rutter, Maughan, Morthnore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979)
and clearly demonstrate the importance of identifying
variables that should be considered when methods are de-
veloped for improving behavior in schools. Theories and
past research have suggested that many community, fam-
ily, student, and school variables are related to student
5
SAMUEL S. PENG
U.S. Department of Education
behavior. A brief review of the literature involving these
variables follows.
Community
Studies have found that schools in large or urban com-
munities have higher rates of aggression, drug sales, rob-
beries, and vandalism (Bayh, 1977; National Institute of
Education [NIE], 1978). However, DiPrete and Peng
(1981) reported that greater misbehavior in urban schools
was not consistent across behaviors and was usually not
significant when the effects of other school and student
variables were controlled for. Gottfredson and Gottfred-
son (1985) found greater violence in schools in which the
surrounding communities had high rates of poverty, un-
employment, crime, female-headed families, and little
education.
Family
Many studies have found a relationship between a vari-
ety of family background variables and student behavior.
DiPrete and Peng (1981) concluded from their analysis of
a large national data base that (a) students living in fam-
ilies with both parents had better school behavior records
than those in single-parent families; (b) students from
middle-income families had fewer behavior problems
than those from either low- br high-income families, al-
though the relationship between income and behavior
was weak; (c) Hispanic students had poorer conduct than
either Black or White students; and (d) Black sopho-
mores had somewhat poorer conduct than did White
sophomores, whereas the reverse was true for seniors.
However, research findings on the effects of specific
family background variables on behavior problems have
not always been consistent. For example, Docking (1987)
reported that children from one-parent families were no
more likely than those from two-parent families to be a
behavior problem once economic circumstances were
taken into account. The NIE (1978) also found the pro-
portion of minority students and students whose families
Address correspondence to Nancy L. Weirhew, Center for
Research in Human Development and Education, Tempfe Uni-
versity, Ritter Hall Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19122.
 6 Journal of Educational Research
were on welfare or unemployed to be unrelated to school
vandalism.
Other family variables shown t o be related to student
behavior include parental supervision (Docking, 1987)
and parental involvement in school (Jones, 1980; Jones &
Jones, 1981; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Schmuck &
Schmuck, 1983; Walker, 1979; Wayson, DeVoss, Kaeser,
Lasley, Pinnell, & Phi Delta Kappa Commission on Dis-
cipline, 1982).
Students
Much of the research on student variables and behav-
ior involves academic achievement. In general, it has
been found that students who do poorly in school have
much higher rates of misbehavior (Block, 1978; Chil-
dren’s Defense Fund [CDF], 1975; DiPrete & Peng, 1981;
Duke, 1976; Ellison, 1979). Some evidence indicating
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
that low achievement in school may cause, rather than be
a result of, misbehavior was provided by Elliott and Voss
(1974), who discovered that after many “delinquents”
dropped out of school they stopped being “delinquents.”
Others have suggested an indirect relationship between
achievement and behavior caused by the mediating effect
of self-esteem (Branch, Damico, & Purkey, 1977; Way-
son et al., 1982). Still other researchers believe that self-
concept affects both achievement and behavior (Coving-
ton & Beery, 1976; LaBenne & Greene, 1%9; Purkey,
1970).
Other variables found or suggsted to be related to stu-
dent behavior include educational expectations (DiPrete
& Peng, 1981; NIE 1978), sex (DiPrete 8~ Peng, 1981;
Docking, 1987; NIE, 1!978), and student participation in
school activities (Schmuck & Schmuck, 1983).
Schools
Despite small sample sizes and methodological prob-
lems in many studies, past researchers and theorists have
identified many variables that may be related to student
problem behaviors. Schools have little or no control over
some of the variables, including grade level, school con-
trol, student assignment practices, student-teacher ratio,
and school size. Studies have found greater behavior
problems in schools with higher grade levels (NIE, 1978),
public schools (DiPrete & Peng, 1981), schools with de-
segregation programs (Gottfredson & Gottfredson,
1985), schools with high student-teacher ratios (Jones,
1980; Reed, 1983; Wayson et al., 1982), and large schools
(Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; NIE, 1978).
Many variables related t o student behavior are under
school control. Research has shown that schools with
positive climates have fewer behavior problems. Positive
school climate has been defined as teacher-administrator
cooperation (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; NIE,
1978), staff concern for and positive teacher attitudes to-
ward students (Jones & Jones, 1981; LaBenne & Greene,
1%9; NIE, 1978; Purkey & Novak, 1984; Rutter et al.,
1979; Schmuck & Schmuck, 1983), sense of community
(Jones & Jones, 1981; Purkey & Novak, 1984; Purkey &
Smith, 1983), teacher praise (Jones & Jones, 1981; Rutter
et al., 1979; Schmuck & Schmuck, 1983), and attitudes
emphasizing the expectation of academic success (Brook-
over, 1978; Edmonds, 1979; NIE, 1978; Purkey &
Novak, 1984; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Rutter et al., 1979).
Achievement is also viewed as a school variable by some
researchers. It has been suggested that schools cause dis-
ruptive behavior by not providing all students with op-
portunities to succeed (Mann & Lawrence, 1981; U.S.
Department of Justice [USDOJ], 1980) and by
“labeling” students with grades (USDOJ).
A school’s discipline practice also may affect behavior.
Practices such as strict enforcement of rules, consistent
disciplinary action, and fairly administered discipline
have been related to less misbehavior (DiPrete & Peng,
1981; NIE, 1978). However, Gottfredson and Gottfred-
son (1985) found that more punitive attitudes resulted in
greater teacher victimization. Control procedures are
closely related to discipline practices. For example, pro-
cedures such as maintaining a structured/orderly school
environment, controlling student mobility, and control-
ling the number of nonstudents present have reduced
misbehavior (Jones & Jones, 1981; NIE, 1978; Purkey &
Smith, 1983).
Other school variables that appear to be related to be-
havior include availability of programs such as counsel-
ing services (Herr, 1982), quality of teaching staff/curric-
ulum (Brodinsky, 1980; Brophy & Evertson, 1976;
Duke, 1980; NIE, 1978; Rutter et al., 1979), and extent
of school substance abuse problems (Goldstein, Apter, &
Harootunian, 1984). Quality of teaching staff and curric-
ulum includes teacher experience and behaviors and
modern, relevant curriculum that corresponds to stu-
dents’ ability levels. Brophy and Evertson (1976) have as-
serted that the majority of classroom discipline problems
can be alleviated by effective teaching.
Few studies have examined many different policies and
practices of schools with different community, family,
and student characteristics to determine the relationship
between these variables and a variety of student behav-
iors. In addition, many studies have had small samples
and inconsistent results. In the present study, we at-
tempted to provide further insight into the potential
causes of student problem behavior and to identify com-
munity, family, student, and school variables (with par-
ticular emphasis on school policies and practices) related
to five types of student behavior (misbehavior, violent
behavior, substance abuse, preparedness for class, and
classroom behavior) in a national sample of schools.
Method
Data for this study were provided by the National Edu-
cational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) adminis-
tered by the National Center for Education Statistics,
 September/October 1993 [Vol. 87(No. 1)1
US. Department of Education. NELS:88 was conducted
