Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
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 SAMUEL S. PENG
Temple University U.S. Department of Education
havior, some school practices and policies me also significantly Education [NIE], 1978). However, DiPrete and Peng
awciated with student behavior, Specifically, schools with (1981) reported that greater misbehavior in urban schools
high-achieving and interested students; drug/alcohol-free envi- was not consistent across behaviors and was usually not
ronments; disciplined, structured environments; positive cli-
mates; and involved parents have fewer behavior problems. Im- significant when the effects of other school and student
plications for school practices and suggestions for future re- variables were controlled for. Gottfredson and Gottfred-
search are discussed. 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
A lthough dwindling finances, declining enrollments,
and poor student achievement were cited as the
most serious problems facing our schools, a survey of
Many studies have found a relationship between a vari-
ety of family background variables and student behavior.
2,000 administrators revealed that 37% considered disci- DiPrete and Peng (1981) concluded from their analysis of
pline to be a serious problem (Brodinsky, 1980). In addi- a large national data base that (a) students living in fam-
tion, Feitler and Tokar (1982) reported that 58% of ilies with both parents had better school behavior records
teachers they sampled ranked students who continually than those in single-parent families; (b) students from
misbehave as the Number 1 cause of job-related stress. middle-income families had fewer behavior problems
School administrators and teachers are not alone in their than those from either low- br high-income families, al-
concern over student misbehavior; the 1990 Annual Poll though the relationship between income and behavior
of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools (as was weak; (c) Hispanic students had poorer conduct than
well as many prior such polls) revealed that American either Black or White students; and (d) Black sopho-
adults give the highest priority to the goal of freeing every mores had somewhat poorer conduct than did White
school in America from drugs and offering a disciplined sophomores, whereas the reverse was true for seniors.
environment conducive to learning (Elam, 1990). However, research findings on the effects of specific
These studies and research suggest a reciprocal causal family background variables on behavior problems have
relationship between achievement and behavior (Baker, not always been consistent. For example, Docking (1987)
1985; Cloward & Ohlin, 1960; Coleman, Hoffer, & Kil- reported that children from one-parent families were no
gore, 1982; DiPrete & Peng, 1981; Dryfoos, 1990; Gad- more likely than those from two-parent families to be a
dy, 1988; Lloyd-Smith, 1984; Merton, 1968; Myers, behavior problem once economic circumstances were
Milne, Baker, & Ginsburg, 1987; Purkey & Smith, 1983; taken into account. The NIE (1978) also found the pro-
Rutter, Maughan, Morthnore, Ouston, & Smith, 1979) portion of minority students and students whose families
and clearly demonstrate the importance of identifying
variables that should be considered when methods are de-
veloped for improving behavior in schools. Theories and Address correspondence to Nancy L. Weirhew, Center for
past research have suggested that many community, fam- Research in Human Development and Education, Tempfe Uni-
ily, student, and school variables are related to student versity, Ritter Hall Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19122.
5
6 Journal of Educational Research
were on welfare or unemployed to be unrelated to school 1979; Schmuck & Schmuck, 1983), sense of community
vandalism. (Jones & Jones, 1981; Purkey & Novak, 1984; Purkey &
Other family variables shown t o be related to student Smith, 1983), teacher praise (Jones & Jones, 1981; Rutter
behavior include parental supervision (Docking, 1987) et al., 1979; Schmuck & Schmuck, 1983), and attitudes
and parental involvement in school (Jones, 1980; Jones & emphasizing the expectation of academic success (Brook-
Jones, 1981; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Schmuck & over, 1978; Edmonds, 1979; NIE, 1978; Purkey &
Schmuck, 1983; Walker, 1979; Wayson, DeVoss, Kaeser, Novak, 1984; Purkey & Smith, 1983; Rutter et al., 1979).
Lasley, Pinnell, & Phi Delta Kappa Commission on Dis- Achievement is also viewed as a school variable by some
cipline, 1982). researchers. It has been suggested that schools cause dis-
ruptive behavior by not providing all students with op-
Students portunities to succeed (Mann & Lawrence, 1981; U.S.