on a national sample of 1,051 schools that had eighth
graders in 1988. Data about the schoo1 and students were
collected from school administrators, parents, teachers,
and students. The response rates were all over 90%. The
base year data, completed in 1989, were the basis for this
study. Details about the NELS:88 data base can be found
in the NELS:88 User's Manual (Ingels, Abraham, Kart,
Spencer, & Frankel, 1990).
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables consist of 11 questions from
the school administrator survey, 3 questions from the
teacher survey, and 3 questions from the student survey.
The questions asked administrators to describe the extent
of a variety of student behavior problems (on a scale
ranging from not a problem (1) to serious (4)), such as
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
tardiness, drug abuse, and physical abuse of teachers.
Teachers were asked to identify whether students were
frequently disruptive, consistently inattentive, and excep-
tionally passivehithdrawn in class. Students were asked
to indicate how often (on a scale ranging from never (1)
to usually (4)) they came to class unprepared. The teacher
and student-level variables were aggegated to the school
level. Thus, for the student questions a school average
was calculated, and for the teacher questions the percent-
age of students exhibiting each behavior was calculated.
An iterative principal factor analysis with a varirnax
rotation was performed on these questions, resulting in
five factors: (a) Misbehavior, (b) Substance Abuse, (c)
Violence, (d) Preparedness for Class, and (e) Students'
Classroom Behavior (see Table 1). Factor patterns are
presented in the Appendix. Because the scaling and stan-
dard deviations of the item the factors comprised were
similar, we simply averaged the items to form the factors.
Table 1.-Behaviors Comprising Dependent Variable Factors
Dependent variable Item
Misbehavior Tardiness
Absenteeism
Cutting
Theft
Vandalism
Student physical conflicts
Verbal abuse of teachers
Violence Weapons offenses
Physical abuse of teachers
Substance abuse Alcohol use
Drug use
Preparedness for class PenciVpaper
Books
Homework
Classroom behavior Consistently inattentive
Exceptionally passive or withdrawn
Frequently disruptive
7
The dependent variables were coded so that the higher
end of the scale indicates worse behavior.
Independent Variable Selection
As indicated earlier, many variables were related to
student behavior. Many of these variables were measured
in NELS:88. They are grouped by source (community,
family, student, and school). To reduce the number of
variables, we performed factor analyses (iterative princi-
pal and maximum likelihood methods with several differ-
ent rotations) and examined the simple and multiple cor-
relations for evidence of redundancy and nonsignificant
relationships with the dependent variables. A total of 32
individual variables and factors were included in the re-
gression models for all five dependent variables (see
Table 2). Variables were standardized when scaling and
standard deviations were not similar before being averaged
or summed to create factors. The independent variables
were coded so that the higher end of the scale indicated
more, better, or higher values.
Statktical Techniques
The school was the unit of analysis. AU student,
teacher, and parent variables were aggregated to the
school level. Because the 1,051 schools were selected with
unequal probabilities, sampling weights were required in
analyses to obtain unbiased population estimates. Sam-
pling weights are the inverse of selection probabilities ad-
justed for nonresponses. Moreover, the variance of a sta-
tistic was adjusted by the use of the design effect, which is
the ratio of the exact variance of a statistic from the com-
plex sample to the variance from a simple random sample
of the same size. The square root of the mean design ef-
fect for all schools in NELS:88 is 1.32. For the sake of
simplicity. this design effect was used for all analyses in
this report.
Results
Zero-order correlations between the predictors and the
dependent variables are presented in Table 3. The five de-
pendent variables were regressed separately on the com-
munity, family, student, and school variables. The pro-
gram used to perform the regressions calculates the
unique contribution of each variable after all other vari-
ables have been taken into account; thus, order of entry
in the model was not important. The standardized regres-
sion coefficients for all five dependent variables are pre-
sented in Table 4.
Mkbehavior
The regression of misbehavior on the independent vari-
ables was highly significant, R2(845)= .62, p < .OO01.
Eleven variables were significantly related to this
behavior after all other variables were controlled.
Two community and family variables were significant
predictors of student behavior. In particular, more ur-
 8 Journal of Educational Research
Table 2.-Items Comprising Independent Variables
Independent variable
Urbanicity (I = urban, 2 = suburban, 3 = rural)
Percent disadvantaged
Parental involvement in school
Quality of supervision (Students’ estimation of amount of time
spent home with no adult present)
Sex (Percentage of male students)
Students’ perceptions of themselves
Achievement
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
Educational expectations
Participation in out-of-class activities
Grade span (Recoded to approximate grade levels)
School control ( I = public, 2 = private)
Student-teacher ratio
Student assignment for ethnic composition (0 = no, I
School enrollment
Administrators’ ratings of school climate
Students’ perceptions of the school
Students’ perceptions of teachers
Action for misbehavior-first occurrence ( I = no
warning, 4 = expulsion)
Action for misbehavior-repeated occurrences
Action for injury to student
Action for serious misbehavior-first occurrence
Action for serious misbehavior-repeated occurrences
Students’ ratings of fairness of discipline
Disciplined structured environment
Prohibiting students to leave school grounds (0 = no, 1
School safety/control procedures
Flexibility of school environment
Availability of counseling services
Teachers’ experience (number of years teaching)
Student-reported boredom while at school
How often teachers track and correct homework
Extent of school substance abuse problem
Item
Composite of percentage of students in single-parent families, per-
centage of minorities, and percentage of students receiving free/
reduced lunch (all standardized first)
Average number of school-related activities (belonging to Parent/
Teacher Organization (PTO), attending PTO meetings, taking part
in PTO activities, and volunteering at school)
Composite of self-esteem and locus of control quartiles (standard-
ized first)
Composite of grade point average and reading and mathematics test
scores (standardized first)
Composite of students’ and parents’ expectations for their child
Average student participation in 21 out-of-class activities
= yes)
Composite of teacher-administrator conflict, priority students place
on learning, teacher morale, teachers’ attitudes about students, dif-
ficulty motivating students, teacher response to individual needs
Composite of how well students and teachers get along and school
spirit
Composite of teaching quality. teachers’ interest in students,
teachers’ praise, teachers putting down students, and teachers listen-
ing to students
action or Composite of action for classroom disturbance and use of profanity
Composite of action for verbal abuse of a teacher, theft of school
property, classroom disturbance, and profanity
Composite of action for first occurrence and repeated occurrences
Composite of action for alcohol and drug possession and use. and
weapon possession
Composite of action for alcohol and drug possession and use,
weapon possession, and injury to a teacher
Composite of discipline emphasized, classroom structured, students
expected to do homework, school day structured. and deviation
from rules not tolerated
= yes)
Composite of requiring visitors to sign in and students to have hall
passes
Composite of availability of various types of counseling
Composite of both teacher behaviors
Composite of extent of alcohol and drug problem (not entered for
analysis with this behavior as dependent variable)
 SeptembedOctober 1993 [Vol. 87(No. l)] 9

Table 3.-fim-order Correlations Between Behaviors and Independent Variables

Substance Classroom
Independent variable Misbehavior Violence abuse Preparedness behavior

Community
Urbanicity .02 - .06 .24* .03 .02
Family background
Percent Disadvantaged .46* .26* .14* .21* .34*
Parental involvement - .41* - .16* - .32* - .32* - .26*
Time child spends home alone .09 .01 .08 - .06 .03
Student characteristics
Percent males - .01 - .oo - .03 .II* .03
Self-perceptions - .20* - .09 - .16* - .35* - .21*
Achievement - .45* - .20* - .24* - .47* - .a*
Educational expectations - .29* - .lo* - .25* - .27* - .28*
Participation - .08 .01 - .14* .lo* - .06
School practices
Grade span .38* .ll* .51* .19* .28*
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014

School control - .49* - .20* - .41* - .30* - .30*

Student-teacher ratio - .16* - .07 - .20* - .12* - .06
Assignment for racial balance .18* .18* .07 .I0 .18*
School enrollment .43* .22* .29* .23* .36*
School climate - .47* - .18* - .33* - .18* - .29*
Student perception of school - .26* - .12* - .06 - .34* - .32*
Student perception of teachers - .34* -.11* - .31* - .36* - .43*
Action for first misbehavior .13* .12* .05 .I0 .13*
Action for repeated misbehavior - .08 - .02 - .06 .02 - .02
Action for injuring student .09 .08 .I]* .07 .I2*
Action for first serious - .16* - .m - .19* - .08 - .08
Action for repeated serious - .07 - .01 - .12* - .06 - .m
Fairness of discipline - .12* - .03 - .02 - .08 - .m
DSE - .31* - .12* - .30* - .lo* - .17*
Flexibility of environment -.IS* - .08 -.IS* .02 - .OH
Prohibit students to leave - .06 .02 - .21* - .01 .04
Safety/control procedures .41* .17* .38* .37* .34*
Counseling services .37* .19* .38* .25* .32*
Teachers’ experience .09 .05 - .01 - .01 .01
Student boredom .I21 .03 .I0 .35* .23*
Teachers correct homework - .09 .oo - .I0 - .12* - .12*
Substance abuse problem .57* .39* - .19* .25*

*p < .01.

banized schools and schools with greater percentages of
disadvantaged students had higher rates of misbehavior.
The severity of schools’ substance abuse problems was
the most important predictor of misbehavior; a more se-
rious substance abuse problem was associated with
greater misbehavior. Other important school variables in-
cluded school climate and students’ perceptions of the
school. Better climates and more positive perceptions of
the school were associated with lower rates of misbehav-
ior. Private schools, less severe action for repeated seri-
ous misbehavior, fair discipline, more severe action for
injury to another student, small schools, and less teach-
ing experience were also associated with less misbehavior.
Violent Behavior
The regression of violent behavior on the independent
variables was significant, R’(845) = .27, p < .OOOl. Five
variables were significantly related to violent behavior af-
ter all other variables were controlled.
Urbanicity and the percentage of disadvantaged stu-
dents both significantly predicted violent behavior. As
with misbehavior, more urbanized schools and schools
with greater percentages of disadvantaged students had
greater problems with violent behavior.
Again, the most important predictor of violent behav-
ior in school was the presence of a serious substance
abuse problem. Also significantly associated with less
violent behavior were less severe action for repeated
serious misbehavior and not assigning students for ethnic
composition.
Substance Abuse
The regression of substance abuse on the independent
variables was highly significant, R’(855) = .43, p <
.OO01. Seven variables were significantly related to sub-
stance abuse after all other variables were controlled.
The only variable other than school variables that sig-
nificantly predicted substance abuse was the amount of
 10 Journal of Educational Research

Table 4.-Results of Analyses

Standardized regression coefficient

Substance Classroom Correlation with
Independent variable Misbehavior Violence abuse Preparedness behavior canonical variate