Much of the research on student variables and behav- Department of Justice [USDOJ], 1980) and by
ior involves academic achievement. In general, it has “labeling” students with grades (USDOJ).
been found that students who do poorly in school have A school’s discipline practice also may affect behavior.
much higher rates of misbehavior (Block, 1978; Chil- Practices such as strict enforcement of rules, consistent
dren’s Defense Fund [CDF], 1975; DiPrete & Peng, 1981; disciplinary action, and fairly administered discipline
Duke, 1976; Ellison, 1979). Some evidence indicating have been related to less misbehavior (DiPrete & Peng,
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
that low achievement in school may cause, rather than be 1981; NIE, 1978). However, Gottfredson and Gottfred-
a result of, misbehavior was provided by Elliott and Voss son (1985) found that more punitive attitudes resulted in
(1974), who discovered that after many “delinquents” greater teacher victimization. Control procedures are
dropped out of school they stopped being “delinquents.” closely related to discipline practices. For example, pro-
Others have suggested an indirect relationship between cedures such as maintaining a structured/orderly school
achievement and behavior caused by the mediating effect environment, controlling student mobility, and control-
of self-esteem (Branch, Damico, & Purkey, 1977; Way- ling the number of nonstudents present have reduced
son et al., 1982). Still other researchers believe that self- misbehavior (Jones & Jones, 1981; NIE, 1978; Purkey &
concept affects both achievement and behavior (Coving- Smith, 1983).
ton & Beery, 1976; LaBenne & Greene, 1%9; Purkey, Other school variables that appear to be related to be-
1970). havior include availability of programs such as counsel-
Other variables found or suggsted to be related to stu- ing services (Herr, 1982), quality of teaching staff/curric-
dent behavior include educational expectations (DiPrete ulum (Brodinsky, 1980; Brophy & Evertson, 1976;
& Peng, 1981; NIE 1978), sex (DiPrete 8~ Peng, 1981; Duke, 1980; NIE, 1978; Rutter et al., 1979), and extent
Docking, 1987; NIE, 1!978), and student participation in of school substance abuse problems (Goldstein, Apter, &
school activities (Schmuck & Schmuck, 1983). Harootunian, 1984). Quality of teaching staff and curric-
ulum includes teacher experience and behaviors and
Schools modern, relevant curriculum that corresponds to stu-
Despite small sample sizes and methodological prob- dents’ ability levels. Brophy and Evertson (1976) have as-
lems in many studies, past researchers and theorists have serted that the majority of classroom discipline problems
identified many variables that may be related to student can be alleviated by effective teaching.
problem behaviors. Schools have little or no control over Few studies have examined many different policies and
some of the variables, including grade level, school con- practices of schools with different community, family,
trol, student assignment practices, student-teacher ratio, and student characteristics to determine the relationship
and school size. Studies have found greater behavior between these variables and a variety of student behav-
problems in schools with higher grade levels (NIE, 1978), iors. In addition, many studies have had small samples
public schools (DiPrete & Peng, 1981), schools with de- and inconsistent results. In the present study, we at-
segregation programs (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, tempted to provide further insight into the potential
1985), schools with high student-teacher ratios (Jones, causes of student problem behavior and to identify com-
1980; Reed, 1983; Wayson et al., 1982), and large schools munity, family, student, and school variables (with par-
(Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; NIE, 1978). ticular emphasis on school policies and practices) related
Many variables related t o student behavior are under to five types of student behavior (misbehavior, violent
school control. Research has shown that schools with behavior, substance abuse, preparedness for class, and
positive climates have fewer behavior problems. Positive classroom behavior) in a national sample of schools.
school climate has been defined as teacher-administrator
cooperation (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; NIE, Method
1978), staff concern for and positive teacher attitudes to- Data for this study were provided by the National Edu-
ward students (Jones & Jones, 1981; LaBenne & Greene, cational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88) adminis-
1%9; NIE, 1978; Purkey & Novak, 1984; Rutter et al., tered by the National Center for Education Statistics,
September/October 1993 [Vol. 87(No. 1)1 7
US. Department of Education. NELS:88 was conducted The dependent variables were coded so that the higher
on a national sample of 1,051 schools that had eighth end of the scale indicates worse behavior.