Community
Urbanicity - .17** - .13* .06 .02 .01 .i5
Family background
Percent Disadvantaged .19** . 15* - .02 - .08 .05 .41
Parental involvement - .05 - .01 .03 - .01 .09 - .49
Time child spends home alone - .03 - .oo .08* .07* - .01 .17
Student characteristics
Percent males .02 .04 - .04 .06 .07 .04
Self-perceptions .02 - .04 .03 - .23** .05 - .40
Achievement - .07 .03 - .oo - .26** - .36** - .61
Educational expectations - .03 - .04 - .04 .02 .01 - .40
Participation .02 .04 .01 .21** - .01 - .12
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014

School practices
Grade span .08 - .09 .30* * .03 .06 .44
School control - .13* .02 - .I3 - .04 .04 - .54
Student-teacher ratio .oo - .03 - .02 - .to* - .05 - .25
Assignment for racial balance - .01 .09* .02 .oo .06 .18
School enrollment .09* .03 .08 .13** .lo* .43
School climate - .l3** - .03 - .04 .02 - .lo* - .44
Student perception of school - ,118’ - .I0 .09 - .14* .02 - .41
Student perception of teachers .08 .08 - .08 .03 - .20** - .50
Action for first misbehavior .03 .07 .02 - .02 .02 .12
Action for repeated misbehavior - .oo - .03 .05 .04 - .03 - .03
Action for injuring student - .09* - .01 - .01 - .06 .oo .13
Action for first serious - .04 - .05 - .09* - .02 .04 - .I9
Action for repeated serious .ll** .II* .06 .04 .03 - .I0
Fairness of discipline - .09* - .01 - .05 .04 - .05 - .30
DSE - .06 - .01 - .12** - .02 - .oo - .34
Flexibility of environment - .03 - .03 - .09* .02 - .03 - .15
Prohibit students to leave .oo .06 - .15** .02 .03 - .09
Safety/control procedures - .oo - .09 .08 .06 - .04 .51
Counseling services .01 .08 .02 .02 .12* .42
Teachers’ experience .08** .05 - .03 - .03 .oo .08
Student boredom .02 .oo .01 .25** .11* .32
Teachers correct homework .02 .04 - .01 - .08* .oo - .I2
Substance abuse problem .40** .45** - - .01 - .02 -
R2 .62a .27 .43 .46 .39

d~~~ R‘ are significant at p < ,0001

*I’ < .05; **[I < .Ol.