graders in 1988. Data about the schoo1 and students were
collected from school administrators, parents, teachers, Independent Variable Selection
and students. The response rates were all over 90%. The As indicated earlier, many variables were related to
base year data, completed in 1989, were the basis for this student behavior. Many of these variables were measured
study. Details about the NELS:88 data base can be found in NELS:88. They are grouped by source (community,
in the NELS:88 User's Manual (Ingels, Abraham, Kart, family, student, and school). To reduce the number of
Spencer, & Frankel, 1990). variables, we performed factor analyses (iterative princi-
pal and maximum likelihood methods with several differ-
Dependent Variables ent rotations) and examined the simple and multiple cor-
The dependent variables consist of 11 questions from relations for evidence of redundancy and nonsignificant
the school administrator survey, 3 questions from the relationships with the dependent variables. A total of 32
teacher survey, and 3 questions from the student survey. individual variables and factors were included in the re-
The questions asked administrators to describe the extent gression models for all five dependent variables (see
of a variety of student behavior problems (on a scale Table 2). Variables were standardized when scaling and
ranging from not a problem (1) to serious (4)), such as standard deviations were not similar before being averaged
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
tardiness, drug abuse, and physical abuse of teachers. or summed to create factors. The independent variables
Teachers were asked to identify whether students were were coded so that the higher end of the scale indicated
frequently disruptive, consistently inattentive, and excep- more, better, or higher values.
tionally passivehithdrawn in class. Students were asked
to indicate how often (on a scale ranging from never (1) Statktical Techniques
to usually (4)) they came to class unprepared. The teacher The school was the unit of analysis. AU student,
and student-level variables were aggegated to the school teacher, and parent variables were aggregated to the
level. Thus, for the student questions a school average school level. Because the 1,051 schools were selected with
was calculated, and for the teacher questions the percent- unequal probabilities, sampling weights were required in
age of students exhibiting each behavior was calculated. analyses to obtain unbiased population estimates. Sam-
An iterative principal factor analysis with a varirnax pling weights are the inverse of selection probabilities ad-
rotation was performed on these questions, resulting in justed for nonresponses. Moreover, the variance of a sta-
five factors: (a) Misbehavior, (b) Substance Abuse, (c) tistic was adjusted by the use of the design effect, which is
Violence, (d) Preparedness for Class, and (e) Students' the ratio of the exact variance of a statistic from the com-
Classroom Behavior (see Table 1). Factor patterns are plex sample to the variance from a simple random sample
presented in the Appendix. Because the scaling and stan- of the same size. The square root of the mean design ef-
dard deviations of the item the factors comprised were fect for all schools in NELS:88 is 1.32. For the sake of
similar, we simply averaged the items to form the factors. simplicity. this design effect was used for all analyses in
this report.
Table 1.-Behaviors Comprising Dependent Variable Factors
Results
Dependent variable Item
Zero-order correlations between the predictors and the
dependent variables are presented in Table 3. The five de-
Misbehavior Tardiness pendent variables were regressed separately on the com-
Absenteeism munity, family, student, and school variables. The pro-
Cutting gram used to perform the regressions calculates the
Theft
Vandalism unique contribution of each variable after all other vari-
Student physical conflicts ables have been taken into account; thus, order of entry
Verbal abuse of teachers in the model was not important. The standardized regres-
Violence Weapons offenses sion coefficients for all five dependent variables are pre-
Physical abuse of teachers sented in Table 4.
Substance abuse Alcohol use
Drug use Mkbehavior
Preparedness for class PenciVpaper The regression of misbehavior on the independent vari-
Books ables was highly significant, R2(845)= .62, p < .OO01.
Homework
Eleven variables were significantly related to this
Classroom behavior Consistently inattentive behavior after all other variables were controlled.
Exceptionally passive or withdrawn
Frequently disruptive Two community and family variables were significant
predictors of student behavior. In particular, more ur-
8 Journal of Educational Research
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
*p < .01.
banized schools and schools with greater percentages of Urbanicity and the percentage of disadvantaged stu-
disadvantaged students had higher rates of misbehavior. dents both significantly predicted violent behavior. As
The severity of schools’ substance abuse problems was with misbehavior, more urbanized schools and schools
the most important predictor of misbehavior; a more se- with greater percentages of disadvantaged students had
rious substance abuse problem was associated with greater problems with violent behavior.
greater misbehavior. Other important school variables in- Again, the most important predictor of violent behav-
cluded school climate and students’ perceptions of the ior in school was the presence of a serious substance
school. Better climates and more positive perceptions of abuse problem. Also significantly associated with less
the school were associated with lower rates of misbehav- violent behavior were less severe action for repeated
ior. Private schools, less severe action for repeated seri- serious misbehavior and not assigning students for ethnic
ous misbehavior, fair discipline, more severe action for composition.
injury to another student, small schools, and less teach-
ing experience were also associated with less misbehavior. Substance Abuse
The regression of substance abuse on the independent
Violent Behavior variables was highly significant, R’(855) = .43, p <
The regression of violent behavior on the independent .OO01. Seven variables were significantly related to sub-
variables was significant, R’(845) = .27, p < .OOOl. Five stance abuse after all other variables were controlled.
variables were significantly related to violent behavior af- The only variable other than school variables that sig-
ter all other variables were controlled. nificantly predicted substance abuse was the amount of
10 Journal of Educational Research
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
time students report being at home with no adult present. Preparednessfor Class
The greater amount of time students were left alone, the The regression of preparedness for class on the inde-
greater was the school substance abuse problem. pendent variables was highly significant, R’(845) = .46,p
Grade span was the strongest predictor of substance < .oOOl. Nine variables were significantly related to pre-
abuse. Not surprisingly, there was greater substance paredness for class after all other variables were controlled.
abuse at schools with grade spans that consisted of higher Only one family variable was significantly associated
grade levels. Whether students are permitted to leave with preparedness for class. Schools with students who
school grounds was also an important predictor, followed spent more time at home with no adult present had stu-
by a disciplined, structured environment. Prohibiting stu- dents who more often came to class unprepared.
dents from leaving school grounds and a more disci- Student characteristics that were significant predictors
plined, structured environment were associated with a of greater preparedness for class included higher achieve-
less severe substance abuse problem. More severe action ment, better self-perceptions, and less participation in
for first-time serious misbehavior and a more flexible out-of-class activities.
school environment were also significantly associated Several school variables were also significant predic-
with a lower school substance abuse problem. tors of preparedness. The strongest predictor of pre-
September/October 1993 [Vol. 87(No. 1)1 11
paredness was student-reported boredom while at school. Schools with more substance abuse problems had
In schools where students reported less boredom, stu- greater misbehavior.
dents more often reported being prepared for class. More Large schools, public schools, more urbanized schools,
positive perceptions of the school, small schools, higher and schools with greater percentages of disadvantaged
student-teacher ratio, and teachers’ often keeping track students had more student misbehavior.
of and correcting homework were also significantly asso- Schools with better climates, more positive student
ciated with greater preparedness for class. perceptions of their schools, and fair discipline had less
misbehavior.
Clmroom Behavior Lower misbehavior was associated with more severe
The regression of classroom behavior on the independ- action for injuring a student, but less severe action for
ent variables was significant, R’(845) = .39, p < .oOO1. repeated serious offenses.
Sx variables were significantly related to classroom mis-
i Schools in which teachers had been teaching longer
behavior after all other variables were controlled. had higher rates of misbehavior.
The strongest predictor of classroom misbehavior was Many of these results are consistent with past research,
student achievement. Not surprisingly, lower achieve- including the findings involving urbanicity, student back-
ment was associated with greater classroom misbehavior. ground, school control, school climate, school enroll-
Positive student perception of teachers also strongly
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
tion, over 50% of teachers rank continual student misbe- amount of violent behavior reported, with most report-
havior as the main cause of job-related stress (Feitler & ing very little violent behavior.
Tokar, 1982).
The results suggest that schools try to reduce misbe- Substance Abuse
havior by eradicating substance abuse, improving their The following are the major findings involving sub-
climates and students’ perceptions of their schools, and stance abuse:
enforcing discipline fairly. For example, teachers and
Schools with grade spans consisting of higher grade
school counselors could be instrumental in identifying
levels had greater substance abuse problems.
substance abuse and refemng students for treatment, or
Schools that had disciplined, structured environments
gauging students’ attitudes and concerns about their
in which students were not permitted to leave school
schools. In addition, programs to counteract the effects
grounds had lower rates of substance abuse. However,
of students’ disadvantaged backgrounds and dividing the
schools that were also flexible had lower rates of sub-
school into smaller units would probably be helpful.
stance abuse.