time students report being at home with no adult present.
The greater amount of time students were left alone, the
greater was the school substance abuse problem.
Grade span was the strongest predictor of substance
abuse. Not surprisingly, there was greater substance
abuse at schools with grade spans that consisted of higher
grade levels. Whether students are permitted to leave
school grounds was also an important predictor, followed
by a disciplined, structured environment. Prohibiting stu-
dents from leaving school grounds and a more disci-
plined, structured environment were associated with a
less severe substance abuse problem. More severe action
for first-time serious misbehavior and a more flexible
school environment were also significantly associated
with a lower school substance abuse problem.
Preparednessfor Class
The regression of preparedness for class on the inde-
pendent variables was highly significant, R’(845) = .46,p
< .oOOl. Nine variables were significantly related to pre-
paredness for class after all other variables were controlled.
Only one family variable was significantly associated
with preparedness for class. Schools with students who
spent more time at home with no adult present had stu-
dents who more often came to class unprepared.
Student characteristics that were significant predictors
of greater preparedness for class included higher achieve-
ment, better self-perceptions, and less participation in
out-of-class activities.
Several school variables were also significant predic-
tors of preparedness. The strongest predictor of pre-
 September/October 1993 [Vol. 87(No. 1)1
paredness was student-reported boredom while at school.
In schools where students reported less boredom, stu-
dents more often reported being prepared for class. More
positive perceptions of the school, small schools, higher
student-teacher ratio, and teachers’ often keeping track
of and correcting homework were also significantly asso-
ciated with greater preparedness for class.
Clmroom Behavior
The regression of classroom behavior on the independ-
ent variables was significant, R’(845) = .39, p < .oOO1.
Sx variables were significantly related to classroom mis-
i Schools in which teachers had been teaching longer
behavior after all other variables were controlled.
The strongest predictor of classroom misbehavior was
student achievement. Not surprisingly, lower achieve-
ment was associated with greater classroom misbehavior.
Positive student perception of teachers also strongly
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
predicted better classroom behavior. Other variables sig-
nificantly associated with classroom misbehavior were
the availabiity of more counseling services, student bore-
dom, negative school climate, and large schools.
Canonical Correlation Anahsis
All of the dependent variables were measuring problem
behaviors; they were, therefore, significantly related to
one another. Consequently, we performed a canonical
correlation analysis. Correlations between the predictor
variables and the first canonical variate are presented in
’Table 4. The variate was highly significant, F(155) =
12.22, p c .oOO1, accounting for 67% of the variance.
Misbehavior was the variable most highly correlated with
the first canonical variate (.66), followed by classroom
behavior ( 5 9 , preparedness (.57), and substance abuse
(31). Violent behavior was not significantly correlated
with the first variate (.29). The results of this analysis
were Similar to those of the regression analysis in terms of
the direction of the relationships; however, somewhat
fewer variables were important predictors (above .30).
The canonical analysis also revealed that greater parental
involvement and higher educational expectations were re-
lated to lower problem behavior overall.
Discussion
The relatively high multiple correlations show that the
individual problem behaviors were predicted well by the
regression models. Many variables were significantly re-
lated to student problem behaviors. However, although
several variables were related to behavior problems over-
all, none were consistently related to all problem behav-
iors. Thus, results are discussed separately for the five
dependent variables.
Misbehavior
The results revealed the following relationships be-
tween misbehavior and t he independent variables:
11
Schools with more substance abuse problems had
greater misbehavior.
Large schools, public schools, more urbanized schools,
and schools with greater percentages of disadvantaged
students had more student misbehavior.
Schools with better climates, more positive student
perceptions of their schools, and fair discipline had less
misbehavior.
Lower misbehavior was associated with more severe
action for injuring a student, but less severe action for
repeated serious offenses.
had higher rates of misbehavior.
Many of these results are consistent with past research,
including the findings involving urbanicity, student back-
ground, school control, school climate, school enroll-
ment, students’ perceptions of the school, action for in-
juring a student, fairness of discipline, and extent of sub-
stance abuse problems (Bayh, 1977; DiPrete & Peng,
1981; Goldstein et al., 1984; Gottfredson & Gottfredson,
1985; NIE, 1978; Purkey & Novak, 1984; Purkey &
Smith, 1983).
Several of our findings are not consistent with prior re-
search, however. The role of disciplinary action is com-
plex: In this study more severe action for injury to a stu-
dent was associated with less misbehavior, but more se-
vere action for repeated serious misbehavior was asso-
ciated with more misbehavior. In addition, neither action
for first-time misbehavior nor repeated misbehavior was
significantly related to rates of misbehavior. The latter
finding probably occurred because the list of behaviors
that administrators were asked to indicate their disci-
plinary actions for in the NELS study was more limited
than the list of behaviors they were asked to rate for
severity in their schools. Of the seven behaviors that mis-
behavior comprised, only two (theft, but only of school
property, and student physical conflicts) had matching
disciplinary actions.
Action for repeated serious misbehavior (including
drug/alcohol/weapon possession and use) may be asso-
ciated with more misbehavior for several reasons. School
officials may believe that high rates of this behavior are
being caused by behavior such as alcohol and drug abuse
(as suggested earlier) and may be trying to eradicate these
causes. One could also argue that strict discipline for
more serious offenses causes students to increase their
misbehavior either in retaliation or as substitute behav-
iors to cope in an environment that is not meeting their
needs (Heitzman, 1982; Gottfredson & Gottfredson,
1985). Lack of data and the nonexperimental nature of
this study prevented discovery of the true reason for this
result.
Finally, schools in which teachers had been teaching
longer had higher rates of misbehavior. Perhaps this was
related to teacher burnout; as revealed in the introduc-
 12
tion, over 50% of teachers rank continual student misbe-
havior as the main cause of job-related stress (Feitler &
Tokar, 1982).
The results suggest that schools try to reduce misbe-
havior by eradicating substance abuse, improving their
climates and students’ perceptions of their schools, and
enforcing discipline fairly. For example, teachers and
school counselors could be instrumental in identifying
substance abuse and refemng students for treatment, or
gauging students’ attitudes and concerns about their
schools. In addition, programs to counteract the effects
of students’ disadvantaged backgrounds and dividing the
school into smaller units would probably be helpful.
Violent Behavior
The following are the main findings for violent
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
behavior:
As with misbehavior, violence was greater in schools
with more severe substance abuse problems, schools
with higher percentages of disadvantaged students,
more urbanized schools, and schools taking more se-
vere action for repeated serious offenses.
Schools in which students were assigned to achieve de-
sired ethnic composition had more violence.
Results consistent with past research on the relation-
ship between variables and violent behavior included ur-
banicity, student background, assignment for ethnic
composition, and extent of substance abuse problem
(Bayh, 1977; DiPrete & Peng, 1981; Goldstein et al.,
1984; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; NIE, 1978).
As with misbehavior, several of our findings on violent
behavior are not consistent with past research. The asso-
ciation of more violence with strong action for repeated
serious offenses (including injury to teachers and weap-
ons offenses) seems counterintuitive. However, rather
than suggesting that thse actions are not effective, this
finding may simply mean that schools with high rates of
violence are taking more severe disciplinary action for
violent behavior to lower the rate of violence. Or the