Violent Behavior Schools in which students spent more time at home
with no adult present had greater substance abuse
The following are the main findings for violent problems.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
behavior:
The relationships between substance abuse and all
As with misbehavior, violence was greater in schools significant predictors (parental supervision, grade span,
with more severe substance abuse problems, schools action for first-time serious misbehavior, disciplined,
with higher percentages of disadvantaged students, structured environment, flexibility of school environment,
more urbanized schools, and schools taking more se- and prohibiting students from leaving school grounds) are
vere action for repeated serious offenses. consistent with past research @iPrete & Peng, 1981; Dock-
Schools in which students were assigned to achieve de- ing, 1987; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; Jones & Jones,
sired ethnic composition had more violence. 1981; NIE, 1978; Purkey & Smith, 1983).
Results consistent with past research on the relation- The results suggest that schools create disciplined
ship between variables and violent behavior included ur- and structured, but not rigid, environments to reduce
banicity, student background, assignment for ethnic substance abuse. Parents should also be aware that
composition, and extent of substance abuse problem when their children are at home with no adult present,
(Bayh, 1977; DiPrete & Peng, 1981; Goldstein et al., they may have more opportunity for substance abuse.
1984; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; NIE, 1978).
As with misbehavior, several of our findings on violent Preparedness for C l m
behavior are not consistent with past research. The asso- The results reveal the following relationships be-
ciation of more violence with strong action for repeated tween preparedness and the independent variables:
serious offenses (including injury to teachers and weap-
ons offenses) seems counterintuitive. However, rather Schools in which students reported being bored
more often were low achieving, had poorer self-con-
than suggesting that thse actions are not effective, this
finding may simply mean that schools with high rates of cepts, participated more in out-of-class activities, and
violence are taking more severe disciplinary action for had negative perceptions of their school had students
who were more often unprepared for class.
violent behavior to lower the rate of violence. Or the
schools may also have had problems with substance Large schools and schools with lower student-teacher
ratios had less prepared students.
abuse and other misbehavior in addition to violence and
Schools in which teachers more often tracked and cor-
feel that these other problems lead to violence. It is also
possible that students react with more violence to harsh rected homework had students who were more pre-
disciplinary action (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1985; pared for class.
Schools in which students spent more time at home
Heitzman, 1982). Or perhaps students like being sus-
pended and, therefore, misbehave to receive this “pun- with no adult present had students who were less pre-
ishment” (Gold, 1963; Heitzman, 1982; Stallworth, pared for class.
Frechtling, & Frankel, 1983). Again, it is not possible to Results consistent with past research include the rela-
determine the reason for these results with these data. tionships between preparedness and parental supervision,
The causes of violent behavior are undoubtedly much self-perceptions, achievement, school enrollment, stu-
more complex or situation specific, as indicated by the dents’ perceptions of school, student boredom, and
small amount of variance (27%) accounted for by all 32 teacher feedback (Block, 1978; Brodinsky, 1980; Coving-
independent variables and the low correlation with the ton & Beery, 1976; DiPrete & Peng, 1981; Docking, 1987;
first canonical variate. Another problem with this vari- Duke, 1980; Ellison, 1979; NIE, 1978; Purkey & Smith,
able is that there was little variance among schools in the 1983; Rutter et al., 1979; Wayson et al., 1982).
September/Oetober 1993 [Vol. 87(No. 111 13
The finding that greater student participation in out- proving the student-teacher relationship. For example,
of-class activities is associated with less preparedness is school counselors could serve as mediators in student-
inconsistent with past research and the results of the ca- teacher conflicts, or in-service training could be used to
nonical analysis in this study. It appears that highly active help teachers improve their relationships with students.
students tend to neglect their studies.