schools may also have had problems with substance
abuse and other misbehavior in addition to violence and
feel that these other problems lead to violence. It is also
possible that students react with more violence to harsh
disciplinary action (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985;
Heitzman, 1982). Or perhaps students like being sus-
pended and, therefore, misbehave to receive this “pun-
ishment” (Gold, 1963; Heitzman, 1982; Stallworth,
Frechtling, & Frankel, 1983). Again, it is not possible to
determine the reason for these results with these data.
The causes of violent behavior are undoubtedly much
more complex or situation specific, as indicated by the
small amount of variance (27%) accounted for by all 32
independent variables and the low correlation with the
first canonical variate. Another problem with this vari-
able is that there was little variance among schools in the
Journal of Educational Research
amount of violent behavior reported, with most report-
ing very little violent behavior.
Substance Abuse
The following are the major findings involving sub-
stance abuse:
Schools with grade spans consisting of higher grade
levels had greater substance abuse problems.
Schools that had disciplined, structured environments
in which students were not permitted to leave school
grounds had lower rates of substance abuse. However,
schools that were also flexible had lower rates of sub-
stance abuse.
Schools in which students spent more time at home
with no adult present had greater substance abuse
problems.
The relationships between substance abuse and all
significant predictors (parental supervision, grade span,
action for first-time serious misbehavior, disciplined,
structured environment, flexibility of school environment,
and prohibiting students from leaving school grounds) are
consistent with past research @iPrete & Peng, 1981; Dock-
ing, 1987; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; Jones & Jones,
1981; NIE, 1978; Purkey & Smith, 1983).
The results suggest that schools create disciplined
and structured, but not rigid, environments to reduce
substance abuse. Parents should also be aware that
when their children are at home with no adult present,
they may have more opportunity for substance abuse.
Preparedness for C l m
The results reveal the following relationships be-
tween preparedness and the independent variables:
Schools in which students reported being bored
more often were low achieving, had poorer self-con-
cepts, participated more in out-of-class activities, and
had negative perceptions of their school had students
who were more often unprepared for class.
Large schools and schools with lower student-teacher
ratios had less prepared students.
Schools in which teachers more often tracked and cor-
rected homework had students who were more pre-
pared for class.
Schools in which students spent more time at home
with no adult present had students who were less pre-
pared for class.
Results consistent with past research include the rela-
tionships between preparedness and parental supervision,
self-perceptions, achievement, school enrollment, stu-
dents’ perceptions of school, student boredom, and
teacher feedback (Block, 1978; Brodinsky, 1980; Coving-
ton & Beery, 1976; DiPrete & Peng, 1981; Docking, 1987;
Duke, 1980; Ellison, 1979; NIE, 1978; Purkey & Smith,
1983; Rutter et al., 1979; Wayson et al., 1982).
 September/Oetober 1993 [Vol. 87(No. 111
The finding that greater student participation in out-
of-class activities is associated with less preparedness is
inconsistent with past research and the results of the ca-
nonical analysis in this study. It appears that highly active
students tend to neglect their studies.
Student-teacher ratio also has a counterintuitive rela-
tionship with preparedness. Fewer students per teacher
was associated with less preparedness. Further analysis
by breaking down the dependent variable into its individ-
ual items (having paper/pencil, books, and homework)
shows the student-teacher ratio to be significantly related
only to having materials (mostly books). Perhaps in
smaller classes teachers have extra books so students feel
they can get away with not bringing books to class.
The results suggest that schools can increase their stu-
dents’ preparedness for class by reducing student bore-
dom (e.g., by improving teaching/cuniculum or tailoring
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
curriculum to student needs), trying to increase student
self-esteem and sense of control (e.g., through counseling
activities, increased student responsibility, or student in-
put into school decisions), restricting the time students
spend on out-of-class activities, and encourging teachers
to provide feedback to students.
Classroom Behavior
The following were found in the analysis of classroom
misbehavior:
* As with preparedness, schools in which students were
low achieving, had negative perceptions of their teach-
ers, and were bored had greater classroom. mis-
behavior.
Greater classroom misbehavior was associated with the
availability of more counseling services and large
schools.
Schools with negative climates had greater classroom
misbehavior.
The findings involving achievement, school enroll-
ment, students’ perceptions of teachers, student bore-
dom, and school climate are consistent with past research
(Block, 1978; Brodinsky, 1980; DiPrete & Peng, 1981;
Ellison, 1979; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; NIE,
1978; Purkey & Novak, 1984; Purkey & Smith, 1983;
Rutter et al., 1979; Schmuck & Schmuck, 1983).
The relationship between the availability of counseling
services and classroom behavior seems counterintuitive:
More counseling service was associated with higher rates
of classroom misbehavior. This probably indicates that
the schools with higher rates of classroom misbehavior
attempted to reduce it by making more counseling serv-
ices available to students. Longitudinal data might reveal
whether counseling services are effective in reducing
classroom misbehavior.
In addition to suggestions made for improving the other
student problem behaviors with similar results, we found
that schools could reduce classroom misbehavior by im-
13
proving the student-teacher relationship. For example,
school counselors could serve as mediators in student-
teacher conflicts, or in-service training could be used to
help teachers improve their relationships with students.
Limitations
There were several limitations to this study. First, be-
cause of the nonexperimental nature of the research, no
causal relationships can be specified. This study’s results
can only suggest possible causal relationships and areas
for future research. Future research should attempt to
use the longitudinal data that will soon be available to in-
vestigate these relationships further.
Second, this study had the same problems as other
studies that relied on questionnaire research, including
subjective response scales and inability to fully define
constructs. The same rate of a behavior problem may be
seen as serious to some administrators but only moderate
to others. NIE (1978) reported that a far greater number
of incidents are required before secondary school princi-
pals rate their schools as having a serious theft/burglary
and vandalism problem. In addition, correlations be-
tween teacher, student, and administrator ratings of the
severity of various misbehavior were not high, and teach-
ers and students had more similar ratings. Also, schools
with the same degree of structure may be seen as more
structured to one administrator and not as structured to
another. What specific practices contribute to a struc-
tured or disciplined environment? What constitutes a
classroom disturbance? Is suspension enforced inside or
outside of school? There is also little variance in adminis-
trator ratings of most of the behaviors, with the vast ma-
jority rating behavior problems as nonexistent or minor.
Some of these problems can be corrected with proper
phrasing of questions, but others are inherent in survey
research.
Third, although attempts were made to eliminate
highly correlated/redundant variables, there was some
intercorrelation among the independent variables that
may have affected the results.
Finally, some important predictors may have been
omitted from the regression models, particularly commu-
nity characteristics such as crime level, which have been
shown to be related to student behavior (Gottfredson &
Gottfredson, 1985). This information, as well as data
about peer relationships, was not available for this study.
To summarize, this study shows that, while variables
not under school control (such as students’ family back-
ground, school control, and grade span) are important
predictors of student behavior, some school practices and
policies are also significantly associated with student be-
havior. Specifically, schools with high-achieving and in-
terested students; drug/alcohol-free and disciplined,
structured environments; positive climates; and involved
parents have fewer behavior problems.
 14 Journal of Educational Research

Many other school variables are related to the individ-
ual problem behaviors. In addition, schools can influence
family and student variables such as parental involve-
ment (e.g., by teachers, counselors, or administrators ini-
tiating contact), student self-perceptions (e.g., through
teacher behaviors, related activities/programs, or coun-
seling), and educational expectations. The results suggest
that schools concentrate particularly on programs and
practices that will raise student achievement and educa-
tional expectations, reduce student boredom and sub-
stance abuse, divide the school into smdler units, im-
prove school climate, and increase structure and parental
involvement. This could be accomplished with a variety
of methods such as tutoring and academic counseling,
changes in curriculum, identification and referral of sub-
stance abusers, stricter requirements and scheduling, and
parental contact by school officials.
Parents can also help improve their children’s behavior
in school by becoming more involved in their education,
monitoring their actions, and helping to increase their
achievement, educational expectations, and positive self-
perceptions. It is clear, however, that no specific school
programs and practices or parental action will solve one
or all behavior problems. Therefore, a holistic approach
in which many different school practices and policies are
adopted appears to be a better approach to addressing
behavior problems. Future research should seek to deter-
mine what specific practices and policies will result in bet-
ter student behavior.

APPENDIX A
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014

Table A-I.-Results of Factor Analysis for Dependent Variables

Factor
Classroom Substance
Item Misbehavior behavior Violence abuse Preparedness

Tardiness .66 .I1 .05 .I9 -.I6

Absenteeism .71 .11 .I2 .I9 - .I4
Cutting .53 .22 .30 .31 - .08
Student physical .57 .I9 .31 .01 -.I1
conflicts
Theft .58 .I8 .25 .22 - .I0
Vandalism .57 .08 .29 .I9 - .I4
Verbal abuse of .45 .16 .39 .13 - .09
teachers
Weapons offenses .28 .I0 .73 .I6 - .07
Physical abuse of .21 .02 .75 .I4 .02
teachers
Alcohol use .30 .04 .IS .82 - .08
Drug use .32 .I7 .23 .81 - .09
No pencil/paper - .17 - .I2 - .04 - .05 .40
N o books - .04 - .06 - .01 .03 .85
N o homework - .I5 - .I3 - .04 - .I3 .61
Consistently inattentive .20 .91 .I0 .06 - .I6
Exceptionally passive/ .19 .40 .I0 .w - .I5
withdrawn
Frequently disruptive .I4 .63 .04 .08 - .I0

Table A-Z.-ResulIs of Factor Analysis for Family Background Items

Factor
Educational Self- Percentage
Item expectation perception disadvantaged
~~

Students’ expectations .78 .41 -.I1

Mothers’ expectations for child .89 .29 - .04
Fathers’ expectations for child .89 .27 - .02
Self-esteem quartile .08 .98 .24
Locus of control quartile .23 .60 - .26
Percentage of students in .07 ~ .02 .60
single-parent families
Percentage of minority students .II - -00 .67
Percentage of students eligible ~ .35 - .28 .57
for free/reduced lunch
Parental involvement .30 .33 - .41
Percentage of males - .24 . I2 - .07
Time student spends home alone - .05 - .21 .09
 September/October 1993 [Vol. 87(No. 111 15

Table A-3.-Results of Factor Analysis for Administrators’ Ratings of Their Schools

Factor
Discipline/
Item structure Climate

Discipline is emphasized at this school. .61 .i5

The classroom environment is structured. .67 .i5
Teachers encourage students to do best. .74 .41
Students are expected to do homework. .70 .30
The school day is structured. .73 - .04
Deviation from school rules is not tolerated. .57 .06
Lack of teacher-administrator conflict. .22 .40
Students place a priority on learning. .28 .50
Teacher morale is high. .46 .66
Teachers have positive attitudes about students. .07 .45
Teachers have no difficulty motivating students. - .03 .55
Teachers respond to individual needs. .47 .50
The school environment is flexible. .I2 24
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014

The school emphasizes sports. .05 - .01

Students face competition for grades. .I3 - .06

Table A-4.-Results of Factor Analysis for Students’ Perceptions of School and Teachers

Factor
Item School Teachers

Students get along well with teachers. .84 .17

There is real school spirit. .52 - .04
The teaching is good. .34 .65
Teachers are interested in students. - .06 .94
Teachers praise my efforts. - .02 .80
In class I do not feel put down by teachers. - .06 .60
Most of my teachers listen to what I say. .09 .75
Rules for behavior are strict. - .24 .13
Discipline is fair. .23 .15
Other students often disrupt class. .34 .06
I don’t feel safe at this school. .49 .10
Student disruptions inhibit learning. - .16 .07
Misbehaving students often get away with it. .03 - .I4

Table A-5.-Results of Factor Analysis for School Procedures and Services Items

Factor
Item Safety/control Counseling

Visitors required to sign in at main office .42 .II

Student passes required to visit library .80 .26
Student passes required to visit lavatory .84 .13
Student passes required to visit office .90 .22
Student passes required to visit counselors .78 .42
Academic counseling available .21 .16
Behavioral counseling available .I4 .55
Vocational counseling available .36 .45
Student uniform required - .30 - .22
Certain forms of student dress forbidden .04 .17
Students prohibited from leaving school - .06 - .02
 16 Journal of Educational Research

Table Ad.-Results of Factor Analysis for Disciplinary Action Items

Factor
Repeated First Repeated Injury of First
Item serious serious misbehavior student misbehavior

Action for possession of alcohol-repeated .80 .29 .I4 .I0 .oo

Action for possession of drugs-repeated .86 .23 .II .07 .02
Action for possession of weapons-repeated .75 .I8 .05 .II - .01
Action for alcohol use-repeated .88 .21 .I3 - .oo - .01
Action for drug use-repeated .90 .I8 .I1 - .01 .oo
Action for injury to a teacher-repeated .53 .10 .22 .I7 - .04
Action for possession of alcohol-first .I9 .75 .05 .07 .I8
Action for possession of drugs-first .25 .86 .I4 .I0 .06
Action for possession of weapons-first .26 .62 .06 .I6 .09
Action for alcohol use-first .22 .85 .07 .08 .07
Action for drug use-first .27 .89 . I2 .08 .01
Act ion for classroom dist u rbance-repeat ed .07 .06 .72 .I3 .25
Action for use of profanity-repeated .I1 .08 .75 .14 .24
Action for verbal abuse of a teacher-repeated .30 .14 .50 .02 .oo
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014

Action for theft of school property-repeated .36 .I9 .53 .I7 - .I3
Action for injuring a student-first - .02 .02 - .01 .68 .II
Action for injuring a student-repeated .28 .01 .35 .62 -.I1
Action for classroom disturbance-first .oo .I1 .II .08 .68
Action for use of profanity-first - .03 .05 .I5 .I1 .69
Action for cheating-first - .02 .18 .07 .39 .23
Action for smoking-first .03 .30 .06 .I0 .23
Action for verbal abuse of a teacher-first .01 .I0 .07 .08 .30
Action for injury to a teacher-first .25 .32 .I0 .I8 .07
Action for theft of school property-first .I1 .21 .09 .31 .21
Action for cheating-repeated .12 .17 .34 .46 .08
Action for smoking-repeated .32 .23 .39 - .01 - .05

REFERENCES students. Urban Education, 26, 5 M 5 .