Student-teacher ratio also has a counterintuitive rela- Limitations
tionship with preparedness. Fewer students per teacher There were several limitations to this study. First, be-
was associated with less preparedness. Further analysis cause of the nonexperimental nature of the research, no
by breaking down the dependent variable into its individ- causal relationships can be specified. This study’s results
ual items (having paper/pencil, books, and homework) can only suggest possible causal relationships and areas
shows the student-teacher ratio to be significantly related for future research. Future research should attempt to
only to having materials (mostly books). Perhaps in use the longitudinal data that will soon be available to in-
smaller classes teachers have extra books so students feel vestigate these relationships further.
they can get away with not bringing books to class. Second, this study had the same problems as other
The results suggest that schools can increase their stu- studies that relied on questionnaire research, including
dents’ preparedness for class by reducing student bore- subjective response scales and inability to fully define
dom (e.g., by improving teaching/cuniculum or tailoring
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
Many other school variables are related to the individ- stance abusers, stricter requirements and scheduling, and
ual problem behaviors. In addition, schools can influence parental contact by school officials.
family and student variables such as parental involve-
ment (e.g., by teachers, counselors, or administrators ini- Parents can also help improve their children’s behavior
tiating contact), student self-perceptions (e.g., through in school by becoming more involved in their education,
teacher behaviors, related activities/programs, or coun- monitoring their actions, and helping to increase their
seling), and educational expectations. The results suggest achievement, educational expectations, and positive self-
that schools concentrate particularly on programs and perceptions. It is clear, however, that no specific school
practices that will raise student achievement and educa- programs and practices or parental action will solve one
tional expectations, reduce student boredom and sub- or all behavior problems. Therefore, a holistic approach
stance abuse, divide the school into smdler units, im- in which many different school practices and policies are
prove school climate, and increase structure and parental adopted appears to be a better approach to addressing
involvement. This could be accomplished with a variety behavior problems. Future research should seek to deter-
of methods such as tutoring and academic counseling, mine what specific practices and policies will result in bet-
changes in curriculum, identification and referral of sub- ter student behavior.
APPENDIX A
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014
Factor
Classroom Substance
Item Misbehavior behavior Violence abuse Preparedness
Factor
Educational Self- Percentage
Item expectation perception disadvantaged
~~
Factor
Discipline/
Item structure Climate
Table A-4.-Results of Factor Analysis for Students’ Perceptions of School and Teachers
Factor
Item School Teachers
Table A-5.-Results of Factor Analysis for School Procedures and Services Items
Factor
Item Safety/control Counseling
Factor
Repeated First Repeated Injury of First
Item serious serious misbehavior student misbehavior
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
LaBenne, W., & Greene, B. (1969). Educafional implications of sev- school conflict and violence. NASSP Bulletin, 67, 75-79.
concept theory. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A.
Lloyd-Smith, M. (1984). Disrupted schooling. London: John Murray (1979). Fgteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effkcts
Publishers Ltd. on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mann, D., & Lawrence, J. (1981). Introduction. Impact, 16, 5-10. Schmuck, R. A,, & Schmuck, P. A. (1983). Group processes in fhe
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social fheory and social structure. New York: clmroom. Dubuque, IA:WM. C. Brown.
Free Press. Stallworth, W. L., Frechtling, J. A., &Frankel, S. M. (1983). In school
Myers, D. E., Milne, A. M., Baker, K.,& Ginsburg, A. (1987). Student suspension: A pilot program. In Phi Delta Kappa Center on Evalua-
discipline and high school performance. Sociologv of Education, 60, tion, Development and Research, Hot topic series-dixipline (pp.
18-33. 3-16). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
National Institute of Education. (1977). The sqfe school study. Wash- U.S. Department of Justice. (1980). Prevention of delinquency fhrough
ington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. alfernafiveeducation. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice
Purkey, W. (1970). Self-concepf and school achievement. Englewood and Delinquency Prevention.
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Walker, H. (1979). The acfing-out child: Coping wifh classroom diFnrp
Purkey, W., & Novak, J. M. (1984). Invitingxhoolsuccm: A seu-con- fion. Boston, MA: Ally & Bacon.
cepf approach to reaching and leaning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Wayson, W. W., DeVoss, G. G., Kaeser, S. C., Lasley. T., Pinnell, G.
Purkey, S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools-A Review. S., & Phi Delta Kappa Commission on Dixipline. (1982). Handbook
Elemenfury School Journal. 83(4), 426-452. for developing schoob with good dixipline. Bloomington, IN: Phi
Reed, R. J. (1983). Administrators’ advice: Causes and remedies of Delta Kappa.
Downloaded by [University of Waikato] at 21:31 13 July 2014