Baker, K. (1985). Research evidence of a school discipline program. Phi
Delta Kappan, 66, 482-487.
Bayh, B. (1973. Challengefor the fhird century: Education in a safe en-
vironment-Jinal report on the nature and prevention of schoof vio-
lence and vandalism. Washington, DC: U S . Government Printing
Office.
Block, E. (1978). Failing students-failing schools: A study of dropoufs
and discipline in New York State. New York: New York Civil Liber-
ties Union.
Branch, C., Damico, S., & Purkey, W. (1977). A comparison between
the self-concepts as learner of disruptive and non-disruptive middle
school students. The Middle School Journal, 7 , 15-16.
Brodinsky, B. (1980). Student discipline: Problems and solutions. Arl-
ington: American Association of School Administrators.
Brookover, W. (1978). Elementary school climate and school achieve-
ment. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 301-318.
Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. (1976). Learning from teaching: A develop-
mental perspective. Boston: AUyn & Bacon.
Children’s Defense Fund. (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping
children? Cambridge: Washington Research Project, Inc.
Cloward, R. A,, & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity.
Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.
Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High schoolachieve-
menf: Public, Catholic and other private schools compared. New
York: Basic.
Covington, M., & Beery, R. (1976). Self-worth and school learning.
New York: Holt, Rinehart, &Winston.
DiPrete, T. A., & Peng, S. S. (1981). Discipline and order in American
high schools. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Docking, J. W. (1987). Control and discipline in schools: Perspecfives
and approaches. London: Harper and Row.
Dryfoos, J. (1990). School-based social and health services for at-risk
Duke, D. L. (1976). Challenge to bureaucracy: The contemporary aker-
native school. Journal of Educational Thought, 10, 34-38.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educafional
Leadership, 37, 15-24.
Elam, S. M. (1990). The 22nd annual Gallup poll of the public’s atti-
tudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 72(I), 41-55.
Elliott, D. S., & Voss, H. L. (1974). Delinquency and dropout. Lex-
ington, MA: Lexington Books.
EUison, W. (1979). School vandalism: 100 million dollar challenge.
Communify Education Journal, 3, 27-33.
Feitler, F., & Tokar, E. (1982). Getting a handle on teacher stress: How
bad is the problem? Educational Leadership, 39, 456-458.
Caddy, G . D. (1988). High school order and academic achievement.
American Journul of Education, 96(4), 496-518.
Gold. M. (1%3). Sfatusforces in delinquent boys. Ann Arbor: Univer-
sity of Michigan.
Goldstein, A. P., Apter, S. J., & Harootunian, B. (1984). School vio-
lence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (1985). Victimization in
schools. New York: Plenum Press.
Heitzman, A. J. (1982). Discipline and the use of punishment. In W. W.
Wayson et al. (Eds.), Handbook for developing schools wifh good
discipline (pp. 81-86). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Herr, E. L. (1982). Pupil personnel staff: Discussion. In H. J. Walberg
(Ed.), lmproving standardc and productivity: The research h i s for
policy (pp. 99-109). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Ingels, S. J., Abraham, S. Y., Karr, R., Spencer, B. D., & Franekel, R.
R. (1990). User’s manual, national education longifudinal study of
1988. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Jones, V. (1980). Adolescents with behavior problems: Strategies for
leaching, counseling, and parental involvement. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.
Jones, V., & Jones, L. (1981). Responsible classroom discipline:
Creating positive learning environments and solving problems.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
 September/October 1993 [Vol. 87(No. l)] 17

LaBenne, W., & Greene, B. (1969). Educafional implications of sev-
concept theory. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Lloyd-Smith, M. (1984). Disrupted schooling. London: John Murray
Publishers Ltd.
Mann, D., & Lawrence, J. (1981). Introduction. Impact, 16, 5-10.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social fheory and social structure. New York:
Free Press.
Myers, D. E., Milne, A. M., Baker, K.,& Ginsburg, A. (1987). Student
discipline and high school performance. Sociologv of Education, 60,
18-33.
National Institute of Education. (1977). The sqfe school study. Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Purkey, W. (1970). Self-concepf and school achievement. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Purkey, W., & Novak, J. M. (1984). Invitingxhoolsuccm: A seu-con-
cepf approach to reaching and leaning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools-A Review.
Elemenfury School Journal. 83(4), 426-452.
Reed, R. J. (1983). Administrators’ advice: Causes and remedies of
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
school conflict and violence. NASSP Bulletin, 67, 75-79.
Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A.
(1979). Fgteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effkcts
on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schmuck, R. A,, & Schmuck, P. A. (1983). Group processes in fhe
clmroom. Dubuque, IA:WM. C. Brown.
Stallworth, W. L., Frechtling, J. A., &Frankel, S. M. (1983). In school
suspension: A pilot program. In Phi Delta Kappa Center on Evalua-
tion, Development and Research, Hot topic series-dixipline (pp.
3-16). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
U.S. Department of Justice. (1980). Prevention of delinquency fhrough
alfernafiveeducation. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention.
Walker, H. (1979). The acfing-out child: Coping wifh classroom diFnrp
fion. Boston, MA: Ally & Bacon.
Wayson, W. W., DeVoss, G. G., Kaeser, S. C., Lasley. T., Pinnell, G.
S., & Phi Delta Kappa Commission on Dixipline. (1982). Handbook
for developing schoob with good dixipline. Bloomington, IN: Phi
Delta Kappa.

Meet The Faces Behind

Most Medical Advances.
There are a lot of doctors and mearchers out there who deserve credit
fbr society’smedical achievements. But the fact is, they’ll have to s h
the credit. Because before any medical project can break new ground,it
has to get &the ground. And that takes money. W urge you to con-
tribute to the hospital of your choice. Your help d d mean a solution to
many of today‘s most pressing m d c a l concerns. The first of which is,
quite W y , filndmg.

GiveToYour Local Hospital. GiveTo Life. 1

National Association for Hospital Development
o
li)r
*